G.R. No. L-12716; April 30, 1960
JOSE BALDIVIA, MARCELO CAPUNO, CARLITO CATAPANG, ELISEO DIMACULANGAN, and RICARDO BATHAN, petitioners-appellants, vs. FLAVIANO LOTA, as Mayor of Taal, Batangas, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

The petitioners were former members of the police force of Taal, Batangas, who resigned shortly after the November 1955 elections. They filed a petition for mandamus to compel the municipal mayor, Flaviano Lota, to approve vouchers for the payment of the balance of their accumulated vacation and sick leave pay. The petitioners had already received partial payments (one month each) through the intercession of the Office of the President and the Provincial Treasurer. However, the respondent mayor refused to approve the subsequent vouchers for the remaining balance. The mayor justified his refusal on three grounds: (1) there was no appropriation for the amount; (2) the petitioners held their positions illegally as their temporary appointments had expired and were made without the consent of the municipal council as required by law. The municipal treasurer admitted that while the municipal government had the financial capacity to pay, no regular or supplementary budget had been approved by the municipal council for the payment of the balance of the petitioners’ leave pay.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent mayor can be compelled via mandamus to approve the vouchers for the petitioners’ unpaid terminal leave pay in the absence of a corresponding appropriation ordinance passed by the municipal council.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the petition for mandamus. The Court held that while the petitioners’ right to commutation of their terminal leave was indubitable, the disbursement of municipal funds is governed by specific legal requirements. The Constitution mandates that “no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.” This is implemented by Section 2300 of the Revised Administrative Code, which requires that disbursements be made by the municipal treasurer “upon properly executed vouchers, pursuant to the budget and with the approval of the mayor.” Since it was admitted that no budget or appropriation ordinance had been passed by the municipal council setting aside funds for the petitioners’ claims, the respondent mayor was not only justified but legally bound to refuse approval of the vouchers. The Court noted that the proper remedy for the petitioners was to bring an action against the municipality to recover the amount due and, after obtaining a judgment, seek a writ of mandamus to compel the municipal council and mayor to enact and approve the necessary appropriation ordinance. The Court, however, expressed strong disapproval of the respondent mayor’s conduct, noting he had spent more resources to defeat the claim than the claim was worth, driven by political factionalism rather than public interest.