G.R. No. 63216. March 12, 1984.
THE HON. EXPEDITO B. PILAR, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor and concurrently presiding officer protempore of the Sanguniang Bayan of Dasol, Pangasinan, Petitioner, vs. THE SANGUNIANG BAYAN OF DASOL, PANGASINAN, composed of the HON. LODOVICO ESPINOSA, Municipal Mayor and presiding officer of said body and the following members of that body: HON. AVELINO N. NACAR, HON. LUZ B. JIMENEZ, HON. GERARDO B. RIVERA, HON. JUAN M. BONUS, HON. APOLONIO G. ABELLA, HON. ABRAHAM BALAOING, HON. JAIME ABELLA, HON. LAURENTINO BALAOING, HON. MA. LINDA BUSTRIA, HON. CEFERINO QUINITIO, HON. ELIFAS VIDAL, and MR. VICTORIANO BUAGA, Municipal Treasurer of Dasol, Pangasinan, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Expedito B. Pilar was the elected Vice-Mayor of Dasol, Pangasinan. In March 1980, the Sanguniang Bayan adopted a resolution increasing the salaries of the Municipal Mayor and Treasurer but failed to appropriate the corresponding salary for the Vice-Mayor as mandated by Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 and implementing Circular No. 9-A, which set his salary equal to that of the Municipal Treasurer. Despite repeated directives from provincial and national officials, including the Joint Commission on Local Government and Personnel Administration, instructing the municipality to pay the Vice-Mayor his lawful salary, the Sanguniang Bayan only appropriated a fraction of the amount. A subsequent resolution in October 1982, which sought to appropriate the full unpaid salaries, was vetoed by respondent Mayor Lodovico Espinosa.
Petitioner filed this original action for mandamus to compel payment of his salaries and to recover damages. During the pendency of the case, the municipality fully paid his salary arrears, rendering the main prayer moot. Respondents argued the petition was premature for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, involved factual issues on fund availability, and was moot. Petitioner countered that the legal issue of a ministerial duty to appropriate was proper for mandamus and that the municipal treasurer’s certification confirmed fund availability.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Mayor Lodovico Espinosa is personally liable for damages arising from his refusal to approve the appropriation for the Vice-Mayor’s lawful salary.

RULING

Yes. While the case became moot with the payment of salary arrears, the Court ruled on the ancillary claim for damages. The legal logic establishes that while the act of vetoing a resolution involves discretion, such discretion is not absolute and must be exercised within legal bounds. Respondent Mayor acted in gross and evident bad faith by arbitrarily vetoing the appropriation resolution despite the existence of sufficient municipal funds, as certified by the Municipal Treasurer, and despite clear directives from higher authorities to comply with the statutory salary rate. His refusal was a neglect of official duty without just cause.
Consequently, the Mayor is personally liable for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code. His reckless and oppressive conduct warrants exemplary damages for public correction. Petitioner, forced to litigate for three years to claim a valid demand, is entitled to actual damages, moral damages for the mental anguish and anxiety suffered, and attorney’s fees. The Court ordered respondent Mayor Lodovico Espinosa to pay personally, from his private funds, P5,000 as actual damages, P5,000 as moral damages, P5,000 as exemplary damages, and P5