GR L 22388; (January, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22388; January 31, 1966
DR. IRINEO P. SIA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. PABLO CUNETA, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were appointed by the President of the Philippines as members of the Board of Tax Appeals of Pasay City. They qualified and performed their duties. They repeatedly requested the respondents (the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Municipal Board of Pasay City) to provide necessary office space, supplies, equipment, and appropriations for their salaries and sundry expenses to enable the Board to function. Respondents denied these requests. Petitioners claimed damages of P7,450.00 for fiscal year 1962-1963 and P15,480.00 for 1963-1964, plus other damages and attorney’s fees. The matter was brought to the President, who endorsed it to the Department of Finance, which then referred it to the city treasurer. The city treasurer, lacking power, transmitted it to the municipal board via the mayor, but no favorable action was taken, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether a writ of mandamus may be issued to compel the respondents to provide office space, supplies, materials, equipment, and appropriate funds for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Tax Appeals of Pasay City.
RULING
No. The petition for mandamus is denied. While the Municipal Board of Pasay City has a duty under its Charter (Section 16(b) of Republic Act No. 183 ) to provide appropriations for city expenses, and the Board of Tax Appeals is a city department under Section 40 of the same Act, mandamus requires a clear right to the demand and a claim that is liquidated and certain. Here, petitioners’ claim for specific monetary amounts was denied by respondents and was unsubstantiated by evidence; thus, it is neither liquidated nor certain. Furthermore, there is doubt regarding the Board’s power to employ personnel beyond a secretary, as Section 40 of Republic Act No. 183 , as amended, only authorizes the Board to appoint a secretary with specific procedural requirements, which were not shown to have been followed. The Board’s appointments of a laborer and steno-typist were beyond its power. The denial is without prejudice to other remedies petitioners may pursue.