G.R. No. L-20867; September 3, 1966
SALVADOR APRUEBA and ASUNCION MODOC, petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. RODOLFO GANZON, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioners Salvador Aprueba and Asuncion Modoc filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo against respondent City Mayor Rodolfo Ganzon. They alleged that they were owners and operators of a cafeteria in Stall 17-C of the Iloilo City market since 1950. On October 1, 1960, the mayor ordered the closure of their stall for alleged violation of a city ordinance. Petitioners claimed that after paying back accounts and complying with health rules, the mayor still refused to allow reopening, citing political reasons (petitioner Aprueba had worked against the mayor’s candidacy) and stating the space would be used as an extension of the city health office. They argued the mayor had a ministerial duty to allow them to operate, as they had no delinquencies and had complied with regulations. They sought a preliminary mandatory injunction, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Respondent mayor, in his answer, defended the closure under Section 10(m) of the Iloilo City Charter, which grants the mayor discretion to grant, refuse, or revoke municipal licenses. He also alleged petitioners violated Ordinance No. 93, series of 1947, by allowing Modoc (not the lessee) to conduct business in the stall leased to Aprueba. The trial court dismissed the petition, ruling that mandamus was not the proper remedy, as occupancy of the stall was a privilege, not a duty enjoined by law, and petitioners’ remedy, if any, was an action for specific performance based on contract.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the petition for mandamus.

RULING

Yes, the trial court correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the order, holding that mandamus is not the proper remedy in this case. The occupancy of a market stall under a license or implied lease contract is a privilege subject to the mayor’s discretion under the city charter and police power, not a clear legal right enforceable by mandamus. Mandamus does not lie to control or review the exercise of discretion by a public officer where the law imposes a duty to exercise judgment. Here, the mayor’s authority to grant or refuse licenses under Section 10(m) of the Iloilo City Charter is discretionary. Moreover, mandamus cannot be used to enforce contractual obligations, such as a lease, as these are not duties specifically enjoined by law resulting from office, trust, or station. Petitioners’ remedy, if any, is an action for specific performance based on contract. The Court also noted that petitioners’ legal rights were not well-defined, clear, and certain, which is a requirement for mandamus. Costs were awarded against petitioners-appellants.