CITY OF DAVAO, represented by RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, in his capacity as City Mayor, RIZALINA JUSTOL, in her capacity as the City Accountant, and ATTY. WINDEL E. A VISADO, in his capacity as City Administrator, Petitioner, Vs. ROBERT E. OLANOLAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 181149
April 17, 2017
Facts:
On July 15, 2002, respondent was elected and proclaimed Punong Barangay of Brgy. 76-A. On July 25, 2002, an election protest was filed by the opposing candidate, Celso A. Tizon (Tizon), before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Davao City (MTCC). Tizon's election protest was initially dismissed by the MTCC, but was later granted by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), 2nd Division, on appeal. Hence, Tizon was declared the duly-elected Punong Barangay of Brgy. 76-A. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC, but to no avail. Thus, he filed a Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition, with prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), before the Court, docketed as G.R. No. 165491. On November 9, 2004, the Court en bane gave due course to the petition and issued a Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO) which was immediately implemented by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Thus, respondent was reinstated to the disputed office. Upon his reinstatement, respondent presided over as Punong Barangay of Brgy. 76-A which, in the regular course of business, passed Ordinance No. 01, Series of 2005, on January 5, 2005, otherwise known as the "General Fund Annual Budget of Barangay Bucana for Calendar Year 2005" totalling up to P2,2l6,180.20. Likewise included in the local government's annual budget is the Personnel Schedule amounting to P6,348,232.00, which formed part of the budget of the General Administration, appropriated as salaries and honoraria for the 151 employees and workers ofBrgy. 76-A. On March 31, 2005, the Court en bane rendered a Decision dismissing respondents' petition in G.R. No. 165491. Consequently, it also recalled its SQAO issued on November 9, 2004 (Recall Order). Undaunted, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration on April 29, 2005.
In the meantime, the Regional Office of the DILG, Region XI rejected the request of Tizon's legal counsel for immediate implementation of the Court's Recall Order on the ground that the timely filing of respondents' motion for reconsideration had stayed the execution of the March 31, 2005 Decision. The City Legal Officer of petitioner, on the other hand, opined that the Recall Order was in effect, an order of dissolution which is immediately executory and effective. On the basis of the latter's opinion, the City of Davao thus refused to recognize all acts and transactions made and entered into by respondent as Punong Barangay after his receipt of the Recall Order as it signified his immediate ouster from the disputed office. This notwithstanding, the Office of the Sangguniang Barangay of Brgy. 76-A issued Resolution No. 115, Series of 2005 on June 1, 2005, requesting that the Regional Director of the DILG issue a directive for the officials of petitioner to recognize the legitimacy of respondent as Punong Barangay of Brgy. 76-A. On June 6, 2005, respondent wrote a letter to the Regional Office XI of the DILG, endorsing the said Resolution.Before any action could be taken by the DILG on respondent's letter, or on July 26, 2005, he filed a Petition for Mandamus etc. (mandamus petition) before the RTC, docketed as Spec. Civil Case No. 31,005-2005, seeking to compel petitioner to allow the release of funds in payment of all obligations incurred under his administration. In the interim, the Court en bane issued a Resolution dated June 28, 2005, denying with finality respondent's motion for the reconsideration of its March 31, 2005 Decision in G.R. No. 165491 for lack ofmerit. The RTC Ruling In an Order dated September 5, 2005, the RTC dismissed respondent's mandamus petition on the sole ground that there was still an adequate remedy still available to respondent in the ordinary course of law, his pending request before the DILG Regional Director to recognize his legitimacy and to give due course to the financial transactions of Brgy. 76A under his administration. In this regard, respondent was deemed to have violated the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, which perforce warranted the dismissal of his petition.
Dissatisfied, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in an Order dated September 22, 2005. Thus, he elevated his case to the CA on certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00643.The CA Ruling In a Decision dated June 29, 2006, the CA nullified and set aside the RTC's Orders, holding that the latter court gravely abused its discretion in dismissing respondent's mandamus petition on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In so ruling, the CA observed that an exception to the said doctrine was present in that the mandamus petition only raised pure legal questions; hence, the same should not have been Although the RTC confined its ruling on the procedural infirmity of the mandamus petition, the CA nonetheless proceeded to resolve the substantive issue of the case, i.e., whether or not petitioner should be compelled by mandamus to release the funds under respondent's administration. Ruling in the affirmative, the CA ruled that it is the ministerial duty of petitioner to release the share of Brgy. 76-A in the annual budget. Moreover, it found that the city government is not authorized to withhold the said share, as the Local Government Code only mandates that the Punong Barangay concerned be accountable for the execution of the annual and supplemental budgets. Accordingly, the CA directed petitioner to release the withheld funds of Brgy. 76-A, together with the funds for the compensation of the employees and workers which were already due and payable before the Court's issuance of the June 28, 2005 Resolution denying respondent's motion for reconsideration with finality. Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied in a Resolution dated November 21, 2007; hence, this petition.
In this case, petitioner, as city government, had to exercise its discretion not to release the funds to respondent considering the COMELEC's declaration of Tizon as the duly-elected Punong Barangay of Brgy. 76A. Surely, it was part of petitioner's fiscal responsibility to ensure that the barangay funds would not be released to a person without proper authority
Moreover, "the city or municipality, through the city or municipal mayor concerned, shall exercise general supervision over component barangays to ensure that the said barangays act within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions."Hence, given the COMELEC's ruling revoking respondent's election and proclamation as Punong Barangay of Brgy. 76-A, which in fact, was later on validated by no less than the Court, petitioner could not have been faulted for not automatically releasing the funds sought for by respondent in his mandamus petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the RTC's dismissal of respondent's mandamus petition.
Held:
No, the CA did not erred in reversing the RTC's dismissal of respondent's mandamus petition. Under Special People, Inc. Foundation v. Canda, 701 Phil. 365, 386-387 (2013) the Court explained that the peremptory writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is issued only in extreme necessity, and the ordinary course of procedure is powerless to afford an adequate and speedy relief to one who has a clear legal right to the performance of the act to be compelled.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 29, 2006 and the Resolution dated November 21, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00643 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for mandamus filed by respondent Robert E. Olanolan in Spec. Civil Case No. 31,005-2005 before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 16 is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.
No comments:
Post a Comment