March 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > March 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 175613 : March 10, 2008] SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY OF BARANGAY SAN MIGUEL (CITY OF PUERTO PRINCESA), DOUGLAS HAGEDORN, ESPERANZA CAABAY, LEOPOLDO CAYANAN, ERNESTO LUCERO, AND LIBERTAD MARANAN V. WILFREDO RAMA AND ANTONIO LAGRADA :
[G.R. No. 175613 : March 10, 2008]
SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY OF BARANGAY SAN MIGUEL (CITY OF PUERTO PRINCESA), DOUGLAS HAGEDORN, ESPERANZA CAABAY, LEOPOLDO CAYANAN, ERNESTO LUCERO, AND LIBERTAD MARANAN V. WILFREDO RAMA AND ANTONIO LAGRADA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 10 March 2008:
G.R. No. 175613 (Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay San Miguel (City of Puerto Princesa), Douglas Hagedorn, Esperanza Caabay, Leopoldo Cayanan, Ernesto Lucero, and Libertad Maranan v. Wilfredo Rama and Antonio Lagrada).�The Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay San Miguel, Puerto Princesa City and its members (Sanggunian) assail the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals dated 26 July 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 78635, which enjoined the enforcement of Resolution No. 038 expelling respondents Wilfredo Rama (Rama) and Antonio Lagrada (Lagrada) from their membership in the Sanggunian until the matter shall have been resolved on the merits by the trial court.
Briefly, the facts are as follows:
Respondents were duly elected and qualified to a three-year term as members of the Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay San Miguel, Puerto Princesa City in the 15 July 2002 Barangay Elections. During the regular session of the Sanggunian on 3 February 2003, Resolution No. 038 was passed expelling respondents from membership therein purportedly due to their cpnsecutive unjustified absences from the council's sessions. Thereafter, respondents were no longer notified or allowed to participate in the subsequent sessions of the Sanggunian despite their attempt to do so. Their honoraria and other benefits as Sanggunian members were also withheld.
To seek relief from their exclusion as Sanggunian members and from the denial of the exercise of their right and office as such, respondents filed a petition for mandamus with application for preliminary injunction and issuance of temporary restraining order, docketed as Civil Case No. 3764 with the Regional Trial Court of Palawan, Branch 95. The petition was grounded on the patent unlawfulness and nullity of their expulsion from the Sanggunian. Respondents alleged that the Sanggunian has no power to remove any of its elected members. Assuming that it has such power, the exercise of this power would still require that respondents be accorded the basic due process requirements of notice and hearing, which was allegedly not done in their case.
Respondents moved for the inhibition of Acting Presiding Judge Nelia Yap-Fernandez for her alleged known closeness to Punong Barangay Douglas Hagedorn, one of the petitioners herein. Without denying the latter ground, however, the judge denied their motion for inhibition in her Order dated 17 March 2003.
On 8 April 2003, the Sanggunian filed a motion to dismiss, instead of answering the petition, on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to judicial remedies. The trial court dismissed the petition on this ground.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court ruling that due process was not accorded respondents as there was no administrative complaint filed against them and they had no opportunity to ventilate their side. This being so, there was also no case that could have been the subject of administrative review. The appellate court enjoined the enforcement of Resolution No. 038 until a proper determination on the merits shall have been made by the trial court on the issue of whether respondents should be removed or expelled from office. The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration in a Resolution[2] dated 23 November 2006.
The Sanggunian filed a petition for review with the Court seeking a reversal of the appellate court's decision.
Unfortunately, the present petition has been rendered moot with the holding of the 29 October 2007 Barangay Elections. The Court is no longer in a position to grant the relief prayed for in the petition. Hence, there is no recourse but to dismiss the petition on the ground of mootness.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED for having become MOOT and ACADEMIC. No costs.
G.R. No. 175613 (Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay San Miguel (City of Puerto Princesa), Douglas Hagedorn, Esperanza Caabay, Leopoldo Cayanan, Ernesto Lucero, and Libertad Maranan v. Wilfredo Rama and Antonio Lagrada).�The Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay San Miguel, Puerto Princesa City and its members (Sanggunian) assail the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals dated 26 July 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 78635, which enjoined the enforcement of Resolution No. 038 expelling respondents Wilfredo Rama (Rama) and Antonio Lagrada (Lagrada) from their membership in the Sanggunian until the matter shall have been resolved on the merits by the trial court.
Briefly, the facts are as follows:
Respondents were duly elected and qualified to a three-year term as members of the Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay San Miguel, Puerto Princesa City in the 15 July 2002 Barangay Elections. During the regular session of the Sanggunian on 3 February 2003, Resolution No. 038 was passed expelling respondents from membership therein purportedly due to their cpnsecutive unjustified absences from the council's sessions. Thereafter, respondents were no longer notified or allowed to participate in the subsequent sessions of the Sanggunian despite their attempt to do so. Their honoraria and other benefits as Sanggunian members were also withheld.
To seek relief from their exclusion as Sanggunian members and from the denial of the exercise of their right and office as such, respondents filed a petition for mandamus with application for preliminary injunction and issuance of temporary restraining order, docketed as Civil Case No. 3764 with the Regional Trial Court of Palawan, Branch 95. The petition was grounded on the patent unlawfulness and nullity of their expulsion from the Sanggunian. Respondents alleged that the Sanggunian has no power to remove any of its elected members. Assuming that it has such power, the exercise of this power would still require that respondents be accorded the basic due process requirements of notice and hearing, which was allegedly not done in their case.
Respondents moved for the inhibition of Acting Presiding Judge Nelia Yap-Fernandez for her alleged known closeness to Punong Barangay Douglas Hagedorn, one of the petitioners herein. Without denying the latter ground, however, the judge denied their motion for inhibition in her Order dated 17 March 2003.
On 8 April 2003, the Sanggunian filed a motion to dismiss, instead of answering the petition, on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to judicial remedies. The trial court dismissed the petition on this ground.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court ruling that due process was not accorded respondents as there was no administrative complaint filed against them and they had no opportunity to ventilate their side. This being so, there was also no case that could have been the subject of administrative review. The appellate court enjoined the enforcement of Resolution No. 038 until a proper determination on the merits shall have been made by the trial court on the issue of whether respondents should be removed or expelled from office. The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration in a Resolution[2] dated 23 November 2006.
The Sanggunian filed a petition for review with the Court seeking a reversal of the appellate court's decision.
Unfortunately, the present petition has been rendered moot with the holding of the 29 October 2007 Barangay Elections. The Court is no longer in a position to grant the relief prayed for in the petition. Hence, there is no recourse but to dismiss the petition on the ground of mootness.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED for having become MOOT and ACADEMIC. No costs.
Very truly yours.
LU0ICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 26-32; Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga and concurred in by Associate Justices Aurora Santiago-Lagman and Normandie B. Pizarro.
[2] Id. at 34-35.