PEDRO P. RIVERA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT VS. CARLOS P. MACLANG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This case is before us on appeal by plaintiff from the decision of
the Court of First Instance of Malolos, Bulacan, dismissing the
complaint, without costs. The facts are stipulated by the parties and
the case has been submitted for decision upon appellant’s brief alone,
appellee having failed to file a brief in reply.

On August 19, 1949 the municipality of Malolos called for bids for
furnishing and delivering materials to be used in the maintenance and
repair of barrio roads. Appellant won in the bidding and was asked by
the Municipal Treasurer to come to his office for execution of the
corresponding contract. On August 31, 1949 the contract was signed by
appellant and by defendant-appellee Carlos P. Maclang in his capacity
as Municipal Mayor of Malolos. Pursuant thereto appellant subsequently
delivered to the municipality gravel and adobe stones valued at
P19,235.00. On October 16, 1951 the Municipal council of Malolos passed
a resolution approving the contract, but in spite of repeated demands
by appellant the price of the materials was not paid.

In 1954 appellant sought the intervention of the Presidential
Complaint and Action Commission, which referred the matter to the
General Auditing Office. That office turned down the claim for payment,
whereupon appellant filed in this Court a petition for review, docketed
as SC-G.R. No. L-8847. In its decision of October 31, 1957 this Court
sustained the action of the General Auditing Office and held that the
contract in question was void as far as the municipal government of
Malolos was concerned on the ground that no money had been appropriated
to meet the obligation prior to the execution of the contract, as
required by section 607 Revised Administrative Code. However, in the
same decision this Court indicated that section 608 of the same Code
afforded appellant a remedy. Consequently, he filed the present action
against defendant-appellee in his personal capacity pursuant to the
said provision.

The trial court dismissed the complaint, stating that inasmuch as
in the previous case the contract entered into between appellant and
the Municipality of Malolos had been declared null and void by this
Court, “it cannot produce any legal effect for which thereafter no
recovery can be made.” The dismissal is erroneous. Our ruling in the
previous case is that the contract was null and void vis-a-vis the
Municipality of Malolos, by reason of non-compliance with the
requirement of section 607 of the Revised Administrative Code, which
states that “except in the case of a contract for supplies to be
carried in stock, no contract involving the expenditure: by any
province, municipality, chartered city, or municipal district of two
thousand pesos or more shall be entered into or authorized until the
treasurer of the political division concerned shall have certified to
the officer entering into such contract that funds have been duly
appropriated for such purpose and that the amount necessary to cover
the proposed contract is available for expenditure on account thereof.”

It should be noted that the present action is against
defendant-appellee in his personal capacity on the strength of section
608 of the same code, which provides as follows:

“Section 608. Void contract—Liability of officer.—A
purported contract entered into contrary to the requirements of the
next preceding section hereof shall be wholly void, and the officer
assuming to make such contract shall be liable to the Government or
other contracting party for any consequent damage to the same extent as
if the transaction had been wholly between private parties.”

The position of defendant-appellee, as the officer who signed the
contract with appellant in violation of section 607, comes squarely
under the provision just quoted. His liability is personal, as if the
transaction had been entered into by him as a private party. We take it
that the intention of the law in this respect is to ensure that public
officers entering into transactions with private individuals calling
for the expenditure of public funds observe a high degree of caution so
that the government may not be the victim of ill-advised or improvident
action by those assuming to represent it.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and defendant-appellee is
ordered to pay plaintiff-appellant the sum of P19,235.00, with legal
interest from the date the complaint was filed, and costs.

Bengson, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador , Concepcion , Reyes, J. B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.