Bongcawil v. Provincial Board of Lanao del Norte
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Victorio Dy filed a complaint on March 7, 1960, against Crispin Bongcawil, the Mayor of Maigo, Lanao del Norte, for alleged irregularities in office. Petitioner Bongcawil was suspended for 30 days during the pendency of the investigation. Procedural History: After the complaint was filed and Bongcawil submitted his answer, the case was set for hearing. Evidence was presented by both parties, and the case was submitted for decision. Individual members of the Provincial Board prepared their opinions, with two recommending exoneration and one recommending conviction. However, before a final decision was adopted by the board, two members (Vice-Governor Rovira and Board Member Padilla) resigned to run for Congress in the 1961 elections, vacating their positions. They were replaced by Arsenio A. Quibranza and Sheik Cosain Ali Usman. On September 7, 1962, the newly constituted Provincial Board convened and unanimously adopted a resolution that embodied the decision drafted by former Vice-Governor Rovira, which recommended Bongcawil's dismissal from office. Bongcawil was suspended pending the finality of this decision. The Petition: Petitioner Bongcawil filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the September 7, 1962 resolution of the Provincial Board and to restrain respondents from carrying out its import. He argued that the new provincial board, in rendering a new decision after the case was already submitted for decision to the former board, acted with gross violation of law and grave abuse of discretion. He contended that the prior individual opinions should have been binding.
Issue(s)
Whether the Provincial Board of Lanao del Norte, as newly constituted, could validly render a decision on a case submitted to the former board. Whether the petitioner exhausted all available administrative remedies before filing a petition for certiorari.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that the Provincial Board acted within its authority in rendering the decision on September 7, 1962, and that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Provincial Board, as newly constituted, could validly render a decision: The Court found that the case was not finally acted upon by the former provincial board, even though individual opinions were prepared. The action on the case was suspended due to the candidacies of two members for Congress, and it was only after they were duly substituted that the newly constituted provincial board formally acted upon the case and rendered its decision on September 7, 1962. The individual decisions were considered mere drafts that had not been adopted by the board as its own. Therefore, the resolution of September 7, 1962, was the only formal resolution adopted by the board on the petitioner's case, and it was adopted by the board as it was constituted at that time. The respondents, in adopting the decision prepared by former Vice-Governor Rovira, acted in the proper exercise of their functions as Members of the Provincial Board of Lanao del Norte. On Whether the petitioner exhausted all available administrative remedies: The Court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by law. Section 2190 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that decisions of provincial boards may be appealed to the Office of the President. The petitioner received a copy of the decision dated September 7, 1962, but instead of appealing to the Office of the President, he filed the present petition for certiorari. This failure to pursue the available administrative remedy is a ground for the dismissal of the petition.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, holding that a party must first appeal a decision of a provincial board to the Office of the President, as provided by Section 2190 of the Revised Administrative Code, before filing a special civil action for certiorari. The Court found that the petitioner's failure to exhaust this administrative remedy was a sufficient ground to deny the petition.