FIRST DIVISION
BPI FAMILY
SAVINGS
BANK, INC.AND
HEDZELITO NOEL
BAYABORDA,
Petitioners,
G.R.
NO.
148789
January 16, 2003
-versus-
ROMEO MANIKAN,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
VITUG,
J.:
Petitioners seek a review
of the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP. No. 48011
which
has affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, of
Iloilo
City, dismissing the complaint of petitioners for mandamus and ordering
them to pay respondent the sum of P30,000.00 by way of attorney's fees.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It would appear that
respondent, being the City Treasurer of Iloilo City, assessed
petitioner
bank business taxes for the years 1992 and 1993. On 26 January 1994,
the
bank issued two manager's checks payable to the City Treasurer of
Iloilo
City, the first, Manager's Check No. 010649 for P462,270.60, was to
cover
the business tax for the year 1992, and the second, Manager's Check No.
010650 in the amount of P482,988.45, was to settle the business tax for
the year 1993. Hedzelito Bayaborda, then manager of the bank’s Iloilo
Branch,
instructed an employee, Edmund Sabio, to deliver the two manager's
checks
to the Secretary to the City Mayor, a certain Toto Espinosa, who, in
turn,
handed them over to his secretary, Leila Salcedo, for transmittal to
the
City Treasurer. The value of the checks were eventually credited to the
account of the City Treasurer of Iloilo City. The checks, however, were
not applied to satisfy the tax liabilities of petitioner but of other
taxpayers.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The misapplication of
the proceeds of the checks came to the knowledge of respondent City
Treasurer
who, thereupon, created a committee to look into the matter. The
investigation
revealed that it was upon the representation of Leila Salcedo that the
manager's checks were used to pay tax liabilities of other taxpayers
and
not those of petitioner bank. Meanwhile, the bank, through counsel,
made
a demand on respondent to issue official receipts to show that it had
paid
its business taxes for the years 1992 and 1993 covered by the diverted
manager's checks. When he refused to issue the receipts requested,
respondent
was sued by petitioners for mandamus and damages.cralaw:red
The Regional Trial Court
dismissed the complaint for mandamus and ruled that petitioners had no
clear legal right to demand the issuance of official receipts nor could
respondent, given the circumstances, be compelled to issue another set
of receipts in the name of the bank. The trial court further ordered
petitioners
to pay respondent the sum of P30,000.00 by way of attorney's fees.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court of Appeals,
on appeal by petitioners, sustained the trial court in toto. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their petition for
review before this Court, petitioners urge a reversal of the decision
of
the appellate court contending that -
"a) AN
ACTION FOR MANDAMUS NECESSARILY INCLUDES INDEMNIFICATION FOR DAMAGES
AND
IS ASSESSED ON A PUBLIC OFFICIAL'S PRIVATE CAPACITY. HENCE, SUING A
PUBLIC
OFFICIAL IN HIS PRIVATE CAPACITY DOES NOT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT ENTITLE
HIM TO AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES BY WAY OF COUNTERCLAIM.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b) THE
RECEIPT BY THE CITY TREASURER'S OFFICE OF ILOILO OF THE FACE VALUE OF
THE
TWO MANAGER'S CHECKS INTENDED FOR PAYMENT OF ITS BUSINESS TAXES FOR THE
YEAR 1992 AND 1993 ENTITLES IT TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN OFFICIAL RECEIPT
ENFORCEABLE
BY A WRIT OF MANDAMUS."
In order that a writ
of mandamus may aptly issue, it is essential that, on the one hand, the
person petitioning for it has a clear legal right to the claim that is
sought and that, on the other hand, the respondent has an imperative
duty
to perform that which is demanded of him.[1]
Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel compliance
with
a duty, which is questionable or over which a substantial doubt exists.
The principal function of the writ of mandamus is to command and to
expedite,
not to inquire and to adjudicate; thus, it is neither the office nor
the
aim of the writ to secure a legal right but to implement that which is
already established. Unless the right to the relief sought is
unclouded,
mandamus will not issue.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The checks delivered
by petitioner bank to Toto Espinosa were manager’s checks. A manager’s
check, like a cashier’s check, is an order of the bank to pay, drawn
upon
itself, committing in effect its total resources, integrity and honor
behind
its issuance. By its peculiar character and general use in commerce, a
manager’s check or a cashier’s check is regarded substantially to be as
good as the money it represents.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By allowing the delivery
of the subject checks to a person who is not directly charged with the
collection of its tax liabilities, the bank must be deemed to have
assumed
the risk of a possible misuse thereof even as it appears to have fallen
short of the diligence ordinarily expected of it. The bank, of course,
is not precluded from pursuing a right of action against those who
could
have been responsible for the wrongdoing or who might have been
unjustly
benefited thereby. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The award of attorney’s
fees in favor of respondent City Treasurer, however, should be deleted.
Such an award, in the concept of damages under Article 2208 of the
Civil
Code, demands factual and legal justifications.[4]
While the law allows some degree of discretion on the part of the
courts
in awarding attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, the use of that
judgment, however, must be done with great care approximating as
closely
as possible the instances exemplified by the law. Attorney’s fees in
the
concept of damages are not recoverable against a party just because of
an unfavorable judgment. Repeatedly, it has been said that no premium
should
be placed on the right to litigate.[5]
WHEREFORE, the instant
petition is partly granted. The appealed decision is affirmed save for
the award of attorney’s fees in favor of private respondent which is
ordered
deleted. No costs. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman),
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Lim Tay vs. Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 634.
[2]
Pacheco vs. Court of Appeals, 333 SCRA 680.
[3]
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Court of Appeals, 326 SCRA 641; Tan
vs. Court of Appeals, 239 SCRA 310.
[4]
Ranola vs. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRA 1.
[5]
Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA
562;
Morales vs. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 282; American Home Assurance
Company
vs. Chua, 309 SCRA 250. |