ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138057. June 14, 1999]

CECILE Y. CAMBA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14, 1999.

G.R. No. 138057 (Cecile Y. Camba vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.)

Respondent Viola was mayor of Hinatuan town when his co-respondents who were members of the Sangguniang Bayan passed resolution granting a certain Francisco Palaran "a franchise as sole buyer-exporter of all seaweeds except Gozo" in said town. Petitioner applied for but was denied a permit to buy and export seaweed because of the above mentioned resolution which was sought to be declared unconstitutional in another case. Due to the passage of said resolution, petitioner filed against the respondent municipal officials a complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft law for "giving unwarranted advantages through manifest partiality in the discharge of their legislative functions to the prejudice of other interested and qualified applicants." After they were placed under preventive suspension, respondent municipal officials filed a demurrer to evidence which petitioner opposed. Based on the demurrer, the Sandiganbayan (SB) issued a resolution acquitting the said respondents. Without filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed this petition under Rule 65 assailing the said judgment.

There is no merit in the petition. First, the extraordinary writ of certiorari lies only when the party has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (Section 1, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). One such remedy is by filing a motion for reconsideration (Gonpu Services v. NLRC, 266 SCRA 657), which petitioner failed to avail. Moreover, it was not shown that the case falls under the recognized exceptions for the writ to issue. Second, certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction and not error of procedure or mistake in the findings or conclusions of the judge (Chua v. CA, 271 SCRA 546). Finally, the grant or denial of the demurrer to evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. And when that discretion was not shown to be gravely abused, as in this case, the remedy is unavailing (Antonio v. CA, 273 SCRA 328).

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE