Municipality of Pasacao v. Provincial Board of Camarines Sur
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The Municipality of Pasacao and the Municipality of Libmanan, both in Camarines Sur, disputed ownership over certain marine waters along the Ragay Gulf, which were leased for fishing concessions. This dispute arose in 1952 when Libmanan began claiming a portion of waters allegedly belonging to Pasacao. The matter was referred to the Provincial Board of Camarines Sur for resolution. 2. Procedural History: The Provincial Board, after a commissioner's investigation, issued Resolution No. 57 on February 13, 1954, awarding the disputed area to the Municipality of Libmanan. Subsequently, on April 5, 1954, Libmanan filed a civil action (Civil Case No. 2631) in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur for recovery of possession. While this action was pending, Pasacao filed a petition for certiorari on March 21, 1961, seeking to annul Resolution No. 57. The trial court dismissed Pasacao's petition, and upon denial of its motion for reconsideration, Pasacao appealed to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The Municipality of Pasacao filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45, arguing that Resolution No. 57 was enacted with grave abuse of discretion. Its grounds included: (1) lack of notice and hearing regarding the commissioner's report; (2) absence of the Provincial Governor's concurrence in the resolution; and (3) the commissioner's report allegedly favored Pasacao. Pasacao sought the annulment of the Provincial Board's resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Provincial Board of Camarines Sur committed grave abuse of discretion in enacting Resolution No. 57. Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy for the Municipality of Pasacao.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal issued by the trial court. The petition for certiorari was denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Provincial Board of Camarines Sur committed grave abuse of discretion in enacting Resolution No. 57: The Court held that the Provincial Board did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The alleged irregularity of not being informed of the commissioner's report was considered a mere procedural flaw that could have been a ground for a motion for reconsideration before the Board or an appeal to the Secretary of Interior. The fact that Pasacao became aware of the resolution less than two months after its approval, through the civil action filed by Libmanan, meant that Pasacao had ample opportunity to appeal the decision or raise the issue as a defense. The contention regarding the Provincial Governor's absence was dismissed, as one of the Board members presided in his stead, and the Governor's subsequent silence could be construed as ratification. The argument that the Board did not follow the commissioner's recommendation was deemed irrelevant to the issue of the Board's authority to decide the dispute. On Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy for the Municipality of Pasacao: The Court ruled that certiorari was not the proper remedy. Section 2167 of the Revised Administrative Code clearly provides for an appeal to the Secretary of Interior (now Office of the Executive Secretary) from the decision of the Provincial Board. Since an appeal was available, certiorari, which is a remedy of last resort, was not justified. Furthermore, the petition for certiorari was filed more than six years after Pasacao became aware of the resolution, which constituted laches, an additional obstacle to the proceeding. The Court reiterated that certiorari is only proper when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed that a petition for certiorari is not a proper remedy when an appeal is available, especially when the petition is filed after an unreasonable delay, constituting laches. The Court emphasized that the remedy of certiorari is only justified when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Furthermore, the Court clarified that procedural irregularities, such as not being informed of a commissioner's report, are grounds for reconsideration or appeal, not necessarily for annulling a resolution via certiorari, particularly when the existence of the resolution was known for a considerable period.