Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > October 1981 Decisions > G.R. No. L-41088 October 30, 1981 - ARTEMIO B. PACANA v. DAVID M. CONSUNJI:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-41088. October 30, 1981.]

ARTEMIO B. PACANA, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE DAVID M. CONSUNJI, in his capacity as Secretary of Public Works, Transportation and Communications, and THE HONORABLE POSTMASTER GENERAL, Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioner was dismissed from the service following a finding of guilt of the charge arising from the shortage in the funds for which he was accountable as Acting Postmaster of Cagayan de Oro City. His motion for reconsideration having been denied, he filed an appeal to the Civil Service Commission. Pending consideration thereof, he filed before the Supreme Court a civil action for certiorari and mandamus alleging a procedural due process question to justify his seeking this judicial relief without resorting to exhausting all available administrative remedies.

The Supreme Court, following settled doctrine, explicitly held in the case of Antonio v. Tanco, L-38135, July 25, 1975, held that the pendency of the appeal is fatal to petitioner’s invocation of a judicial remedy. Even on the grounds of procedural due process, the petition cannot prosper in the light of the opportunity given the petitioner to submit evidence to clear him of the charges, both during the formal hearing of the case and during the motion for reconsideration filed thereafter.

Petition dismissed for lack of merit.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW; AVAILABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY A BAR TO JUDICIAL RELIEF. — It is true that the judiciary could be appealed to set aside or nullify official action that runs counter to a legal norm. So the rule of law prescribes. At the same time if a remedy may be afforded by the executive branch, with respect to matters peculiarly within its competence, it should be given the opportunity to correct the error or deficiency in the order or determination thus assailed. For one thing, it is in a much better position to set matters right. For another, it is likely to develop an orderly and efficient procedure as to such matters. In the traditional administrative law terminology, the stage of ripeness for adjudication has not been reached.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS CANNOT PROSPER PENDING APPEAL BEFORE AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY. — An attempt, albeit unsuccessful, is made by the petitioner to blunt the authoritative force of the Antonio v. Tanco ruling by alleging a procedural due process question. Reyes v. Subido, L-27916, August 21, 1975 could be relied upon to seek judicial relief without resorting to exhausting an obvious administrative remedy. It is not to be ignored, however, that in Reyes, there was no appeal taken, the matter being brought to this Court immediately. There is another consideration that argues against a favorable outcome of this petition. A formal hearing was conducted. A motion for reconsideration afforded petitioner the opportunity to submit the evidence that would clear him of the charges of the shortage of funds but he faded to do so. Under the circumstances, and with the pendency of his appeal, the Court is of the opinion that the petition cannot prosper.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


The authoritative force of Antonio v. Tanco, Jr. 1 calls for application in this certiorari and mandamus petition. It is essentially the latter proceeding as what is sought is the reinstatement of petitioner Artemio B. Pacana who, by virtue of a decision of the then respondent Secretary of Public Works, Transportation and Communications, David M. Consunji, was dismissed from the service on March 11, 1974. The allegations on their face more than suggested that petitioner was not on the best of terms with the then Postmaster General Enrico Palomar, resulting in the audit examinations not once but three times of his accountability as Acting Postmaster of Cagayan de Oro City. 2 On a charge of dishonesty for using a mail car personally, he was cleared by the then Secretary Baltazar Aquino. 3 He was, however, found guilty of the charge arising from the shortage in the funds, resulting in the order of dismissal. 4 He filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. 5 That led him to devote the matter through an appeal to the Civil Service Commission, and which appeal is still pending for consideration. 6 As was pointed out in the Comment of Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza, considered as the Answer, with the availability to petitioner of an adequate administrative remedy such as the appeal taken by him, this "civil action for certiorari and mandamus certainly will not lie." 7 The admission of the pendency of the appeal is thus fatal to petitioner’s invocation of a judicial remedy at this stage. So the above-cited case of Antonio v. Tanco, Jr. ruled in language explicit and categorical: "As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, Antonio, by requesting the President to revoke Secretary Tanco’s suspension order, precluded judicial intervention in his case while his request is pending consideration." 8

It needs only to be pointed out that the formulation in the ponencia of Justice Aquino is a restatement of a well-settled doctrine. The reason is quite evident. It is true that the judiciary could be appealed to set aside or nullify official action that runs counter to a legal norm. So the rule of law prescribes. At the same time if a remedy may be afforded by the executive branch, with respect to matters peculiarly within its competence, it should be given the opportunity to correct the error or deficiency in the order or determination thus assailed. For one thing, it is in a much better position to set matters right. For another, it is likely to develop an orderly and efficient procedure as to such matters. The Antonio opinion thus finds support in a number of cases. 9 In the traditional administrative law terminology, the stage of ripeness for adjudication has not been reached.cralawnad

An attempt, albeit unsuccessful, is made by petitioner to blunt the authoritative force of the Antonio ruling by alleging a procedural due process question. Reyes v. Subido 10 could then be relied upon to seek judicial relief without resorting to exhausting an obvious administrative remedy. As was made clear in Reyes from Lacson v. Romero 11 to Cornejo v. Secretary of Justice, 12 there are at least ten such decisions. It is not to be ignored, however, that in Reyes, there was no appeal taken, the matter being brought to this Court immediately. There is another consideration that argues against a favorable outcome of this petition. In the decision of respondent Consunji dated March 11, 1974, it was specifically stated: "Formally charged with the aforecited offenses, respondent in each individual case elected a formal hearing which was granted. During the formal hearing, involving the amount of P58,681.72, it was established that respondent incurred the shortage." 13 In his motion for reconsideration dated April 26, 1974, he pointed out that the investigation had not as yet been terminated primarily because of the denial of the opportunity to him to confront the witnesses against him. When the said motion for reconsideration was denied on March 4, 1975, it was stated categorically by respondent Consunji "that facts and evidences on record undoubtedly indicate that he incurred the shortage of P58,681.72." 14 In the dispositive portion of such resolution, it was explicitly stated "that petitioner Artemio Pacana failed to submit any new and material evidence to warrant a modification of the decision sought to be reconsidered, [hence] the instant petition is hereby denied for lack of merit." 15 Such motion for reconsideration afforded him the opportunity to submit the evidence that would clear him of the charges of the shortage of funds but he failed to do so. Under the circumstances, and with the pendency of his appeal, this Court is of the opinion, as stated at the outset, that the petition cannot prosper.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. L-38135 July 25, 1975, 65 SCRA 448.

2. Amended Petition, pars. 6-8, 10-11.

3. Ibid, pars. 5 and 12.

4. Ibid, par. 14.

5. Ibid, pars. 15 and 16.

6. Ibid, par. 17. The paragraph reads in full: "On April 26, 1975, your petitioner filed his appeal on the Civil Service Commission, and which appeal is still pending for consideration. A copy of the said appeal is hereto attached, marked as Annex "F" and made an integral part hereof but notwithstanding this pending appeal, your petitioner comes before this Honorable Tribunal to rest his cause."cralaw virtua1aw library

7. Comment of Solicitor General, 11. He was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Alicia V. Sempio-Diy and Solicitor Edgardo L. Kilayko.

8. 65 SCRA 448, 455.

9. Cf. Ang Tuan Kai v. Import Control Commission, 91 Phil. 143 (1952); Santiago v. Cruz, 98 Phil. 168 (1955); Peralta v. Salcedo, 101 Phil. 452 (1957); Montes v. Civil Service Board of Appeals, 101 Phil. 490 (1957; Cruz v. Del Rosario, 119 Phil. 63 (1963); Gonzales v. Provincial Auditor of Iloilo, 120 Phil. 1508 (1964). These are the decisions cited by Justice Aquino.

10. L-27916, August 21, 1975, 66 SCRA 203.

11. 84 Phil. 740 (1949).

12. L-32818, June 28, 1974, 57 SCRA 663.

13. Annex C to Petition, 1.

14. Annex E to Petition, 2.

15. Ibid.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1981 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-47579 October 9, 1981 - EDUARDO JALANDONI v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. Nos. L-50674-75 October 9, 1981 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-55213 October 9, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-52306 October 12, 1981 - ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-2095 October 23, 1981 - ELISEO M. TENZA v. RODOLFO M. ESPINELLI

  • G.R. No. L-25003 October 23, 1981 - LIWAYWAY PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. PERMANENT CONCRETE WORKERS UNION

  • G.R. No. L-27177 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMUALDO CAPILLAS

  • G.R. No. L-31641 October 23, 1981 - MAYOR EULOGIO E. BORRES v. MATEO CANONOY

  • G.R. No. L-32557 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO C. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-32886 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AVELINO S. PISALVO

  • G.R. Nos. L-36436-38 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURO VERGES

  • G.R. No. L-37604 October 23, 1981 - EASTERN AND AUSTRALIAN STEAMSHIP CO., LTD v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

  • G.R. No. L-37908 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN K. ONG

  • G.R. No. L-38180 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR CRISOSTOMO

  • G.R. No. L-38287 October 23, 1981 - ANTONIO MACADANGDANG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-38625 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ROSALES

  • G.R. No. L-41704 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO TAPAO

  • G.R. No. L-42149 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EWALDO CABATLAO

  • G.R. No. L-49149 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO TAYLARAN

  • G.R. No. L-50874 October 23, 1981 - JOSE VALENZUELA, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR CARMELO NORIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51565 October 23, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO U. GALLANO

  • G.R. No. L-53790 October 23, 1981 - ONE HEART SPORTING CLUB, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-55694 October 23, 1981 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO v. BENIGNO M. PUNO

  • G.R. No. L-56919 October 23, 1981 - MAXIMO PLENO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-56921 October 23, 1981 - GOTARDO FLORDELIS v. BENJAMIN MARCIAL

  • G.R. No. L-57041 October 23, 1981 - NEGROS DISTRICT CONFERENCE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-58064 October 23, 1981 - EMITERIA L. VILLABER v. BALBINO V. DIEGO

  • A.M. No. 983-MJ October 27, 1981 - FELIPE FERRER v. ADORADO S. LIM

  • G.R. No. L-47533 October 27, 1981 - FORTUNATO AISPORNA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. 1037-CJ October 28, 1981 - MARTIN LANTACO, SR., ET AL. v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS

  • A.M. No. 1092-MJ October 30, 1981 - ROMEO S. GEOCADIN v. REMEGIO M. PEÑA

  • A.M. No. P-1472 October 30, 1981 - MARCIAL O. T. BALGOS v. CONSTANCIO VELASCO

  • A.M. No. 1888-CFI October 30, 1981 - FRANCISCO I. PULIDO v. MAGNO B. PABLO

  • A.M. No. P-2363 October 30, 1981 - NENA TORDESILLAS v. HUMBERTO BASCO

  • A.M. No. P-2403 October 30, 1981 - ALBERTO O. VILLARAZA v. CATALINO Y. ATIENZA

  • G.R. No. L-24881 October 30, 1981 - MELENCIO PAGKATIPUNAN v. ATILANO C. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-32477 October 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO APOSAGA

  • G.R. No. L-34666 October 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ITONG AMISTAD

  • G.R. No. L-35915 October 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO A. PIZARRAS

  • G.R. No. L-41088 October 30, 1981 - ARTEMIO B. PACANA v. DAVID M. CONSUNJI

  • G.R. No. L-44928 October 30, 1981 - JOSE M. ALEJANDRINO v. FRANCISCO S. TANTUICO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-45487 October 30, 1981 - ANTONIO A. NEPOMUCENO v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE

  • G.R. No. L-46410 October 30, 1981 - ERNESTO BALBIN v. PEDRO C. MEDALLA

  • G.R. No. L-47200 October 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS CLARIN

  • G.R. No. L-47859 October 30, 1981 - SAN MAURICIO MINING COMPANY v. CONSTANTE A. ANCHETA

  • G.R. No. L-48744 October 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CENTENO

  • G.R. No. L-50563 October 30, 1981 - GABRIEL ABAD, ET AL. v. PHILAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-53525 October 30, 1981 - BIENVENIDO SASI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-53766 October 30, 1981 - MARIA C. RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-55357 October 30, 1981 - ROLANDO DIONALDO v. AUXENCIO DACUYCUY

  • G.R. No. L-57250 October 30, 1981 - NEVILLE Y. LAMIS ENTS. v. ALFREDO J. LAGAMON

  • G.R. No. L-58184 October 30, 1981 - FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT