Municipality of Jimenez Vs

Municipality of Jimenez vs.
Borja
Facts: The Municipality of Sinacaban was created by EO No. 258 by Pres. Quirino. By virtue of
Municipal Council Resolution No. 171, Sinacaban laid claim to a portion of Barrio Tabo-o to
Macabayao, Adorable, Sinara Baja and Alto based on the technical description in EO. The claim
was filed with the Provincial Board (Misamis Occidental) against Municipality of Jimenez. The
latter asserted jurisdiction on basis of an agreement it had with Municipality of Sinacaban. In its
decision the Provincial Board declared the disputed area to be part of Sinacaban.
Issue: WON RTC erred in ordering relocation survey of the boundary of Sinacaban.
Held: No. In the said EO is does not say that Sinacaban comprises only the barrios/barangays
mentions. What it says is that Sinacaban contains those barrios without saying that they are the
ones comprising it. The trial court correctly ordered the relocation survey as the only means of
determining the boundaries of the municipality and as to the question to which municipality
the barangays belong. Also, the agreement as embodied in the Resolution of the Provincial
Board is not biding on Sinacaban if the effect would be to amend the area as described in the
EO No. 258. The power of provincial boards to settle boundary disputes is of an administrative
nature involving the adoption of means and ways to carry into effect the law creating the said
municipalities. It is thus limited to implementing the law creating a municipality. Hence, any
alteration of boundaries not in accordance with the law creating a municipality is an
amendment. Therefore, the resolution of the Provincial Board is contrary to the technical
description of territory of Sinacaban.
Correa vs. CFI of Bulacan
Facts: The municipal mayor and municipal treasurer of Norzagaray, Bulacan should be ordered
personally to pay the salaries which the plaintiffs failed to receive by reason of their illegal
removal from office until they are actually reinstated. The petitioners then filed motion to
quash the writ of execution and direct the execution to the Municipality alleging that at the
time the writ was issued, he was no longer the mayor. Petitioner also invoked the principle that
when judgment is rendered as against an officer of the municipal corporation who is sued in his
official capacity for the payment of back salaries of an employee illegally removed, the
judgment is binding upon the corporation.
Issue: WON respondent court in denying the motion to quash the writ of execution acted with
grave abuse of discretion or lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Held: No. Petitioners are personally liable for the payment of the salaries which the dismissed
policemen failed to receive because of their illegal removal from office. In the discharge of
governmental functions municipal corporation are responsible for the acts of its officers except
if and only to the extent that they have acted by authority of the law and in conformity with the
requirements thereof. A public officer who commits a tort done in excess or beyond the scope
of his duty is not protected by his office and personally liable like a private individual. Hence,
respondent court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to
quash writ of execution.
Province of Cebu vs. IAC
Facts:
The 3 members of the provincial board enacted a resolution donating to the City of Cebu
province-owned lots all located in the City of Cebu and authorizing the Vice-Governor to sign
the deed of donation on behalf of the province. The donation was later on approved. The
donated lots were to be sold by the City of Cebu to raise funds that will be used to finance its
public improvement projects. Upon the return of the Governor from official business, the latter
denounces as illegal and immoral the action of his colleagues. Hence, the officers, members of
Cebu Mayor’s league in behalf of their municipalities and other taxpayers filed a case seeking to
have the donation declared illegal and null. Issue:
Held: The court apply a rule in the law of municipal corporations that a municipality may
become obligated upon an implied contract to pay reasonable value of the benefits accepted or
appropriated by it as to which it has the general power to contract. The doctrine of implied
municipal liability has been said to apply to all cases where money or other property of a party
is received under such circumstances that the general law, independent of express contract
implies an obligation upon the municipality to do justice with respect to the sane.

Municipality of Jimenez Vs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Municipality of Jimenez Vs

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Municipality of Jimenez Vs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Municipality of Jimenez vs.

Correa vs. CFI of Bulacan

Province of Cebu vs. IAC

You might also like