G.R. No. L-18085; May 31, 1963
ANACLETO B. ALZATE, in his official capacity as Principal of the South Provincial High School, Agoo, La Union, petitioner, vs. BENIGNO ALDANA, in his official capacity as Director of Public Schools, and ZACARIAS G. DE VERA, in his official capacity as Division Superintendent of Schools for La Union, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Anacleto B. Alzate, a high school principal with 24 years of service, sought mandamus to compel the Director of Public Schools and the Division Superintendent to adjust his salary pursuant to Republic Act No. 842 (Public School Salary Act of 1953). He argued he was entitled to five automatic salary rate increases: four for his years of service and one for qualifying in a higher civil service examination (Superintendent of Private Schools). Respondents had granted him only one increase, adjusting his salary from P230 to P260 monthly. After his administrative request for the full adjustment was denied, he filed the mandamus action.
The trial court ruled petitioner was entitled to the four increases for length of service but held that mandamus could not issue to compel the grant of the additional one-rate increase for the examination qualification. The court found no clear legal duty on the part of the respondents to recommend that specific increase. Petitioner appealed, contending the lower court erred in not recognizing such a duty and in consequently refusing to issue the writ.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus may be issued to compel the Director of Public Schools to recommend a salary increase for petitioner based on his qualification in a higher civil service examination.

RULING

No, mandamus does not lie. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. Mandamus is a remedy to compel the performance of a ministerial duty that is clearly and peremptorily enjoined by law. The duty must be specific and the official must have the power to perform the act. The Court examined the relevant laws, particularly Section 7(4) of Commonwealth Act No. 246 , which governs the allotment of lump-sum appropriations. This provision requires that expenditures from lump-sum funds, such as those appropriated for salary adjustments under Republic Act No. 2042 , be made according to a budget approved by the President, which includes a plantilla of personnel.
The law vests the power to approve the final salary adjustment and the corresponding budget in the President. There is no specific statutory provision that imposes a clear, imperative duty on the Director of Public Schools to recommend the particular one-rate increase claimed by petitioner. While the Director has general authority to fix salaries within legal limits, this broad power is superseded by the specific budgetary procedure requiring presidential approval for disbursements from a lump-sum appropriation. Since the respondents lacked the final authority to grant the increase and the law did not clearly enjoin them to make the specific recommendation, their duty was not ministerial. Therefore, the writ of mandamus was properly denied, as it cannot issue to compel an act where the duty is doubtful or where the respondent lacks the power to perform it.