MAMBA Vs LARA

G.R. No.
165109 December 14, 2009
MANUEL N. MAMBA, et al, Petitioners, vs. EDGAR R. LARA, et al, Respondents.
FACTS:
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan passed a resolution authorizing Governor Edgar R. Lara to engage the
services of and appoint Preferred Ventures Corporation as financial advisor or consultant for the issuance and
flotation of bonds to fund the priority projects of the governor without cost and commitment. It also ratified the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) entered into by Gov. Lara and Preferred Ventures Corporation which provides
that the provincial government of Cagayan shall pay Preferred Ventures Corporation a one-time fee of 3% of the
amount of bonds floated. In addition, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, authorized Gov. Lara to negotiate, sign and
execute contracts or agreements pertinent to the flotation of the bonds of the provincial government in an amount
not to exceed P500 million for the construction and improvement of his priority projects, including the construction
of the New Cagayan Town Center, to be approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Subsequently, Lara issued the
Notice of Award to Asset Builders Corporation, giving to the latter the planning, design, construction and site
development of the town center project.
Petitioners Manuel N. Mamba, et al, filed a Petition for Annulment of Contracts and Injunction with prayer for a
Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the respondents (Gov. Lara et al.). The RTC,
however, dismissed their petition. Hence, the present recourse by the petitioners.
ISSUE: (1) Whether or not the petitioners have locus standi to sue as taxpayers (2) Whether or not the controversy
is in the nature of a political question
RULING:
(1) Yes, Petitioners have legal standing to sue as taxpayers. For a taxpayer’s suit to prosper, two requisites
must be met: (1) public funds derived from taxation are disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality and
in doing so, a law is violated or some irregularity is committed and (2) the petitioner is directly affected by the
alleged act. In this case, although the construction of the town center would be primarily sourced from the
proceeds of the bonds, which respondents insist are not taxpayer’s money, a government support in the amount of
₱187 million would still be spent for paying the interest of the bonds. In fact, a Deed of Assignment was executed
by the governor in favor of respondent RCBC over the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) and other revenues of the
provincial government as payment and/or security for the obligations of the provincial government. Records also
show that the governor requested the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to appropriate an amount of ₱25 million for the
interest of the bond. Clearly, the first requisite has been met. As to the second requisite, the court has relaxed the
stringent "direct injury test" bearing in mind that locus standi is a procedural technicality. By invoking
"transcendental importance", "paramount public interest", or "far-reaching implications", ordinary citizens and
taxpayers were allowed to sue even if they failed to show direct injury. In cases where serious legal issues were
raised or where public expenditures of millions of pesos were involved, the court did not hesitate to give standing
to taxpayers. We find no reason to deviate from the jurisprudential trend.
(2) The controversy involved is justiciable. In filing the instant case before the RTC, petitioners seek to restrain
public respondents from implementing the bond flotation and to declare null and void all contracts related to the
bond flotation and construction of the town center. They alleged grave abuse of discretion and clear violations of
law by public respondents. They put in issue the overpriced construction of the town center; the grossly
disadvantageous bond flotation; the irrevocable assignment of the provincial government’s annual regular income,
including the IRA, to respondent RCBC to cover and secure the payment of the bonds floated; and the lack of
consultation and discussion with the community regarding the proposed project, as well as a proper and legitimate
bidding for the construction of the town center. (girls if you wish to shorten this, you may omit the red text and
then copy the next paragraph lang, same banana lang, details lang si red haha )
Obviously, the issues raised in the petition do not refer to the wisdom but to the legality of the acts complained of.
Thus, we find the instant controversy within the ambit of judicial review. Besides, even if the issues were political in
nature, it would still come within our powers of review under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us by
Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, which includes the authority to determine whether grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by any branch or instrumentality of the
government.

MAMBA Vs LARA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MAMBA Vs LARA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MAMBA Vs LARA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

165109 December 14, 2009

MANUEL N. MAMBA, et al, Petitioners, vs. EDGAR R. LARA, et al, Respondents.

You might also like