GR L 21565; (January, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21565; January 31, 1966
ENRIQUE M. ALMARIO, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE CITY MAYOR, ET AL., respondents-appellees.
FACTS
On January 21, 1963, Enrique M. Almario filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. He sought a judgment to compel the respondent city officials to eject their co-respondents (aliens) from stalls they were occupying in the Pasay public market. Almario claimed that, as a Filipino citizen, he had a public duty to enforce the nationalization of public markets under Republic Act No. 37 . He alleged that the respondent officials neglected this duty by issuing permits to aliens, thereby prejudicing Filipinos. The respondents filed motions to dismiss, arguing that Almario was not the real party in interest and that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies. On April 18, 1963, the lower court dismissed the petition, ruling that Almario lacked the legal capacity, right, or personality to file it. Almario appealed.
ISSUE
1. Whether Enrique M. Almario is an “aggrieved person” with the legal capacity, right, or personality to file a petition for mandamus to enforce Republic Act No. 37 (the nationalization of public markets).
2. Whether Almario failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies before resorting to court action.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order of dismissal.
1. On the issue of legal capacity: The Court held that Almario was not an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of Section 3, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court governing mandamus. He was not an applicant for a stall in the Pasay public market, nor a representative of any applicant, stallholder, or association deprived of the right to occupy a stall. His interest was merely that of a general citizen, coupled with a self-imposed duty to enforce the law. Citing Costa vs. Aldanese, the Court ruled that such a general interest does not confer the right to secure a writ of mandamus; he was not the real party in interest.
2. On the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies: The Court found that Almario failed to exhaust the administrative remedies provided by law. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 37 , the Secretary of Finance issued Departmental Order No. 32, which allowed an appeal to the Secretary of Finance from an adjudication by the city treasurer or market committee. There was no showing that Almario pursued this remedy. This failure rendered his petition premature.
Therefore, the petition was dismissed. No costs were awarded.