G.R. No. L-12716; April 30, 1960
JOSE BALDIVIA, MARCELO CAPUNO, CARLITO CATAPANG, ELISEO DIMACULANGAN, and RICARDO BATHAN, petitioners-appellants, vs. FLAVIANO LOTA, as Mayor of Taal, Batangas, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

The petitioners were former members of the police force of Taal, Batangas, who resigned shortly after the November 1955 elections. They filed a petition for mandamus to compel respondent Mayor Flaviano Lota to approve vouchers for the payment of their accumulated vacation and sick leave pay, which remained unpaid after their separation from service. The petitioners claimed they resigned due to belonging to a different political faction from the respondent mayor. They had secured intercession from the Office of the President and the Provincial Treasurer, which led to initial partial payments of one month’s leave pay each (with Baldivia receiving two payments). The municipal treasurer prepared vouchers for an additional one month’s pay for each petitioner, but the respondent mayor refused to approve them. The mayor justified his refusal on three grounds: (1) there was no appropriation for the amount covered by the vouchers; (2) the petitioners held their positions illegally as their temporary appointments had expired; and (3) their appointments were illegal for lack of municipal council consent as required by the Revised Administrative Code. The trial court found that the municipal council of Taal had not approved any budget, regular or supplementary, for the payment of the balance of the petitioners’ leave claims. While the municipal treasurer testified that the municipality’s financial position permitted payment, the mayor countered that the municipality was heavily indebted and had more pressing obligations.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent mayor can be compelled via mandamus to approve the vouchers for the petitioners’ unpaid terminal leave pay.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the petition for mandamus. While the petitioners’ right to commutation of their terminal leave was deemed indubitable, the disbursement of municipal funds is governed by specific legal requirements. The Constitution mandates that “no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.” Implementing this, Section 2300 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that disbursements shall be made by the municipal treasurer “upon properly executed vouchers, pursuant to the budget and with approval of the mayor.” The budget must be incorporated into an appropriation ordinance passed by the municipal council. Since it was admitted that no such budget or appropriation ordinance existed setting aside funds for the petitioners’ claims, the respondent mayor was not only justified but legally bound to refuse approval of the vouchers. The Court expressed sympathy for the petitioners and strong disapproval of the mayor’s conduct, noting he spent significant resources to defeat the claim rather than find a way to pay it. The Court suggested that if the mayor failed to include the claim in the budget, the petitioners’ proper remedy was to file an action against the municipality for recovery of the amount due and, after obtaining a judgment, seek a writ of mandamus to compel the municipal council and mayor to enact and approve the necessary appropriation ordinance.