ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 140039.� July 18, 2005]
BALITE vs. TAGROS
THIRD DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 18 2005 .
G.R. No. 140039 (JOSE B. BALITE, JR. and ANGEL STA. BALITE-SAYDE vs. AMBROSIO S. TAGROS, BALTAZAR PAREDES, JESUS LEE, LEONILA CHAN, BENJAMIN BATILES, PRUDENCIO AMARANTO and PROFERIO GEPOLLO.)
R E S O L U T I O N
For our resolution is the instant petition for review on certiorari assailing the Resolutions [1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals, dated July 29, 1999 and September 13, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 53492.
Jose B. Balite, Jr. and his daughter Angel Sia Balite-Sayde, petitioners herein, were the Mayor and Secretary II, respectively, of the Municipality of Bobon, Northern Samar.
Petitioners, along with Elenita Sia-Balite, Bonifacio Cabales, Cristino Bartolome, and Claudio Dampay were administratively charged before the Ombudsman with dishonesty and grave misconduct, docketed as OMB-VIS-ADM No. 96-0261. The complaints were then Vice Mayor Ambrosio Tarros and Municipal Councilors Baltazar Paredes, Jesus Lee, Leonila Chan, Benjamin Batiles, Prudencio Amaranto, and Porferio Gepollo, herein respondents.
In their complaint, respondents alleged that on September 20, 1994, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bobon passed Resolution No. 89 authorizing the Municipal Mayor to enter in to a contract with any private contractor for the collection of garbage from four (4) barangays in the town.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 89, petitioner Mayor Balite, Jr.
entered into a contract for the collection of garbage with Bonifacio Cabales, the
driver of his wife Elenita Sia-Balite. There was no bidding and no copy of the
contract was posted at a conspicuous public place. Cabales does not own any
vehicle or equipment for garbage collection. In fact, the vehicle he used
belonged to Elenita. Moreover, while the garbage collector's monthly fee was
only P5,000.00, petitioner Balite, Jr. authorized Cabales to receive P10,000.00
per month.
Respondents also alleged that in another transaction, petitioner Balite, Jr. approved, for himself and his daughter, Angel, the reimbursement of gasoline purchases from Lucita and Sons Caltex Station in Calbayog City. Likewise, said petitioner approved the payment to one Cristino Bartolome of various construction materials used in the 1996 EVRAA Meet. Bartolome was dummy of petitioner's wife.
Finally, respondents claimed that petitioner Balite, Jr.
authorized the reimbursement of P20,000.00 as rental for two jeeps
supposedly owned by one Claudio Dampay. It turned out that Dumpay does not own
the said vehicles as he was merely a driver of petitioner's wife.
Petitioners denied the allegations in the administrative complaint, claiming that the audit by the Commission on Audit for the period when the questioned transactions took place does not disclose any irregularity on their part.
An information for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) was likewise filed with the Sandiganbayan against petitioners. During the pendency of this case, petitioners filed with the Ombudsman a motion to suspend or dismiss the administrative proceeding on the ground that respondents have an adequate remedy in the Sandiganbayan. But the motion was denied.
On August 9, 1998, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution in the instant administrative case, quoted as follows:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, we find respondents Mayor JOSE B. BALITE, JR. and ANGEL SIA-BALITE GUILTY of committing DISHONESTY and GRAVE MISCONDUCT in office. Since respondent Mayor Balite's last term of office ended on 30 June 1998 and respondent Angel Sia Balite's position was co-terminous with that of Mayor Balite, a FORFEITURE of all their unclaimed benefits in favor of the government should be imposed on the respondents. Additionally, herein respondents are PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED TO HOLD ANY PUBLIC OFFICE.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Regional Director of the Department of Interior and Local Government Regional Office No. VIII, the Branch Manager of the Land Bank of the Philippines, Catarman, Northern Samar Branch and the Personnel Officer of the Municipality of Bobon, Northern Samar, for their guidance and proper implementation.
SO RESOLVED. [2] cralaw
Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the Ombudsman in its Order dated January 18, 1999.
Instead of filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
Thus, the Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated July 29, 1999, dismissed outright petitioners' petition for being a wrong mode of appeal. Their motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated September 13, 1999.
Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.
We hold that the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by petitioners with the Court of Appeals is the wrong mode of appeal. In Fabian v. Desierto, [3] cralaw we ruled that all appeals from the decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. [4] cralaw
The general rule is that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to an aggrieved party. Remedies of appeal and that of certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative. [5] cralaw
Verily, we find that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in dismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 53492 for being the wrong mode of appeal.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo at 25-28. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao and concurred in by Associate Justices Maria Alicia Austria-Martinez (now a member of this Court) and Salvador J. Valdez, Jr.
[2] cralaw Id. at 69-70.
[3] cralaw G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 470.
[4] cralaw Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 135913, November 4, 1999, 317 SCRA 779. 785.
[5] cralaw Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127275, June 20, 2003, 404 SCRA 442, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRA 81 (2000).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
