Scribd
Upload
127 views2 pages

33 Mamba V Lara G R No 165109

Petitioners Manuel Mamba and Leonidaz Fausto, members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan, filed a petition to annul contracts entered into by Governor Edgar Lara regarding the New Cagayan Town Center project. The Court initially dismissed the petition, stating the petitioners lacked locus standi as they were not parties to the questioned contract. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled the petitioners had legal standing as taxpayers, as public funds would be used to pay interest on bonds issued for the project. As taxpayers, they could challenge contracts entered into by the government involving tax revenues, even if not directly parties to the contracts.

Uploaded by

PaulRuiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
127 views2 pages

33 Mamba V Lara G R No 165109

Petitioners Manuel Mamba and Leonidaz Fausto, members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan, filed a petition to annul contracts entered into by Governor Edgar Lara regarding the New Cagayan Town Center project. The Court initially dismissed the petition, stating the petitioners lacked locus standi as they were not parties to the questioned contract. However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled the petitioners had legal standing as taxpayers, as public funds would be used to pay interest on bonds issued for the project. As taxpayers, they could challenge contracts entered into by the government involving tax revenues, even if not directly parties to the contracts.

Uploaded by

PaulRuiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

MANUEL MAMBA V.

EDGAR LARA
G.R. No. 165109, December 14, 2009
Facts:
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan passed
several resolutions authorizing Gov. Edgar Lara to
negotiate sign and e!ecute contracts or agree"ents for
the issuance and flotation of #onds to fun the priority
pro$ects of the governor and for the construction and
develop"ent of a %ew Cagayan Town Center su#$ect to
the approval and ratification of #y the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan. Su#se&uently the planning design
construction and site develop"ent of the pro$ect was
awarded to 'sset (uilders Corporation.
Petitioners )anuel )a"#a *ay"und Guz"an and
Leonidaz Fausto a *epresentative of Cagayan and
"e"#ers of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan respectively
filed a petition for 'nnul"ent of Contracts entered into #y
Gov. Lara in connection with the %ew Cagayan Town
Center pro$ect.
The Court dis"issed the petition for lac+ of course of
action stating a"ong others that petitioners did not have
the locus standi to file the present case as they are not
parties to the &uestioned contract.
,ssue:
-hether or not petitioners have locus standi to file the
petition.
*uling:
The Supre"e Court ruled that petitioners have legal
standing to sue as ta!payers. ' ta!payer is allowed to sue
where there is a clai" that pu#lic funds are illegally
dis#ursed or that the pu#lic "oney is #eing deflected to
any i"proper purpose or that there is wastage of pu#lic
funds through the enforce"ent of an invalid or
unconstitutional law. .owever for a ta!payer/s suit to
prosper two re&uisites "ust #e "et: 012 pu#lic funds
derived fro" ta!ation are dis#ursed #y a political
su#division or instru"entality and in doing so a law is
violated or so"e irregularity is co""itted and 032 the
petitioner is directly affected #y the alleged act. '
ta!payer need not #e a party to the contract to challenge
its validity. 's long as ta!es are involved people have a
right to &uestion the contracts entered into #y the
govern"ent.
,n this case although the construction of the town
center would #e pri"arily sourced fro" the proceeds of
the #onds a govern"ent support would still #e spent for
paying the interest of the #onds. 's to the second
re&uisite the court has rela!ed the stringent 4direct in$ury
test5 wherein ordinary citizens and ta!payers were
allowed to sue even if they failed to show direct in$ury #y
invo+ing 4transcendental i"portance5 4para"ount pu#lic
interest5 or 4far6reaching i"plications.5

You might also like