CASE TITLE:

Arenas v. City of San Carlos, G.R. No. L-34024, April 5, 1978

PETITION: Certiorari to review the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan at San
Carlos City, Branch X, dismissing the petition for mandamus in Civil Case No. SCC-
182.

PONENTE: FERNANDEZ, J.

DOCTRINE: 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 former is given precedence over the latter on the ground that it is the latest
expression of the intent of the legislature.

PETITIONER’S "... if the last proviso of said Section 7 of Republic Act No. 5967 would be interpreted
CONTENTION: as the controlling measure for fixing the salary of the city judges, then the principal
provision of Section 7 fixing the salaries of City Judges at rate very much higher than
that of a City Mayor (particularly in the case of second- and third-class cities) would
be rendered totally useless." The petitioner submitted "that since the principal
intention of the legislature in enacting Section 7 of Republic Act 5967 is to increase
the salary of the city judges, then the last proviso of said Section 7 should give way
to the provisions of said section preceding said proviso."

RESPONDENT’S RA 5967 further provides, among other things, that the salary of the city judge shall
CONTENTION: at least be one hundred pesos per month less than that of a city Mayor; city judge’s
annual salary P12,000, city mayor’s annual salary P13,200. Assuming the existence of
salary difference, the same shall be subject to the implementation of the respective
city government, which is discretionary on their part. And in view of the financial
difficulties of the city, the payment of the salary difference cannot be made.

FACTS: 1. Petitioner, Arenas, a City Judge of San Carlos City (Pangasinan), instituted
against the City of San Carlos (Pangasinan) in January 1971.
2. The petition alleged that RA No 5967 (June 21, 1969) provides that the basic
salary of city judges of second- and third-class cities shall be P18,000.00 per
annum; City of San Carlos is classified as third-class city; petitioner only
receives a monthly salary of P1,000.00, which salary was P500.00 below as
provided under the said Act.
3. Petitioner alleges that he is entitled to a P9,500.00 salary differential from
June 21, 1961 up to the filing of the petition on January 21, 1971, to be paid
by the city government.
4. Petitioner repeatedly requested the respondents to enact the necessary
budget to pay him to no avail.
5. He filed a petition for mandamus. But the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan rendered its decision dismissing such petition.
6. Hence, petition for certiorari
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT the Court of First Instance erred in interpreting the last proviso of
Section 7 of RA 5967 as the controlling measure for fixing the salary of city judges.
RULING: No. The Court of First Instance did not err in interpreting the last proviso of Section
7 of RA 5967

The Court states that the purpose of a proviso in a statute is to limit the general
language of the law. When there is a conflict between the proviso and the body of
the statute, the proviso takes precedence as it represents the latest expression of
legislative intent.

In this case, Republic Act No. 5967 establishes the salaries of city judges in different
classes of cities.

The proviso in Section 7 of the law states that the salary of a city judge should be at
least P100.00 per month less than that of the city mayor.

During the deliberations on the law, it was discussed that the intention was to
ensure that city judges would not receive higher salaries than city mayors.

The court interprets this discussion as indicating that the salary of a city judge
should not exceed the salary of the city mayor.

Applying this interpretation, the court finds that since the city mayor of San Carlos
City (Pangasinan) was receiving an annual salary of P13,200.00, the respondents
cannot be compelled to provide the petitioner, the city judge, with an annual salary
of P18,000.00 as specified in the body of the statute.

The petition for review is hereby dismissed and the decision appealed from is
affirmed, without pronouncement as to cost