GR 188448; (January, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188448 , January 11, 2017. RODOLFO LAYGO and WILLIE LAYGO, Petitioners, vs. MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SOLANO, NUEVA VIZCAYA, Respondent.
FACTS
Aniza Bandrang filed a Petition for Mandamus against the Municipal Mayor, alleging the Mayor unlawfully neglected his duty by refusing to cancel the lease contracts of petitioners Rodolfo and Willie Laygo over public market stalls. Bandrang, who had illegally subleased the stalls from the petitioners, complained that the petitioners subsequently evicted her and subleased to another, violating the contract’s prohibition on subleasing. The Sangguniang Bayan had referred her complaints to the Mayor for action under a resolution authorizing him to cancel leases for such violations, but the Mayor took no action, citing the stalls were part of a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) scheme.
The Regional Trial Court granted Bandrang’s motion for summary judgment, ordering the Mayor to cancel the leases. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prohibition on subleasing did not apply to their BOT agreement and that Bandrang, being in pari delicto, had no cause of action.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the grant of the writ of mandamus to compel the Municipal Mayor to cancel the petitioners’ lease contracts for violating the prohibition on subleasing.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The legal logic is twofold. First, on the propriety of mandamus, the Court held that the Mayor’s duty to cancel the lease upon a clear violation of its terms was ministerial, not discretionary. Resolution No. 183-2004 expressly authorized the Mayor to cancel leases for subleasing violations. Once a violation was established, as it was here, the Mayor had no discretion but to enforce the contract’s cancellation clause. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of such a ministerial duty.
Second, the Court rejected the petitioners’ defenses. The claim that their BOT agreement was not a lease covered by the prohibition was unsubstantiated, as the contract itself contained standard lease provisions, including the no-subleasing clause. The principle of pari delicto did not bar Bandrang’s mandamus petition, as the writ was sought not to enforce her illegal sublease but to compel a public officer to perform an official duty owed to the public. The Mayor’s inaction, despite the Sanggunian’s referrals and the clear contractual breach, constituted a neglect of duty correctible by mandamus.