GR L 6534; (June, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6534; June 16, 1953
IRENE V. BERNARDO, B. JOSE CASTILLO, AMABLE C. VICENCIO, NOLI MA. CORTES and AMADO B. DE LEON, petitioners, vs. HON. WENCESLAO PASCUAL, HON. AMADO GERVACIO and VICENTE JAVIER, as members of the Provincial Board of Rizal, respondents.
FACTS
Prior to June 18, 1952, the petitioners, who were assistant provincial fiscals of Rizal, were receiving annual salaries as fixed under the Administrative Code. Upon the effectivity of Republic Act No. 732 on that date, which augmented the compensation of all assistant provincial fiscals according to the class of their province, petitioners became entitled to higher annual salaries because Rizal is a First Class-A province. The provincial fiscal of Rizal submitted a plantilla to the respondent Provincial Board fixing the assistants’ salaries at these increased rates. However, the respondents, in approving the budget for the fiscal year 1952-1953, assigned salaries to petitioners at the old rates instead. The Department of Finance and the provincial treasurer of Rizal called attention to the deficiency, with the treasurer certifying the availability of funds and recommending a supplemental budget of P9,029.85 to cover it. Despite this, the respondents failed or refused to pass the needed supplementary budget, leading to this mandamus proceeding.
ISSUE
Whether the respondents, as members of the Provincial Board of Rizal, can be compelled via mandamus to appropriate the necessary funds to pay the increased salaries of the assistant provincial fiscals as mandated by Republic Act No. 732 .
RULING
Yes. The Court ruled that the respondents have a mandatory duty to appropriate the funds necessary to pay the increased salaries prescribed by Republic Act No. 732 . The defense that the province had “no sufficient available funds” was found to be without foundation, as evidenced by the provincial treasurer’s certification of fund availability and the existence of a sufficient balance in the provincial supplemental budget. The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that they had discretion in the matter or that other moral or political obligations (such as re-creating abolished positions or paying other debts) should take priority. The duty to appropriate is imposed by legislation, and provincial boards are not at liberty to ignore it. Therefore, the respondents were ordered to appropriate, without unnecessary delay, the sum required to satisfy the increased emoluments of the assistant fiscals.