G.R. No. L-49654 July 23, 1980
VIRGILIO V. DIONISIO, petitioner, vs. HON. VICENTE PATERNO, in substitution of HON. BALTAZAR AQUINO as Minister of Public Highways and Chairman of the Contract Price Adjustment Committee and HON. NEMESIO YABUT as Municipal Mayor of Makati, Metro Manila, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Virgilio V. Dionisio, a contractor, entered into a contract with the Commissioner of Public Highways on January 28, 1976, for the construction of the Buendia-MSDR Overpass. The contract price was based on a government estimate prepared on January 6, 1976. However, a significant increase in petroleum product prices occurred on January 15, 1976, which raised construction costs. Dionisio claimed he signed the contract upon the verbal assurance of then Commissioner Baltazar Aquino that the price would be adjusted to reflect current costs as of the contract signing date. He subsequently sought a contract price adjustment.
The Contract Price Adjustment Committee (CPAC) and the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) reviewed the claim. NEDA, through a directive dated May 24, 1978, concurred with CPAC that a granted adjustment was fair but requested the Department of Public Highways to settle the unpaid balance of P1,955,060.99. Separately, the Office of the President, through an indorsement dated March 29, 1978, directed the Municipal Mayor of Makati to pay Dionisio P775,263.94 for professional services related to the project’s construction plans. Dionisio filed a petition for mandamus to compel compliance with these directives.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus may issue to compel the respondents to implement the directives from NEDA and the Office of the President ordering payment to the petitioner.

RULING

No, the writ of mandamus cannot issue. The Supreme Court denied the petition. Mandamus is a remedy to compel the performance of a ministerial duty that is clear and specific, involving no exercise of discretion. The directives from NEDA and the Office of the President, while recommending payment, were not absolute commands creating a purely ministerial duty. The NEDA directive explicitly “requested” settlement, and the Presidential indorsement authorized payment “subject to availability of funds and the usual accounting and auditing requirements.” These conditional phrases indicate that the implementation of the payments still required the exercise of administrative judgment and compliance with fiscal and auditing rules. The duty of the respondents was therefore discretionary, not ministerial. Mandamus does not lie to control or review the exercise of discretion by a public officer. The proper recourse for the petitioner, if he believes the payments are unjustly withheld, is an ordinary action for specific performance or damages, not a special civil action for mandamus. The Court emphasized that mandamus cannot be used to enforce contractual rights or to compel the allocation and disbursement of public funds where the duty is not plainly defined and peremptory.