GR No.

159794

December 19, 2006

MACLARING LUCMAN
Vs
ALIMATAR MALAWI , ET AL.
TINGA, J.
FACTS:
After the failure of elections, respondents remained in office in a
holdover capacity pursuant to the provisions of section 1 of RA 6676 and
COMELEC resolution no. 2888. Respondents attempted to open their
respective barangays IRAs bank account, eventually, they allowed to
open but not allowed to withdraw owing to the absence of the requisite
Accountants advice. They filed a special civil action for mandamus with
application for preliminary mandatory injunction to compel petitioner to
allow them to open and maintain deposit accounts and to withdraw.
Respondents testified during the trial that they were duly elected chair
persons and testified further the refusal of the petitioner to allow the
withdrawal despite of documents presented. RTC rendered a decision
commanding petitioner to pay respondents except Alimatar Malawi who
failed to testify, the IRAs of their respective barangays even without
accountants advice. CA affirmed the decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents have the legal personality to
institute the petition for mandamus.
HELD:
The relationship being contractual in nature, mandamus is therefore
not an available remedy since mandamus does not lie to enforce the
performance of contractual obligation. Furthermore, respondents have no
legal personality to institute petition since the funds for which the bank
accounts were created belong to the barangay headed by the respondents.
The case at bar was not initiated by the barangays themselves. Neither did
the barangay chairmen filed the suit in representation of their respective
barangay. Only the barangays are the only lawful recipients of thesefunds.
DISPOSITION:
Wherefore premises considered the petition is granted. The assailed
decision of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court are reversed
and set aside. The petition for mandamus filed before the Regional Trial
Court is ordered dismissed. No pronouncement as to cost.