GR L 17296; (July, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-17296 July 30, 1966
PANTALEON S. SARMENTA, petitioner and appellant, vs. MARIO S. GARCIA, City Mayor, and PRIMO FERRER, City Treasurer of Cabanatuan, respondents and appellees.
FACTS
On May 24, 1960, Pantaleon Sarmenta, a resident and member of the Municipal Board of Cabanatuan City, filed a special civil action for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija against City Mayor Mario S. Garcia and City Treasurer Primo Ferrer. The petition sought to compel the respondents to submit to the Municipal Board a detailed budget covering the estimated necessary expenditures for the fiscal year 1960-1961. The City Treasurer moved to dismiss, arguing that under the City Charter, his duty was only to submit certified financial statements and estimates to the City Mayor, not directly to the Board. The City Mayor also moved to dismiss on the grounds that there was a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy other than mandamus; that the petitioner had no clear legal right to the writ; and that the act sought was discretionary, not ministerial. The lower court dismissed the petition, reasoning that (1) the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not seeking recourse from the Secretary of Finance; (2) under Republic Act No. 2264 , if the City Council fails to enact a new budget, the previous year’s budget is deemed re-enacted, leaving discretion to the Mayor; and (3) the new fiscal year had already begun with the city operating on the old budget, and any changes could be made via a supplemental budget. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not the respondents should be compelled via mandamus to submit a detailed budget for the fiscal year 1960-1961 to the Municipal Board of Cabanatuan City.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot and academic. The Court found that by the time the case was submitted for decision, the fiscal year 1960-1961 was about to end, and the City of Cabanatuan had in fact operated on the budget for the preceding fiscal year 1959-1960. A resolution of the issue would no longer provide any substantial benefit or advantage to either party. Consequently, the Court did not pass upon the merits of the petition. No costs were awarded.