DIGEST/ LINALYN BATION/ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs RIZAL TEACHERS KILUSANG BAYAN FOR CREDIT, INC.,

 

G.R. No. 202097

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Petitioner
vs.
RIZAL TEACHERS KILUSANG BAYAN FOR CREDIT, INC., represented by TOMAS L. ODULLO, Respondent

FACTS:

      For the benefit of public school teachers, DepEd devised and implemented a payroll deduction scheme for the loans they secured from DepEd's duly accredited private lenders. RTKBCI was among DepEd's accredited private lenders which availed of the latter's payroll deduction scheme.

    By Memorandum, DepEd Undersecretary Ernesto S. Pangan directed Dr. Blanquita D. Bautista, Chief Accountant and Officer-in- Charge, Finance and Management Service to hold the remittance of the collections for February to June 2001; and suspend as well the salary deduction scheme for RTKBCI pending resolution of the teachers' numerous complaints against RTKBCI's alleged unauthorized excessive deductions and connivance with some DepEd's personnel in charge of effecting these deductions.

   Responding to Undersecretary Pangan's directive, RTKBCI wrote the former demanding the release of the collections. By letter dated September 12, 2001, Undersecretary Pangan denied the demand. He asserted that the suspension of the salary deduction scheme was necessary to protect the concerned public school teachers.

   Consequently, RTKBCI filed with RTC-Manila the petition for mandamus to compel DepEd and then Secretary Raul Roco and Undersecretary Pangan to remit to RTKBCI the loan collections and continue with the salary deduction scheme until the loans of the public school teachers should have been fully paid.

    The trial court granted the writ of mandamus prayed for and ordered DepEd to release to RTKBCI the collections amounting to P111,989,006.98. DepEd was also ordered to pay actual damages of P5,000,000.00 and attorney's fees of P500,000.00.

     On DepEd's appeal, the Court of Appeals, affirmed in the main, but deleted the award of actual damages.

 

ISSUE:

      Whether or not by writ of mandamus, DepEd may be compelled to continue to collect and remit on RTKBCI's behalf loan payments from public school teachers

 

RULING:

          No. For the writ of mandamus to prosper, the applicant must prove by preponderance of evidence that "there is a clear legal duty imposed upon the office or the officer sought to be compelled to perform an act, and when the party seeking mandamus has a clear legal right to the performance of such act."

          Mandamus will not compel a public official to do anything which is not his or her duty or otherwise give the applicant anything to which he or she is not entitled to under the law. 

          Here, RTKBCI must prove that a law or regulation compels DepEd to continue as RTKBCI's collecting and remitting agent for the loans the latter extended to public school teachers and that RTKBCI is, by such law or regulations, entitled to the collection and remittance of these payments.

          Section 7 of RA 9155 (Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001) sets forth the power, duties and functions of DepEd and the different levels of supervision and regulation of educational activities. Notably, DepEd's activities as collection and remittance agent for accredited private lending institutions are not among its core power, duties, and functions.

           RTKBCI has failed to prove that a writ of mandamus is the appropriate legal remedy to compel DepEd as a matter of legal obligation to collect and remit on its behalf payments from concerned public school teachers.

          Hence, the complaint for Mandamus and damages has been set aside.