Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 36201. October 29, 1931. ]

THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF LEMERY, BATANGAS, Petitioner, v. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF BATANGAS, VICENTE NOBLE and MODESTO CASTILLO, Respondents.

Guevara, Francisco & Recto, for Petitioner.

Attorney-General Jaranilla, for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. PROVINCES; PROVINCIAL BOARD; POWER OVER MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES. — The power exercised by the provincial board in approving or disapproving a municipal resolution or ordinance is in the nature of a quasi-judicial function.

2. ID.; ID; ID. — In disapproving resolution No. 18, series of 1931, of the municipal council of Lemery, which consolidated the position of janitor for the office of the municipal president, of the municipal secretary, and of the justice of the peace court, this action being within the legislative powers of said municipal council, the provincial board of Batangas exceeded its quasi-judicial powers.

3. ID., CERTIORARI; WHEN IT LIES. — The writ of certiorari will issue in this case because there is no plain, speedy, and adequate administrative remedy, as the Administrative Code does not permit of an appeal from the decisions of the Chief of the Executive Bureau to the Secretary of the Interior.


D E C I S I O N


VILLA-REAL, J.:


This action against the provincial board of Batangas, Vicente Noble and Modesto Castillo, was instituted by means of a petition filed by the municipal council of Lemery, Batangas, praying for the reasons given, that resolution No. 289 of the respondent provincial board be declared null and void and contrary to law, so as to leave resolution No. 18, series of 1931, of the plaintiff municipal council infull force and effect, and that the preliminary injunction issued in the course of this proceeding be made permanent, so as to require the respondents to abstain and refrain forever from performing the acts complained of, with costs against the respondents.

In answer, the respondents denied each and every one of the allegations of the petition, and by way of special defense contended that they did not exercise judicial functions, and even if they did so, they were within their rights, and that the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate administrative remedy, for which reason they prayed that the petition be denied.

The relevant facts necessary for the settlement of the points raised upon which there is no question, are the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On February 16, 1931, the municipal council of Lemery, Batangas, passed resolution No. 18, series of 1931, reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

" [RESOLUTION NO. 18]

"The budget again came up for discussion in regard to the item of porter service for the justice of the peace court in this municipality, who, according to the budget, receives P150 per annum, with a view to consolidating this position with that of the messenger for the office of the municipal president and of the municipal secretary, Leon Marquez, giving the latter an increase of two pesos a month in consideration of the additional work, which, together with his present salary of twenty-seven pesos a month as messenger for the office of the president and of the secretary, equals twenty-nine pesos a month. It was also proposed that Mr. Pablo Baradas, the present court porter for the justice of the peace, should resign from the position on February 28, 1931, and be relieved by Leon Marquez who is to start work on March 1, 1931, amending the proposed budget with regard to the court porter, so as to read as follows: ’Insert on page 5 of the General Budget for 1931, first line under the heading "Adjudicación; Inferior Court" : the following: "Wages 1 Portero (B) P24.00." ’ Notice of this change shall be given to the justice of the peace of this municipality for his information and action, as well as to the municipal treasurer. The motion was seconded by Mr. V. Salazar. Mr. J. Diomampo, who had held out for the continuance of the office of the porter of the justice of the peace court as budgeted and presented for the approval of this council after listening to the arguments of the president in favor of the motion, voted for the abolition of the office of court porter, consolidating the work with that of the present messenger for the office of the municipal president and of the municipal secretary with an increase of two pesos a month to the present twenty-seven pesos a month which Leon Marquez at present receives. The president took into account chiefly the economy to the municipality in paying only one man to serve three different offices, that of the municipal president, the municipal secretary, and the justice of the peace court, in the same line of work, without lessening the efficiency of either service.

"Unanimously approved."cralaw virtua1aw library

A correct copy of this resolution having been forwarded to the provincial board of Batangas, in accordance with section 2232 of the Administrative Code, the aforesaid board passed resolution No. 289, reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

" [RESOLUTION No. 289]

"Resolution No. 18, current series, of the Municipal Council of Lemery, abolishing the position of janitor in the office of the justice of the peace of that municipality, for reasons of economy, and designating the messenger in the offices of the municipal president and the municipal secretary to assume the duties thereof, as well as the communication of Mr. Ramon A. Cabrera, justice of the peace of Taal and Lemery, dated February 26, 1931, requesting that said resolution be disapproved and the municipal council ordered to keep the position in question intact, for the reasons therein set forth, were presented.

"After some deliberation upon the matter, due weight being given the reasons adduced by the municipal council, on the one hand, and Mr. Cabrera, on the other, on motion of the Governor, it was

"Resolved, That the resolution mentioned above is hereby DISAPPROVED, and municipal council being duty bound under section 212 of the Administrative Code to furnish the justice of the peace with all the necessary equipments and personnel including adequate janitor service. It seems reasonable, moreover, that the man occupying the position of janitor be one enjoying the full confidence of the justice of the peace, for, as pointed out by this official, he (the janitor) has free access to this office where there are important papers under his sole keeping and responsibility, and the incumbent of the position being abolished, who has been rendering faithful and satisfactory service for six years, is this kind of man, according to the justice of the peace himself. This question of confidence apparently is the main reason underlying the regulation that appointees to positions under the office of the justice of the peace should be proposed by him. Again, the position is already provided for in the 1931 municipal budget approved by the provincial treasurer.

"Ordered, That the secretary advise the Municipal Council of Lemery of this action.

"Member Kasilag abstained from taking part in the deliberations, reasoning that the matter is one which concerns only the justice of the peace and the municipal council."cralaw virtua1aw library

When the municipal council was advised of the foregoing resolution of the provincial board of Batangas on March 30, 1931, it resolved to appeal to the Chief of the Executive Bureau, in accordance with section 2235 of the Administrative Code, transmitting to said official the corresponding appeal, with correct copies of resolution No. 18, series of 1931, of the plaintiff municipal council, and of resolution No. 289 of the respondent provincial board, attached.

On June 11, 1931, the Chief of the Executive Bureau decided against the appeal. On July 11, 1931, the municipal council of Lemery petitioned the Chief of the Executive Bureau to reconsider his decision, which was denied.

On September 7, 1931, the respondent Vicente Noble, as provincial governor of Batangas, addressed the following communication to the municipal council of Lemery:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"September 7, 1931 - "The MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

"Through the President

"Lemery, Batangas

"GENTLEMEN: I have the honor to invite your attention to the fact that on or about August 5th last, the Provincial Board of Batangas, following instruction from the Chief of the Executive Bureau, ordered you to include in this year’s budget a sum sufficient to cover the salary of the porter or janitor of the justice of the peace court in this municipality, whose position had been abolished by resolution No. 18, present series, by your municipal council; but this resolution was disapproved by the provincial board by means of resolution No. 289, of even series, upon the grounds stated therein; that this latter resolution was appealed from to the Executive Bureau, which office by means of its communication and endorsement dated June 11 and July 27, 1931, respectively, upheld the aforementioned decision of the provincial board.

"To date, however, that municipal council has not complied with the order, notwithstanding the fact that a reasonable time has elapsed to allow of some action in the premises; you are therefore hereby given a period of twenty days from the date of this letter to comply with the order of the provincial board, in default of which, this office shall be under the painful necessity of proceeding administratively against each and every one of the members of that body.

"Please acknowledge receipt of this communication.

"Very respectfully,

"(Sgd.) VICENTE NOBLE

"Provincial Governor"

In order to prevent the threat contained in this letter from being carried out, the municipal council of Lemery instituted this action and at the same time prayed for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Counsel for the two parties are not in accord with respect to the nature of these proceedings; counsel for the petitioner contends it is prohibition, and counsel for the respondents contend it is certiorari.

Section 217 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 217. Certiorari Proceedings. — When the ground of the complaint in an action in a Court of First Instance is that an inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board, or officer, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, and the court, on trial, finds the allegations of the complaint to be true, it shall render a judgment ordering such inferior tribunal, board, or officer, or other person having the custody of the record or proceedings, at a specified time and place, to certify to the court a transcript of the record and the proceedings (describing or referring to them with convenient certainty), that the same may be reviewed by the court; and requiring the party, in the meantime, to desist from further proceedings in the matter to be reviewed, if, in the judgment of the court, a stay ought to be granted."cralaw virtua1aw library

Section 226 of the same Code says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 226. Prohibition. — When the complaint in any action pending in any Court of First Instance alleges that the proceedings of any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, whether exercising functions judicial or ministerial, were without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board, or person, and the court, on trial, shall find that the allegations of the complaint are true, and that the plaintiff has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, it shall render a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, including an order commanding the defendant absolutely to desist or refrain from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein."cralaw virtua1aw library

According to section 217 of Act No. 190, quoted above, the purpose of the writ of certiorari is to review the record or the proceedings of an inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions, that has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board, or officer, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy; whereas according to section 226 of said law, the purpose of the writ of prohibition is to prevent an inferior tribunal, board, or person exercising judicial or ministerial functions without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board, or person, from continuing to do so, and it lies whenever there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

The following may be found on the same question in 50 Corpus Juris, page 656, section 8:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"CERTIORARI. Although similar to prohibition in that it will lie for want or excess of jurisdiction, certiorari is to be distinguished from prohibition by the fact that it is a corrective remedy used for the re

Top of Page