GR L 9957; (April, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9957; April 25, 1958
BAYANI SUBIDO, ETC., ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. ARSENIO H. LACSON, ETC., ET AL., respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioners, duly licensed meat vendors in Manila, paid meat inspection fees under Ordinance No. 2991 from 1946 to 1951. On June 11, 1951, the Secretary of Justice opined that the ordinance was illegal and void, and its enforcement was stopped. Petitioners filed claims for refund with the City Treasurer on May 5, 1951. The Auditor General authorized the refund of the fees, a decision affirmed by the President. The Municipal Board of Manila included the total refund amount of P219,007.93 in the city’s appropriation ordinance (Ordinance No. 3538) for the fiscal year 1952-1953 under “Miscellaneous Expenditures.” The City Treasurer paid some claims but suspended further payments upon order of the City Mayor, Arsenio H. Lacson, who cited an investigation into lost documents. The City Treasurer indicated willingness to pay the claims if the Mayor’s suspension order was revoked. Petitioners filed an action for mandamus and prohibition against the City Mayor, City Treasurer, and City Auditor to compel payment of the refunds. The Court of First Instance dismissed the case, ruling that the City of Manila, not its officials, was the proper party to sue for a refund. Petitioners appealed.
ISSUE
Whether a writ of mandamus and prohibition is the proper remedy to compel the City Treasurer to pay, and to prohibit the City Mayor from interfering with, the refund of meat inspection fees, given that the refund was authorized by the Auditor General and the President, and the necessary funds were appropriated by the Municipal Board.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment. It held that under the circumstances, mandamus was the proper remedy to compel the City Treasurer to perform the ministerial duty of paying the claims, and prohibition was proper to prevent the City Mayor from unlawfully suspending the payments. The Court ruled it was no longer necessary to sue the City of Manila itself because: (1) the Auditor General and the President had already authorized the refund; (2) the Municipal Board had appropriated the specific funds for the purpose; and (3) the City Treasurer was willing to pay but for the Mayor’s order. An ordinary action against the City would be superfluous and cause unnecessary delay. The writ was ordered to issue against the Mayor to prevent interference and against the City Treasurer to compel payment. The action against the City Auditor was dismissed as he had no role in the payment process.