G.R. No.
L-12323 February 24, 1961
QUINTIN RIVERA, ET AL., petitioners-appellees,
vs.
HON. CIPRIANO B. VELASCO, ET AL., respondents-appellants.
Santiago F. Alidio for petitioners-appellees.
David Carreon and Ramon R. Oblena for respondents-appellants.
DIZON, J.:
Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Laguna of the following tenor:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court finds and so declares that the petitioners herein are
entitled to the relief sought for and accordingly this Court order, the respondents City Mayor,
City Treasurer and the members of the Municipal Board, all of the City of San Pablo, to pay,
within 90 days from the finality of this judgment, to the petitioners herein the amounts to
which they are respectively entitled by way of differential salaries covering the period from
August 4, 1952 to May 14, 1953, as shown in Exhibits "A", "E", "C" and "D" as corrected.
The claim of petitioners for attorney's fees and damages is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
After the obligation to the herein petitioners shall have been duly complied with by the
respondents, the latter are advised in order to avoid further litigation on the matter, to pay
likewise the differential salaries of all other employees who are entitled to the same but have
not joined the herein petition.
Let copy of this Decision be personally served upon all the respondents herein.
SO ORDERED. Without pronouncement as to costs.
Appellees commenced this action mandamus against the City Mayor, the City Treasurer and the
Municipal Board of the City of San Pablo, Laguna, to compel them to pay the difference between
their respective salaries and that provided by the Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act No. 602) for the
period from August 4, 1952 to May 14, 1953 recover damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit.
Appellants' main defenses were, firstly, that their failure, to provide for the payment of the differential
salaries was due to lack of funds, and, secondly, that mandamus does not lie against them for the
reason that they had not unlawfully neglected to comply with their duty in connection with appellees"
claim.
It is not denied that appellees were employees of the City of San Pablo during the period from
August 4, 1952 to May 14, 1953 at salaries lower than P120.00 monthly; at they are covered by the
provisions of Republic Act No. 602,, commonly known as the Minimum Wage Law, which took effect
on August 4, 1952; that the City of San Pablo implemented the provisions of the Act referred to Only
on May 15, 1953; that appellees have not received to this date differential salaries in the amounts
stated in Exhibits "A", "B", "C", and "D"; and lastly, that certain officials of the City of San Pablo had
been paid their differential salaries prior to the commencement of this action.
As correctly stated by the lower court, the issue involved herein is whether or not, upon the facts of
the case, mandamus lies against appellants. This question, in our opinion, has been decided — at
least in principle — in the affirmative in Bernardo, et al. vs. Pascual, et al., 49 O.G. No. 6, p. 2250;
and Guerrero, et al. vs. Carbonel, et al., G.R. No. L-7180, March 15, 1955. Both cases were
for mandamus to compel payment of increased salaries pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act
No. 732. In granting the writ this Court said, inter alia, that the therein respondents, as government
officials, were duty bound to implement the provisions of Act No. 732 by appropriating the necessary
amounts for the payment of the increased salaries of the therein petitioners, and that such
appropriation could not be left at their discretion nor could they avoid compliance with their duty by
invoking lack of funds. While in said cases there was proof of proper certification of availability of
funds — which is lacking in the present — we believe that the principle laid down in the aforesaid
cases applies to the present considering the circumstance that other employees of the same city had
been paid their differential salaries prior to the commencement of the present action. Were we to
consider a claim of lack or insufficiency of funds as sufficient to justify refusal to implement the
provisions of Act 732, the latter would become futile, with its purpose defeated.
Considering that the provisions of the law invoked by appellees are mandatory, and it appearing that
they have no other remedy in the ordinary course of law, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that
appellants may be compelled by mandamus to comply with their ministerial duty to by mandamus to
comply with appropriate the necessary funds for the payment of the differential salaries respectively
claimed by appellees.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision being in accordance dance with the facts and the law, the
same is hereby affirmed.
