Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

ARENAS v.

CITY OF SAN CARLOS necessary budget to pay for the salary of Arenas
April 5, 1978 | Fernandez, J. | Proviso v. Body b. Arenas had no other plain, adequate and speedy remedy in the
ordinary course of law
PETITIONER: Isidro Arenas c. If the last proviso of Sec. 7 should be interpreted as the controlling
RESPONDENTS: City of San Carlos (Pangasinan), City Council of San Carlos measure, then the principal provision fixing the salaries of City
City, Juan Lomibao, Benjamin Posadas, Douglas Soriano, Basilio Bulatao, Judges higher than that of a City Mayor would be useless
Catalina Cagampan, Eugenio Ramos, Francisco Cancino, Alfredo Vinluan, d. Principal legislative intent: increase salary of city judges so last
Marcelo Lapeña, Leopoldo Tulagan, Toribio Paulino, in their official capacities proviso should give way to the provision of Sec. 7 preceding said
as City Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilors and Treasurer, respectively and proviso
Honorable Presiding Judge, CFI of San Carlos City, Branch X 6. Respodnents’ contentions:
a. RA 5967 provides that the city judge’s salary shall at least be Php
SUMMARY: Case at bar is a petition for certiorari seeking to review CFI’s 100 per month LESS than that of the city mayor’s salary
decision to dismiss Arenas’ petition for mandamus. He wanted to compel the b. City judge receives an annual salary of Php 12,000 which is Php
City of San Carlos to pay him an annual salary of Php 18,000 pursuant to RA 100 per month less than that of the city mayor’s (Php 13,200
5967. Arenas is a city judge with a salary of Php 12,000 which is Php 100 per annual)
month less than the annual salary received by the city mayor. Arenas contends c. If there was a salary difference, the payment of it is subject to the
that the City of San Carlos refuses to pay him the difference between his actual implementation of the city gov’t = discretionary + in view of
salary and the basic salary established in RA 5967. SC affirmed CFI’s decision financial difficulties, payment of salary difference cannot be made
and dismissed the petition. 7. Hence, this petition

DOCTRINE: Relevant provision: Section 7 of RA 5967:


The primary purpose of a proviso is to limit the general language of a statute.
When there is irreconcilable repugnancy between the proviso and the body of “Sec. 7 – Unless the City Charter or any special law provides higher salary, the city
the statute, the PROVISO is given precedence over the latter on the ground that judge in chartered cities shall receive a basic salary shall not be lower than the sums
IT IS THE LATEST EXPRESSION OF THE INTENT OF THE as provided thereinbelow:
LEGISLATURE
xxx xxx xxx
( c )For second and third class cities, eighteen thousand pesos per annum;
FACTS:
1. The City of San Carlos was classified as a third class city and that RA 5967 xxx xxx xxx
(effective June 21, 1969) provided that the basic salary of city judges of
second and third class cities shall be Php 18,000 per annum. Arenas was For the cities of Baguio, Quezon, Pasay and other first class cities, the judge shall
receiving a monthly salary of Php 1,000 (350 from the national gov’t and receive 1,000 pesos less than that fixed for the district judge, and for second and
650 from the city gov’t) third class cities, the city judge shall receive 1,500 pesos less than that fixed for the
2. RA 5967 provides that the difference between the actual salary of a City district judge, and for other cities, the city judge shall receive 2,000 pesos less than
Judge and the basic salary established in the law shall be paid by the city that fixed for the district judge: Provided, however, that the salary of a city judge
gov’t. shall be at least 100 pesos per month less than that of the city mayor.”
3. Isidro Arenas is a City Judge of San Carlos City, Pangasinan. He filed a
petition for mandamus in the CFI to compel the respondent to pay him the a ISSUE/s:
salary differential. 1. WoN the proviso of Sec. 7 of RA 5967 should take precedence over the
4. From the effectivity of the act up to the filing of the petition (January 21, body of the statute? -- YES
1971), Arenas became entitled to a salary differential of Php 9,500.
5. Arenas’ contentions: RULING: SC dismissed the petition and affirmed CFI’s decision.
a. RA 5967 provides a clear duty of the respondent to enact the
Page 1 of 2

RATIO:
1. Arenas, a city judge from a third class city, did indeed receive an annual
salary of Php 12,000 and the city mayor of San Carlos received an annual
salary of Php 13,200. This shows that the city mayor receives Php 100 per
month MORE than a city judge (in line with RA 5967)
2. Senate deliberations on RA 5967 show that the legislative intent was that no
city judge will be receiving more than the city mayor
3. Saving clause of “provided, however, that the salary ….” qualifies the
earlier provision which fixes the salary of city judges for 2nd and 3rd class
cities at Php 18,000 per annum
4. The primary purpose of a proviso is to limit the general language of a
statute. When there is irreconcilable repugnancy between the proviso
and the body of the statute, the PROVISO is given precedence over the
latter on the ground that IT IS THE LATEST EXPRESSION OF THE
INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE
5. Respondents cannot be compelled to provide for an annual salary of Php
18,000 for Arenas.

Page 2 of 2

Potrebbero piacerti anche