Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 85 views

    33 Mamba V Lara G R No 165109

    Uploaded by

    PaulRuiz
    Petitioners Manuel Mamba and Leonidaz Fausto, members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan, filed a petition to annul contracts entered into by Governor Edgar Lara regarding the New Cagayan Town Center project. The Court initially dismissed the petition, stating the petitioners lacked locus standi as they were not parties to the questioned contract. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled the petitioners had legal standing as taxpayers, as public funds would be used to pay interest on bonds issued for the project. As taxpayers, they could challenge contracts entered into by the government involving tax revenues, even if not directly parties to the contracts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    33 Mamba V Lara G R No 165109

    Uploaded by

    PaulRuiz
    85 views2 pages
    Petitioners Manuel Mamba and Leonidaz Fausto, members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan, filed a petition to annul contracts entered into by Governor Edgar Lara regarding the New Cagayan Town Center project. The Court initially dismissed the petition, stating the petitioners lacked locus standi as they were not parties to the questioned contract. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled the petitioners had legal standing as taxpayers, as public funds would be used to pay interest on bonds issued for the project. As taxpayers, they could challenge contracts entered into by the government involving tax revenues, even if not directly parties to the contracts.

    Original Description:

    asdfasdfasdfxxxxx

    Original Title

    33-Mamba-v-Lara-G-R-No-165109

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners Manuel Mamba and Leonidaz Fausto, members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan, filed a petition to annul contracts entered into by Governor Edgar Lara regarding the New Cagayan Town Center project. The Court initially dismissed the petition, stating the petitioners lacked locus standi as they were not parties to the questioned contract. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled the petitioners had legal standing as taxpayers, as public funds would be used to pay interest on bonds issued for the project. As taxpayers, they could challenge contracts entered into by the government involving tax revenues, even if not directly parties to the contracts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    85 views2 pages

    33 Mamba V Lara G R No 165109

    Uploaded by

    PaulRuiz
    Petitioners Manuel Mamba and Leonidaz Fausto, members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan, filed a petition to annul contracts entered into by Governor Edgar Lara regarding the New Cagayan Town Center project. The Court initially dismissed the petition, stating the petitioners lacked locus standi as they were not parties to the questioned contract. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled the petitioners had legal standing as taxpayers, as public funds would be used to pay interest on bonds issued for the project. As taxpayers, they could challenge contracts entered into by the government involving tax revenues, even if not directly parties to the contracts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    MANUEL MAMBA V.

    EDGAR LARA
    G.R. No. 165109, December 14, 2009
    Facts:
    The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan passed
    several resolutions authorizing Gov. Edgar Lara to
    negotiate sign and e!ecute contracts or agree"ents for
    the issuance and flotation of #onds to fun the priority
    pro$ects of the governor and for the construction and
    develop"ent of a %ew Cagayan Town Center su#$ect to
    the approval and ratification of #y the Sangguniang
    Panlalawigan. Su#se&uently the planning design
    construction and site develop"ent of the pro$ect was
    awarded to 'sset (uilders Corporation.
    Petitioners )anuel )a"#a *ay"und Guz"an and
    Leonidaz Fausto a *epresentative of Cagayan and
    "e"#ers of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan respectively
    filed a petition for 'nnul"ent of Contracts entered into #y
    Gov. Lara in connection with the %ew Cagayan Town
    Center pro$ect.
    The Court dis"issed the petition for lac+ of course of
    action stating a"ong others that petitioners did not have
    the locus standi to file the present case as they are not
    parties to the &uestioned contract.
    ,ssue:
    -hether or not petitioners have locus standi to file the
    petition.
    *uling:
    The Supre"e Court ruled that petitioners have legal
    standing to sue as ta!payers. ' ta!payer is allowed to sue
    where there is a clai" that pu#lic funds are illegally
    dis#ursed or that the pu#lic "oney is #eing deflected to
    any i"proper purpose or that there is wastage of pu#lic
    funds through the enforce"ent of an invalid or
    unconstitutional law. .owever for a ta!payer/s suit to
    prosper two re&uisites "ust #e "et: 012 pu#lic funds
    derived fro" ta!ation are dis#ursed #y a political
    su#division or instru"entality and in doing so a law is
    violated or so"e irregularity is co""itted and 032 the
    petitioner is directly affected #y the alleged act. '
    ta!payer need not #e a party to the contract to challenge
    its validity. 's long as ta!es are involved people have a
    right to &uestion the contracts entered into #y the
    govern"ent.
    ,n this case although the construction of the town
    center would #e pri"arily sourced fro" the proceeds of
    the #onds a govern"ent support would still #e spent for
    paying the interest of the #onds. 's to the second
    re&uisite the court has rela!ed the stringent 4direct in$ury
    test5 wherein ordinary citizens and ta!payers were
    allowed to sue even if they failed to show direct in$ury #y
    invo+ing 4transcendental i"portance5 4para"ount pu#lic
    interest5 or 4far6reaching i"plications.5

    You might also like