FLAVIANO LOTA, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND MOISES SANGALANG, RESPONDENTS.

Lota versus Sangalang

The Case

This is the case of Lota versus Sangalang, decided by the Supreme Court in June 1961. Flaviano Lota, the mayor of Taal, Batangas, appeals by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals. That decision declared Moises Sangalang entitled to hold and continue in the office of caretaker of the municipal cemetery of Taal. The case matters because it draws the dividing line between two great special civil actions, quo warranto and mandamus, and because it tells us who the indispensable parties are when the right to a public office is tried. It also teaches that a public officer lawfully appointed may not simply be replaced at the pleasure of the appointing authority; he may be removed only for cause.

Procedural History

Moises Sangalang brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Batangas against Mayor Flaviano Lota, against Jose Sangalang, the new appointee, and against Aurelio Beron, the municipal treasurer. The trial court rendered judgment declaring Moises Sangalang the legally appointed cemetery porter of Taal. It ordered Jose Sangalang ousted from the office and excluded from it altogether. It ordered Mayor Lota and the treasurer to pay the salary of Moises from February 15, 1956, and his salary differential from July 1, 1955 to February 14, 1956. It also awarded 200 pesos in moral damages against Mayor Lota, plus costs.

Only Mayor Lota appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court affirmed the decision, with a modification. It declined to rule on the salary and salary differential, holding that those matters are governed by law and that the administrative officials concerned should be given the opportunity to comply with their duties. Mayor Lota then came to the Supreme Court by appeal by certiorari, and the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.

Facts

Moises Sangalang had been discharging the duties of cemetery caretaker of Taal from 1951. On June 30, 1955, the local health officer, Dr. Gregorio Noche, extended to him a new appointment under Section 2199 of the Revised Administrative Code, to take effect on July 1, 1955. The new appointment was meant to enable him to receive an increase of salary from 240 pesos to 300 pesos per annum. The appointment was not acted upon immediately by the authorities. It reached the office of the Commissioner of Civil Service on April 20, 1956, and was approved shortly thereafter.

The law required the recommendation of the municipal mayor for such an appointment. The appointment extended by Dr. Noche did not at the outset show the recommendation of the then incumbent mayor, Dr. Ignacio Ilagan. That recommendation was secured only in March 1956, when Dr. Ilagan was no longer mayor. Dr. Noche explained that when his attention was called to the omission, he inquired whose recommendation was necessary, and the District Health Officer of Batangas opined that the recommendation of the incumbent mayor at the time of the appointment was the one required.

On February 13, 1956, Mayor Lota appointed Jose Sangalang as cemetery caretaker in place of Moises. Moises had neither resigned nor intended to abandon the office. No formal charges for any irregularities had been filed against him before his ouster.

Issues

• Whether or not the action brought by Moises Sangalang is one of quo warranto, rather than mandamus.
• Whether or not the action should have been dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to implead the Municipality of Taal as a party defendant.
• Whether or not Moises Sangalang is entitled to hold and continue in the office of caretaker of the municipal cemetery of Taal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2199 of the Revised Administrative Code, as discussed in the decision, provides:

Under section 2199 of the Revised Administrative Code, the local health officer is the government official empowered to appoint a cemetery caretaker in a municipality.

This fixes the appointing power in the local health officer, not in the mayor, which is why the mayor's own appointee could not prevail.

Section 2201 of the Revised Administrative Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

He can for cause suspend any non-elective officer or employee over whose position he has the power of appointment, for a period of not exceeding ten days, without pay, which suspension may be continued for a longer period by the council; and by and with the consent of a majority of all the members of the council he may discharge any such officer or employee.

This shows that even the mayor, with the consent of the council, may discharge such an officer only for cause, and no cause was ever charged against Moises.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the action is clearly one of quo warranto, although mandamus was also invoked as an ancillary remedy. The distinction is decisive. The Court put it thus:

quo warranto is the remedy to try the right to an office or franchise and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, while mandamus only lies to enforce clear legal duties, not to try disputed titles

Where there is usurpation or intrusion into an office, quo warranto is the proper remedy. Where the respondent, without claiming any right to the office, merely excludes the petitioner, the remedy is mandamus. Here Jose Sangalang claimed to be the duly appointed caretaker, and the complaint asked that he be ousted. The purpose was to try the right or title to a public office, so quo warranto was correct.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Municipality of Taal was neither an essential nor even a necessary party. Any person claiming to be entitled to a public office may bring quo warranto without the intervention of the Solicitor General or the Fiscal. Only the person in unlawful possession of the office, and all who claim to be entitled to it, may be made parties. The municipality did not claim the office for itself; through its mayor it merely asserted that Jose Sangalang had the right to occupy it. Nor was any appropriation needed, since funds already existed and the treasurer merely had to disburse them. The earlier case invoked by the mayor was a mandamus case where the city needed to appropriate funds, so it did not apply.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals was correct. Moises held the office from 1951, and his appointment during that period was presumed legal. He had not resigned or abandoned it. The new appointment was promotional, meant to give him the salary increase, and if disapproved he could continue under his old appointment. The Court adopted the reasoning below that the local health officer appoints the caretaker and the mayor can only indorse the appointment favorably or not. Neither the health officer nor the mayor can dismiss a duly appointed cemetery caretaker without cause, and no formal charges had been filed against Moises before his ouster.

Doctrine

First, quo warranto is the remedy to try the right or title to a public office and to oust an unlawful holder from its enjoyment. Mandamus lies only to enforce clear legal duties, not to try disputed titles. Where a respondent claims the office and usurps or intrudes into it, quo warranto is the proper action.

Second, any person claiming to be entitled to a public office may bring quo warranto without the intervention of the Solicitor General or the Fiscal. Only the person in unlawful possession and those claiming entitlement need be made parties. The municipality is not a necessary party where it does not itself claim the office and no appropriation of funds is required.

Third, under Section 2199 of the Revised Administrative Code the local health officer appoints the cemetery caretaker, and the mayor may only indorse the appointment. Under Section 2201 a duly appointed caretaker may be suspended or discharged only for cause. A lawful appointee holds the office until resignation, abandonment, or dismissal for cause.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, with costs, so Moises Sangalang won and was declared entitled to hold and continue in the office of cemetery caretaker of Taal.

Remember This

Memorize the line that quo warranto tries the right to an office while mandamus only enforces clear legal duties and never tries disputed titles. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between the two remedies and the rule that a public officer appointed by the proper authority may be removed only for cause.