GR 36201; (October, 1931) (Digest)
G.R. No. 36201 ; October 29, 1931
THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF LEMERY, BATANGAS, petitioner, vs. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF BATANGAS, VICENTE NOBLE and MODESTO CASTILLO, respondents.
FACTS
The Municipal Council of Lemery, Batangas passed Resolution No. 18, series of 1931, abolishing the position of porter (janitor) for the justice of the peace court to consolidate it with the messenger positions for the offices of the municipal president and municipal secretary, citing reasons of economy. The Provincial Board of Batangas, upon review and considering a request from the justice of the peace to retain the position, disapproved the municipal resolution via its Resolution No. 289. The Provincial Board held that the municipality had a duty under the Administrative Code to provide adequate janitor service to the justice of the peace and emphasized the need for a porter who enjoys the confidence of the justice due to access to important court papers. The Municipal Council appealed to the Chief of the Executive Bureau, which upheld the Provincial Board’s decision. The Municipal Council then filed this petition seeking to annul the Provincial Board’s resolution.
ISSUE
Whether the Provincial Board of Batangas acted in excess of its authority or committed a grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the municipal resolution that abolished the court porter position.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring Resolution No. 289 of the Provincial Board null and void and upholding the validity of Municipal Resolution No. 18. The Court held that the power to create, consolidate, or abolish municipal positions is a legislative function vested in the municipal council. The Provincial Board’s disapproval was an act in excess of its quasi-judicial powers, as it substituted its own judgment for that of the municipal council on a matter within the latter’s discretion. The Court found that the municipal council acted within its authority and for a valid purpose (economy), and the Provincial Board’s interference was unjustified. The preliminary injunction was made permanent. (A dissenting opinion argued that Section 212 of the Administrative Code imposed a mandatory duty on the municipality to provide adequate janitor service to the justice of the peace, which was violated by the consolidation.)
AI Generated by Armztrong.