QUIMPO v. MENDOZA (CITY TREASURER)
FACTS
The case is about the basis for computing the penalty for real estate taxes. Quimpo is the owner of a parcel of land in City of Cagayan De Oro (CDO) City valued at 20,000 P in 1969. The realty tax for this property is 400.00 pesos annually payable in 4 equal instalments. He paid on time for the first 3 installments amounting to 300.00 but he defaulted with the last payment and it was only on the 27th of August the next year that he settled the last instalment. He tried paying to the City Treasurer of CDO for 124.00 inclusive of the penalty however the Treasurer declined payment saying that he ought to pay 196.00 (100 pesos for the unpaid tax and 96 pesos representing the penalty). As such, Quimpo filed action for mandamus with damages against the City Treasurer and consigned 124.00 pesos before the Court of First Instance. He asserts that he suffered mental anguish caused by the Treasurer thereby praying for 12,000 Peso worth of Moral, Actual and Exemplary damages.
ISSUE/S & HELD
1. The basis of computing the penalty of unpaid instalment. The SC ruled in favor of the petitioner and held that the provision of the Charter of CDO being invoked by the City Treasurer is not applicable in the case at bar. It was repealed impliedly by RA 5447. Since petitioner is allowed by law to pay his real estate tax in four equal instalments due and payable on four specified due dates and having paid the three instalments religiously and faithfully, it is manifest injustice, sheer arbitrariness and abuse of power to penalize him for doing so when he fails to pay the fourth and last instalment. Accordingly, petitioner’s total liability as of August 27 when he tendered payment to City Treasurer is computed as follows: 100.00 (the fourth and last instalment) plus 16.00 penalty (8 months of delinquency from January to August, at two percentum on the amount of the delinquent tax of (100.00) which totals 116.00 pesos.
2. Whether damages can be obtained by Quimpo against the City Treasurer. NO. The city treasurer’s actuations and decisions were not tainted with bad faith. As held in one case “ an erroneous interpretation of the meaning of the provisions of an ordinance does not constitute nor does it amount to bad faith that would entitle an aggrieved party to an award of damages.
