Javellana vs. Tayo
Uploaded by
AlphaZuluJavellana vs. Tayo
Uploaded by
AlphaZuluAbelardo Javellana, et al. vs.
Susano Tayo
G.R. No. L-18919. December 29, 1962
BARRERA, J.:
FACTS:
On February 8, 1960, the Municipal Council of Buenavista, Iloilo approved Resolution
No. 5, Series of 1960, which was duly approved by herein respondent Susano Tayo, the Mayor
of said municipality. The resolution established the regular sessions of the Council on every first
and third Wednesday of the month.
However, starting from June 1 to September 21, 1960, the respondent Mayor, the Vice-
Mayor, the No.1 and No. 2 Councilors, and the Secretary of Buenavista were absent at the time
of the regular sessions. During this time, the six councilors that are the petitioners in this case,
elected among themselves a temporary presiding officer and Acting Secretary to take notes of the
sessions, in order for them to proceed to do business as a Municipal Council of Buenavista.
When the minutes of the sessions were submitted to the respondent Mayor, he refused to
act on the same and declared that the sessions were null and void because it is not in accordance
with the law due to his absence.
The petitioners repeatedly demanded that their salaries for the sessions in question be
paid, but respondent refused to sign their payrolls due to the alleged illegality of the sessions.
Upon consultation by both parties, the Provincial Fiscal and the Provincial Board of Iloilo
both issued a resolution finding that the minutes of the regular sessions in question were legal
and valid. Despite these resolutions, the respondent Mayor still refused to act upon the
resolutions and to sign the payrolls.
Petitioners then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent to give due
course to the resolutions and ordinances passed by petitioners in the sessions in question and to
sign their payrolls for the said sessions. Petitioners also prayed for a claim for moral damages
pursuant to Article 27 of the Civil Code. The trial court granted the writ of mandamus and ruled
that the sessions held by petitioners in the mayor’s absence were valid and legal. The trial court
reasoned that the Mayor’s attendance is not essential to hold a session valid, so long as a quorum
is reached. The trial court then compelled the respondent to pay only councilor Exequiel Golez
P100 as moral damages and another P100 for attorney’s fees, because he was the only petitioner
presented as a witness to prove the moral damages he suffered from respondent’s failure to
perform his official duties. Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the sessions held by the six councilors in the absence of the mayor
were valid.
2. Whether or not petitioner Exequiel Golez is entitled to damages.
RULING:
1. Yes, the sessions in question held in absence of the respondent mayor were valid.
As held by the trial court, the mayor’s attendance to these sessions is not essential
to make the sessions valid and binding, so long as a quorum is reached. Section 2221 of
the Revised Administrative Code provides that so long as the majority of the elected
council is present, a quorum is constituted to do business.
Even though no one else, other than the mayor, could preside over the council,
this duty imposed by Sec. 2194(d) of the Revised Administrative Code upon the mayor
could only apply if the mayor is present at the sessions, which is not the case in the
regular sessions in question.
To nullify the sessions would encourage recalcitrant behavior among public
officials which could result to public interest to suffer simply due to the mayor’s refusal
to attend a session because of the difference in his and the Council’s political group.
2. Yes, petitioner Golez is entitled to damages.
Despite the concurrence of the Provincial Fiscal and the Provincial Board as to
the validity of the sessions in question, respondent mayor still refused to perform his
official duty, which, in this case, is to act upon the resolutions and ordinances passed in
the sessions and to sign the payrolls of the six councilors in the said sessions.
His refusal to perform is a clear dereliction of his duties and is in violation of
Article 27 of the Civil Code that holds a public servant liable for damages to any person
for any material or moral loss due to the public servant’s failure to perform his official
duties.