G.R. No. L-26537. June 29, 1982.
ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, in his capacity as Mayor of Manila, petitioner-appellee, vs. HERMINIO A. ASTORGA in his capacity as Vice-Mayor and concurrently Presiding Officer of the Municipal Board of Manila, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

This case originated from a petition for mandamus and prohibition filed by Mayor Antonio Villegas against Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga. The dispute centered on the Mayor’s authority to inspect the records of the Municipal Board. On August 24, 1965, Mayor Villegas directed a special police squad to inspect all books, records, and papers of the Board’s Administrative Division, particularly unsigned resolutions and ordinances. The memorandum requested cooperation from the Board’s administrative officer.
Vice-Mayor Astorga, as the Board’s presiding officer, refused the inspection. He demanded a specific list of documents and prior notice as a matter of “departmental courtesy,” arguing that while he did not question the Mayor’s general power to inspect, it extended only to officers and employees of the city’s executive department, implying the legislative body was separate. Despite subsequent reiterations and expansions of the request to include the Vice-Mayor’s own office, Astorga instructed his subordinates not to comply, leading to the court action.

ISSUE

Whether the Mayor of Manila has the authority to examine and inspect the books, records, and papers of the Municipal Board, including the office of the Vice-Mayor as its presiding officer.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot and academic, rendering no substantive ruling on the legal issue. The Court noted that the protagonists, Mayor Villegas and Vice-Mayor Astorga, had both lost their respective official positions in the Manila city government by the time of the decision. Villegas lost the 1971 mayoralty election, and Astorga was defeated in the 1967 and 1971 vice-mayoralty races. The Court found that any ruling would serve no practical or useful purpose, as there was no showing that the present incumbents had been substituted as parties or had any interest in pursuing the case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs.
While the trial court had ruled in favor of Mayor Villegas, citing Section 10 of the Revised Charter of Manila (Republic Act No. 409) which grants the Mayor the duty and power “to examine and inspect the books, records and papers of all officers, agents and employees of the city whenever occasion arises,” the Supreme Court did not affirm or reverse this legal interpretation due to the mootness of the case. The higher court thus avoided settling the constitutional and administrative law question regarding the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches at the local level.