G.R. No. L-21235 May 31, 1965
RODOLFO O. TIRONA, petitioner-appellee, vs. M. CUDIAMAT as City Treasurer of Manila, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Rodolfo O. Tirona, an original holder of a backpay certificate issued under Republic Act No. 897, offered his backpay certificate to respondent City Treasurer of Manila, M. Cudiamat, in payment of his real estate taxes for 1962 amounting to P1,887.90 on June 28, 1962. The respondent City Treasurer refused to accept the certificate pursuant to a directive from the City Mayor dated December 19, 1958. The refusal was based on the city’s prior experience: (a) the City of Manila held unredeemed certificates of indebtedness tendered to the National Treasurer from 1958 to August 28, 1962, totaling P2,103,001.32; (b) from 1954 to 1958, the Treasurer’s office had accepted applications for certificates of indebtedness for real estate tax payments which were forwarded to the Bureau of Treasury but the corresponding certificates had not been issued, totaling P1,725,115.72; and (c) from December 1958 to June 1962, real estate tax payments for which applications for certificates of indebtedness were received but not accepted due to the Mayor’s order totaled P124,408.20. The respondent resisted the mandamus action, arguing that the petitioner’s tax obligation did not subsist on the date of approval of Republic Act No. 897 (June 20, 1953), making acceptance discretionary; that mandamus did not lie; and that compelling acceptance would impair contractual obligations.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent City Treasurer of Manila can be compelled by mandamus to accept the petitioner’s backpay certificate in payment of his real estate taxes for the year 1962.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, ordering the City Treasurer to accept the backpay certificate. The Court held that under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 304, as amended, backpay certificates are admissible for payment of the holder’s taxes without any limitation as to time, unlike the payment of other obligations to the government which are limited to those subsisting at the time of the Act’s approval. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that Section 5 of Republic Act No. 897 (pertaining to members of the armed forces) restricted this application, finding no intent to discriminate against military holders. The Court also rejected the argument that the duty to accept fell on the employing office (the Armed Forces) rather than the City, stating that the duty to accept the certificates for payment is separate from the duty to contribute to the sinking fund for their redemption. Finally, the Court held that a directive from the City Mayor could not countermand a duty imposed by law. Costs were imposed on the appellant.