Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

21. BACOLOD CITY VS HON. EDUARDO ENRIQUEZ, ETC.

FACTS:
In year 1951 the herein respondents were members of the police force of the City of
Bacolod, and in that same year the Chief of Police of Bacolod City filed administrative
charges against them for having some of them tolerated prohibited games, another for
maltreatment and another for failure to make arrest of offenders, and said charges duly
sworn to by the Chief of Police were presented to Acting City Mayor Felix P. Amante
who endorsed them to the city council for action and suspended the herein
respondents from their positions. Accordingly, it resolved to recommend to Acting City
Mayor Felix P. Amante in the interest of public service, the immediate separation from
the service of all the above-named respondents and that the positions occupied by
them be declared vacant and immediately filled. This recommendation was approved
by the Acting City Mayor, hence the herein respondents were separated from service
and replaced by others.
The respondents appealed and the judge render a judgment on their favor, hence the
Clerk of Court is hereby directed to issue an alias writ of execution ordering the Provincial
Sheriff or his deputy to enforce the payment of the back salaries of the above-named
petitioners against the patrimonial property of the City of Bacolod.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the City of Bacolod, who is not a party to the case be made to bear the
burden of satisfying the judgment rendered therein.

RULING:
NO.
In the case of Angara vs Orospe, the City of Baguio, not having been made a party in
that case, cannot be compelled without due process of law to pay the salaries therein
claimed by plaintiff Angara, is completely applicable to the case at bar where the herein
petitioner City of Bacolod is made to pay the back salaries of the herein respondents,
without due process of law and without any decision rendered against it.
Therefore, the orders of the respondent judge, dated January 11, 1955 and February 16,
1955, are hereby declared null and void in so far as they authorize the levy on execution on
all the properties, real and personal.

22. MENDOZA VS DE LEON ET AL.

FACTS:

Action for damages against the individual members of the municipal council of the
municipality of Villasis, Pangasinan, for the revocation of the lease of an exclusive ferry
privilege duly awarded to the plaintiff under the provisions of Act No. 1643 of the
Philippine Commission. After use of a little more than one year, the plaintiff was forcibly
ejected under and pursuance of a resolution adopted by the herein defendants,
awarding a franchise for the same ferry to another person.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the members of the municipal council personally liable?
RULING:
YES.
Under the provisions of Municipal Code and Act No. 1634, the plaintiff had a vested
right to the exclusive operation of the ferry in question for the period of his lease. Were
the municipality a party to this action, it would be patent that a judgment for damages
against it for the rescission of the contract would be proper. This, be it said, is the usual
method of exacting damages, either ex contractu or ex delicto arising from the
exercise of corporate powers of municipalities.
In this case, the rule of personal liability should be with municipal councillors in such
matters as it is with the directors or managers of an ordinary private corporation. The
defendants are liable jointly and severally for the damages sustained by the plaintiff
from the rescission of his contract of lease of the ferry privilege in question.
23. THE MUNICIPALITY OF MONCADA VS CAJUIGAN ET AL.
FACTS:
The municipalities of Moncada and the defendant, Pio Cajuigan, entered into a
contract of lease whereby the plaintiff leased to this defendant certain fish ponds
situated within the jurisdiction of that municipality for the term embracing July 1, 1908,
to June 30, 1909, for which this defendant agreed to pay P3710, in quarterly
installments. By virtue of this lease, the fish ponds were duly delivered into the possession
of the defendant Cajuigan by the plaintiff, and he forthwith began placing therein
nets, corrals, and other accessories necessary for the conduct of a fishery. The lessee
failing to meet his payments as provided in the contract of lease, petitioned for and
received an extension, first until October 1, 1908, and second until November 30 of the
same year.
The least was declared rescinded by the municipal council on November 30, 1908, and
on or about the sixth day of the following month the plaintiff, through its officials,
entered the property and ejected the defendant and his tenants.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the municipalitys action in the rescission of contract is valid?

RULING:
YES.
In administering the patrimonial property of municipalities, the municipal council
occupies, for most purposes, the position of a board of directors of a private
corporation. In disposing of the local public utilities, if the term be used, such as the
finishing and ferry rights, etc., they must exercise considerable judgment. It requires
some considerable amount of business acumen to compel performance on the part of
lessees and in a manner which will not cause the property to deteriorate. Questions
must continually arise which are not expressly provided for in the contracts and which
must be settled, if possible, in manner that will preserve the just claims of the
municipality. Indeed, it is not at all improbable that on the occasion the councillors may
have reason to believe that a particular contract has been rescinded by the other
party or has never been legally entered into, in both of which case, decisive steps must
be taken to safeguard the interest of the municipality.
24. CORREA VS CFI
FACTS:
There were two policemen involved that were illegally dismissed by the petitioner
during his incumbency as the Mayor of Norzagaray, Bulacan (reason fo the said
dismissal was not mentioned in the case).
December 13, 1968, CFI of Bulacan rendered judgment in favor of the policemen
and ordered personally to pay the salaries which the policemen failed to receive by
reason of their illegal dismissal from office until they are actually reinstated.
August 24, 1976, CA affirmed the decision of the CFI and became final and
executory.
On April 22, 1977, respondent Court issued the Order denying the Motion to Quash
Writ of Execution. Petitioner thus came to this Court, maintaining that he could no
longer be required to pay the back salaries of the private respondents because
payment on his part presupposes his continuance in office, which is not the case
Petitioner prays, among others, that judgment be rendered declaring that the
payment of back salaries of private respondents should be made by the incumbent
mayor and by the municipality of Norzagaray; Bulacan, and that petitioner is no longer
liable for the payment thereof; and annulling the Order dated April 22, 1977 of
respondent court denying the motion to quash the writ of execution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Correa as a public official (Mayor) who wrongfully/illegally

dismissed an employee during his incumbency is still liable to the case personally.

HELD:
YES.
Liability of public official who wrongfully dismissed an employee is personal;
Principle of personal liability applicable to cases where public officer discharges an
employee wrongfully.
In the discharge of governmental functions, municipal corporations are responsible
for the acts of its officers, except if and when, and only to the extent that, they have
acted by authority of the law, and in conformity with the requirements thereof.
A public officer who commits a tort or other wrongful act, done in excess or beyond
the scope of his duty, is not protected by his office and is personally liable therefor like
any private individual. This principle of personal liability has been applied to cases
where a public officer removes another officer or discharges an employee wrongfully,
the reported cases saying that by reason of non-compliance with the requirements of
law in respect to removal from office, the officials were acting outside their official
authority.
Instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner.
25. JOSE ACUNA VS. MUNICIPALITY OF THE CITY OF ILOILO
FACTS:
Jose Acua, made a contract with Fermin del Rosario, the then municipal attorney of
the city of Iloilo, as representative of the municipality, by which Seor Acua undertook
from the 18th day of March until the 31st day December, 1901, the performance of the
service of cleaning and watering the streets comprehended within a certain zone in
the city of Iloilo, for which he was to receive the sum of 450 pesos monthly, to be paid
at the end of each month.
About four months after the celebration of the contract the provincial governor of Iloilo,
by letter written to the president of the municipality, ordered the municipal council to
rescind all contracts then existing between the municipality and persons contracting
with it.
In compliance with this direction the municipal council, on the 29th day of June, 1901,
declared as rescinded the contract above referred to.

Seor Acua instituted this action in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo to recover from
the municipality indemnification for his damages, by reason of the failure of the city to
comply with the terms of the contract, alleging the amount to be 2,220 pesos.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the municipal ordinance is valid ordering the rescission of the contract.
RULING:
YES.
Under the provisions of article 53 of General Orders, No. 40, of the United States Military
Governor, by and under which municipalities were created and governed, of date the
29th day of March, 1900, it is provided that the governor of the province shall be ex
officio president of all the municipal councils within the province and shall have general
supervisory charge of the municipal affairs of the several towns and cities organized
under the order.
26. BUNYE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
Petitioners were charged for the taking possession of the New Public Market in
Alabang, Muntinlupa through the enactment of Kapasiyahan Bilang 45 to the prejudice
of the Kilusang Bayan sa Paglilingkod ng mga Magtitinda na Bagong Pamilihang Bayan
ng Muntinlupa (KBPMBMPM) since a lease contract between the Municipality and the
Kilusan was subsisting.

Petitioners posted a Motion to Dismiss on July 24, 1992, relying on the Court of Appeals
Decision on September 23, 1991 that unless and until declared to be unconstitutional
and

expressly

annulled,

Resolution

No.

45

deserves

the

presumption

of

constitutionality and therefore is entitled to obedience and respect. However, the


motion was denied by the respondent court on September 23, 1992. The
Sandiganbayan then found petitioners guilty of a violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act on its July 26, 1995 Decision.

ISSUES:
WON the unilateral revocation of subject lease contract was effected with evident bad
faith.

RULING:
NO.
Sec.149, paragraph (3) of BP 337 explicitly requires a public bidding before a
government contract may be awarded, and the term of the contract is not to exceed
5 years. Thus, the 25-year term of the lease contract violates the BP 337 provision.
As stated in Spouses Terrado vs Court of Appeals, since Ordinance No. 8 granted
fishery privileges without the benefit of public bidding and for a period exceeding 5
years, the said ordinance and the contract of managementwere null and void ab
initio xxx.
There is tenability in petitioners submission that subject lease contract was grossly
disadvantageous to the Government. The Court, mindful of economic realities,
perceives that the projected monthly rental of P51, 243 in 1990 would have greatly
reduced by 2015 when the lease contract would have ended if not earlier rescinded.
Also, KBMBPMs failure to comply with the contractual stipulations under the Health and
Sanitation clause of the contract cannot be overlooked.
SECTION 23&24

1.

MENDOZA VS DE LEON ET AL.

FACTS:
Action for damages against the individual members of the municipal council of the
municipality of Villasis, Pangasinan, for the revocation of the lease of an exclusive ferry
privilege duly awarded to the plaintiff under the provisions of Act No. 1643 of the
Philippine Commission. After use of a little more than one year, the plaintiff was forcibly
ejected under and pursuance of a resolution adopted by the herein defendants,
awarding a franchise for the same ferry to another person.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the members of the municipal council personally liable?
RULING:
YES.
Under the provisions of Municipal Code and Act No. 1634, the plaintiff had a vested
right to the exclusive operation of the ferry in question for the period of his lease. Were
the municipality a party to this action, it would be patent that a judgment for damages
against it for the rescission of the contract would be proper. This, be it said, is the usual
method of exacting damages, either ex contractu or ex delicto arising from the
exercise of corporate powers of municipalities.
In this case, the rule of personal liability should be with municipal councillors in such
matters as it is with the directors or managers of an ordinary private corporation. The
defendants are liable jointly and severally for the damages sustained by the plaintiff
from the rescission of his contract of lease of the ferry privilege in question.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi