ABELARDO JAVELLANA, TOMAS JONCO,RUDICO HABANA, EXEQUIEL
GOLEZ, ALFREDO ANG, and FILIPINAS SOLEDAD, in their capacities as Councilors of
the Municipality of Buenavista, Province of Iloilo, petitioners-appellees, vs.
SUSANO TAYO, as Mayor of the Municipality of Buenavista, Iloilo,
respondent-appellantG.R. No. L-18919. December 29, 1962
DOCTRINE:
Refusal of municipal mayor to perform his duties;
Award of moral damages to aggrieved party.—The award of moral damages to a
councilor as a consequence of the municipal mayor’s refusal to perform his
official duties, is proper under Article 27 of the new Civil Code.
SUMMARY:
Mayor, Vice Mayor and the top 2 councilors were
always absent, for nearly 4 months, in every regular council session. Since the
attending members of the council was enough to constitute a quorum, the council
proceeded to do its business. Now Mayor refuses to sign the resolutions and the
minutes of the meetings alleging that they were null and void. The Court ruled
that they were valid and awarded moral damages to the councilor who was able to
prove that he was entitled thereto under Art. 27 of the CC.
PARTIES:
Petitioners are duly elected and qualified as members of the
Municipal Council of the Municipality of Buenavista, Iloilo and respondent, at
the time the acts complained of took place, was and still is the duly-elected
and qualified Mayor of the Municipality of Buenavista, Iloilo.
FACTS:
On February 8, 1960, the Municipal Council of Buenavista,
Iloilo, unanimously approved Resolution No. 5, Series of 1960, which set the
regular sessions of the Municipal Council of Buenavista on every first and
third Wednesday of every month, and which resolution was duly approved by the
respondent, in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Buenavista.
On June 1, 1960, at the time and place set for the regular
session of the Municipal Council, the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, No. 1 and No. 2
Councilors, and the Secretary were absent.
The six councilors, who are the petitioners in this case,
were present and they proceeded to elect among themselves a temporary presiding
officer and Acting Secretary to take notes of the proceedings. Having thus
elected a temporary presiding officer and a secretary of the Council, they
proceeded to do business.
On June 15, 1960, at the time and place designated in
Resolution No. 5, s. of 1960, the petitioners acting as duly elected and
qualified councilors were present and again, in view of the absence of the Mayor,
Vice-Mayor, said two councilors and the Secretary proceeded to elect a
temporary presiding officer and temporary secretary from among them, and did
business as a Municipal Council of Buenavista.
Again on July 6, and July 20, 1960, on August 3, and August
17, September 7, and on September 21, 1960, the petitioners met at the place
and time designated in Resolution No. 5, series of 1960, and proceeded to elect
a temporary Secretary among themselves, and did business as the Municipal
Council of Buenavista, in view again of the absence of the Mayor, Vice Mayor, 2
councilors, and the Secretary.
When the minutes of the proceedings of June 1, June 15, July
6, July 20, August 17, September 7, and September 21, 1960 of the Municipal
Council were presented to the respondent for action, the respondent Mayor
refused to act upon said minutes, or particularly to approve or disapprove the
resolution as approved by the Municipal Council, the Mayor declaring the
sessions above referred to as null and void and not in accordance with law.
The petitioners made repeated demands for payment of their
per diems for the sessions of June 1, June 15, July 6, July 20, August 3,
August 17, September 7, and September 21, 1960, by presenting the payrolls;
Provincial Forms No. 38(A) to the respondent Mayor for the latter’s signature,
but the respondent refused to affix his signature to the payrolls alleging that
the proceedings were illegal due to his absence.
Petitioners asked the Provincial Fiscal of the Province of
Iloilo for his opinion on the validity of the acts of the herein petitioners. The
Fiscal rendered an opinion upholding the validity of the controverted sessions
of the Municipal Council.
Despite the opinion of the Provincial Fiscal, the respondent
Mayor refused and still refuses to act upon the resolutions presented to him
and to sign the payrolls covering the per diems of the herein petitioners.
The respondent Mayor brought the matter to the attention of
the Provincial Board of the Province of Iloilo and the Provincial Board informed
the Mayor that per the opinion of the Legal Assistant said minutes is legal.
Despite the resolution of the Provincial Board, the Mayor
refused and still refuses to recognize the validity of the acts of the
Municipal Council and the legality of its regular session held in his absence.
The trial court ruled in favor of the legality of the acts
of Municipal Council. But only Exequiel Golez was awarded moral damages in the
sum of P100 as he was the only one who was presented as a witness who proved
moral damages he suffered as a consequence of the refusal of Tayo to perform
his official duty.
ISSUE:
WON the acts of the Municipal Council, despite the absence
of the Mayor, are valid?
WON petitioners are entitled to moral damages
RULING:
There is no question that the sessions at issue were held on
the days set for regular sessions of the council, as authorized and approved in
a previous resolution. Secondly, it is not disputed that a majority of the
members of the council were present in these sessions. There was a quorum to do
business in all the sessions in question.
Appellant, however, asserts that while under Section 2221 of
the Revised Administrative Code, the majority of the members of the council
constitutes a quorum to do business, the council “shall be presided by the
Mayor and no one else”, inasmuch as it is one of the duties imposed upon him
under Section 2194 (d) of the Revised Administrative Code. The argument would
be correct if the mayor were present at the sessions in question and was
prevented from presiding therein, but not where, as in the instant case, he
absented himself therefrom.
Appellant likewise invokes Section 7 of RA 2264, in support
of his view that the sessions in question were null and void, as they were not
presided by him or by his Vice-Mayor, or by the councilor who obtained the
largest number of votes.
It is true that this section mentions only the vice-mayor,
or in his place, the councilor who obtained the largest number of votes who
could perform the duties of the mayor, in the event of the latter’s temporary
incapacity to do so, except the power to appoint, suspend, or dismiss
employees. Ordinarily, this enumeration would be interpreted as exclusive but
there are cogent reasons to disregard this rule in this case, since to adopt it
would cause inconvenience, hardship, and injury to the public interest, as it
would place in the hands of the mayor, vice-mayor, and the councilor receiving
the highest number of votes an instrument to defeat the law investing the
legislative power in the municipal council, by simply boycotting, as they continuously
did for 4 months, the regular sessions of the council.
To declare that the proceedings of the petitioners were null
and void, is to encourage recalcitrant public officials who would frustrate
valid sessions for political end or consideration. Public interest will
immensely suffer, if a mayor who belongs to one political group refused to call
or attend a session, because the council is controlled by another political
group.
Lastly, appellant contests the award of moral damages to
appellee councilor Exequiel Golez. The SC found said award proper under Article
27 of the new Civil Code, considering that according to the trial court, he
(Golez) was able to prove that he suffered the same, as a consequence of
appellant’s refusal to perform his official duty, notwithstanding the action
taken by the Provincial Fiscal and the Provincial Board upholding the validity
of the sessions in question.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed
with costs against respondent-appellant. So ordered.
Comments
Post a Comment