Balindong v. Dacalos
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Mayor Sobaida T. Balindong of Tagoloan, Lanao Del Norte, was elected in May 2001. Subsequently, on August 10, 2001, she received a notice of an administrative case filed against her by Municipal Treasurer Mia M. Dimaalam before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Lanao Del Norte. The charges included Dishonesty, Oppression, Grave Misconduct, Abuse of Authority, and Usurpation of Authority, docketed as Administrative Case No. 01-2001. 2. Procedural History: On November 8, 2001, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Lanao Del Norte issued a decision finding Mayor Balindong guilty of Misconduct in Office and/or Grave Abuse of Authority, imposing a penalty of six months suspension. This decision stated that an appeal would not prevent it from becoming final or executory, and the respondent would be considered under preventive suspension during the appeal. On December 6, 2001, Mayor Balindong filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which issued a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary prohibitory injunction. On June 30, 2003, the Court of Appeals dismissed her petition, ruling that her mode of appeal was erroneous. 3. The Petition: This case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, filed by Mayor Sobaida T. Balindong. She seeks to assail the June 30, 2003 decision of the Court of Appeals, which held that her chosen mode of appeal was incorrect. The petition argues that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing her case, as she believed certiorari was the appropriate remedy, despite the availability of an appeal to the Office of the President as provided by the Local Government Code. She also applied for a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction and a temporary restraining order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus because the petitioner availed of an incorrect remedy. Whether the petitioner availed of the correct remedy in challenging the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the case, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petitioner's resort to a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus was improper because an appeal to the Office of the President was available under the Local Government Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy (Issue 1): The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, Section 67(b) of the Local Government Code explicitly provides that decisions of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan may be appealed to the Office of the President. Therefore, the petitioner should have availed of this appellate remedy instead of filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. The Court emphasized that the existence and availability of the right of appeal proscribes a resort to certiorari, as this is a fundamental requirement for the latter's availment. The petitioner failed to clearly show that an appeal to the Office of the President was not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, which would justify judicial intervention through certiorari. The Court also found no convincing reason for the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies to apply in this case, as the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate why flexibility in its application was warranted. Consequently, the Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error in dismissing the petition. On the specific remedy availed (Issue 2): The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, Section 67(b) of the Local Government Code explicitly provides that decisions of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan may be appealed to the Office of the President. Therefore, the petitioner should have availed of this appellate remedy instead of filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is not the proper remedy when an appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is available in the ordinary course of law. The availability of an appeal to the Office of the President, as provided by the Local Government Code, precludes the filing of a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.