G.R. No. L-1078, December 15, 1902
JOHN W. HOEY, petitioner, vs. R.S. BALDWIN, respondent.

FACTS:
The petitioner, John W. Hoey, was the Assistant Chief of the Fire Department of Manila, entitled to a salary of $150 per month in U.S. currency. The respondent, R.S. Baldwin, was the disbursing officer of the city. An appropriation had been made by the Philippine Commission for the petitioner’s salary for the period starting July 1, 1902, and the funds were placed under the respondent’s control. The petitioner performed his duties for July, August, and September 1902, and filed the required certificates with the respondent. Despite tendering proper receipts, the respondent refused to pay the salary for those months. The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to pay his salary. The respondent demurred, arguing lack of jurisdiction, insufficiency of the petition, and the existence of another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

ISSUE:
Whether a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the disbursing officer to pay the petitioner’s salary.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court overruled the demurrer and held that mandamus was the appropriate remedy.

1. Procedure in Mandamus: The Court clarified that under the Code of Civil Procedure, mandamus proceedings are civil actions, and the ordinary rules of civil procedure apply, including the right to demur.

2. Sufficiency of the Petition: The petition adequately alleged that the funds were lawfully under the respondent’s control. It was not necessary to detail every statutory step (such as approval by the Auditor) leading to the availability of the funds; alleging the ultimate factthat the money was in the respondent’s hands as provided by lawwas sufficient.

3. Alternative Remedies: The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner had another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. An ordinary action against the city would not be speedy or adequate, as it would require a new appropriation by the Commission, followed by multiple approvals and potential refusals at each step.

4. Ministerial Duty: The respondent’s duty to disburse the salary was purely ministerial, as the petitioner had fulfilled all conditions for payment. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of such a duty.

The demurrer was overruled, and the respondent was given ten days to answer.