G.R. No. L-13225; November 28, 1959
MANUEL G. TORRES, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL of the MUNICIPALITY OF MALALAG, DAVAO, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

On September 15, 1955, the Municipal Council of Malalag, Davao, enacted General Appropriation Ordinance No. 33 for the fiscal year 1955-1956. This ordinance created six additional positions for patrolman in the police force and appropriated P22,140.00 for the entire police force, an increase from the P14,760.00 appropriated for the preceding fiscal year. The ordinance was sent to the Department of Finance. On November 15, 1955, appellant Manuel G. Torres, a civil service eligible, was appointed by the Mayor to one of these newly created positions. There was no evidence presented that this appointment was made with the consent of the Municipal Council as required by Section 2159 of the Revised Administrative Code.
Subsequently, the Department of Finance, through the Provincial Treasurer, recommended that the creation of the six positions be held in abeyance due to the municipality’s unpaid obligation to the provincial government. On January 9, 1956, a new Municipal Council passed Resolution No. 13, abolishing the six patrolman positions, citing the lack of approval of Ordinance No. 33 by the Secretary of Finance and the municipality’s standing obligation. Torres was separated from service on January 15, 1956. Later, on June 31, 1956, the same Council passed Resolution No. 76, creating five new positions in the police force, stating the municipality was now capable of paying. Torres requested reinstatement but was denied, leading him to file a petition for mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether Municipal Appropriation Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1955, which created the position to which Torres was appointed, was valid and effective without the approval of the Secretary of Finance.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision dismissing the petition for mandamus. The Court held that Ordinance No. 33 was not valid and effective at the time of Torres’s appointment because it lacked the required approval of the Secretary of Finance.
Under Section 2296 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1062 , a municipal appropriation ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon enactment and approval by the mayor, provided that if the aggregate amount appropriated exceeds the estimated receipts, the ordinance shall be effective only when approved by the Secretary of Finance. The Court agreed with the trial court that the inclusion of all statutory and contractual obligations of the municipality in the appropriation ordinance is mandatory. The failure to include provisions for these obligations could result in an unbalanced budget where appropriations exceed estimated receipts, thereby triggering the requirement for the Secretary of Finance’s approval. Since Ordinance No. 33 did not have this approval, the positions it created, including the one Torres occupied, did not legally exist. Consequently, there was no valid position to which Torres could be appointed or reinstated.
The Court also noted that Torres failed to prove his appointment was made with the consent of the Municipal Council, a necessary element for a valid appointment. In a mandamus proceeding, the petitioner must establish a clear legal right, which Torres could not do. While expressing sympathy for Torres, a civil service eligible who acted in good faith, the Court declined to order his reinstatement, merely suggesting that the municipal authorities consider him for future vacancies as an act of simple justice.