G.R. No.

158874 November 10, 2004

MAYOR SOBAIDA T. BALINDONG of te M!"#$#%&'#t( of T&)o'o&", *rov#"$e of L&"&o
+e' Norte, petitioner,
vs.
,I-. GO,.RNOR TIMOT.O D. DA-ALOS, *RO,IN-IAL BOARD M.MB.RS
-.SAR R. -ANOY, SITTI. AMIRA/ IRMA 0. ALI, SIRAD D. TA/A, DA,ID 1.
DIT0-ALAN, SIM*LI-IO 2.RNAND.3, 4r., R02A L. BILIRAN, MAGSAYSAY *.
AR0M*A-, AG0AM M. MALO, MAST0RA B. 0SMAN, MAN0.L D. RODA, AM.R
5. BA3.R, GO,.RNOR IM.LDA 1. DIMA*ORO &'' of te *rov#"$e of L&"&o De'
Norte &"+ M0NI-I*AL TR.AS0R.R MIA M. DIMAALAM, A' /&+6, of te
M!"#$#%&'#t( of T&)o'o&", *rov#"$e of L&"&o +e' Norte, respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
-/I-O7NA3ARIO, J.8
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45,

with an application for the issuance !"

this #ourt of a writ of preli$inar" prohi!itor" in%unction and a pra"er for te$porar" restrainin&
order.
'
The petition assails the (ecision of the #ourt of )ppeals
*
in #)+,.R. S- No. ./00*
pro$ul&ated on *0 1une '00*, which held that the $ode of appeal ta2en !" the petitioner is
erroneous. The dispositive portion of said decision reads3
45ERE6ORE, the instant petition for certiorari, prohi!ition and $anda$us is (ENIE(
(UE #OURSE and (IS7ISSE(.
The relevant facts are as follows3
7a"or So!aida 8alindon& was elected 7unicipal 7a"or of Ta&oloan, Lanao (el Norte, in the
si$ultaneous local and national elections in 7a" '00, and assu$ed her duties after ta2in& her
oath of office on *0 1une '00.
4
On 0 )u&ust '00, petitioner received a Notice that an ad$inistrative case for (ishonest",
Oppression, ,rave 7isconduct, )!use of )uthorit", and Usurpation of )uthorit", was filed
a&ainst her !" 7unicipal Treasurer 7ia 7. (i$aala$ !efore the San&&unian& -anlalawi&an of
Lanao (el Norte, doc2eted as )d$inistrative #ase No. 0+'00.
5
On 0/ Nove$!er '00, a (ecision
.
was issued !" the San&&unian& -anlalawi&an of Lanao (el
Norte suspendin& petitioner for a period of si9 :.; $onths, the decretal portion of which states3
45ERE6ORE, pre$ises considered, this 8O(< finds the Respondent &uilt" !"
su!stantial, preponderance and convincin& evidence ,UILT< of 7IS#ON(U#T IN
O66I#E and=or ,R)>E )8USE O6 )UT5ORIT<, and here!" i$poses upon her the
-EN)LT< of SUS-ENSION for a period of SI? :.; 7ONT5S as provided for in Sec.
..+! of R) @.0 effective i$$ediatel" upon receipt of this (ecision in accordance with
Sec. ./ of R) @.0 which provides, that3
)n appeal shall not prevent a decision fro$ !eco$in& final or e9ecutor". The respondent
shall !e considered as havin& !een placed under preventive suspension durin& the
pendenc" of the appeal. . . .
On 0. (ece$!er '00, petitioner filed a petition under Rule .5
@
for certiorari, prohi!ition and
$anda$us, with application for issuance of writ of preli$inar" in%unction or preli$inar"
$andator" in%unction and pra"er for issuance of te$porar" restrainin& order or status Auo order
!efore the #ourt of )ppeals, doc2eted as #)+,.R. S- No. ./00*.
/
The Special 6irst (ivision of the #ourt of )ppeals issued a te$porar" restrainin& order on /
(ece$!er '00.
B
Thereafter, on * 7arch '00', a Resolution
0
was issued !" the sa$e !od"
&rantin& petitionerCs application for a writ of preli$inar" prohi!itor" in%unction upon postin& of
an in%unction !ond in the a$ount of One 5undred Thousand -esos :-00,000;. -etitioner
co$plied, and on '. 7arch '00', the in%unction !ond was approved.

On 0 )pril '00', the #ourt of )ppeals issued a writ of preli$inar" prohi!itor" in%unction
'

en%oinin& respondents ,ov. I$elda (i$aporo, >ice ,ov. Ti$oteo (acalos, the $e$!ers of the
-rovincial 8oard of Lanao (el Norte, and all other persons actin& for and in their !ehalf, fro$
e9ecutin& or i$ple$entin& the Order of suspension a&ainst petitioner and=or in furtherance
thereof, pendin& ter$ination of the liti&ation unless sooner lifted !" the sa$e #ourt.
On *0 1une '00*, the #ourt of )ppeals
*
pro$ul&ated the assailed decision, part of which is
Auoted hereunder3
8ut unfortunatel", the re$edies of appeal and certiorari are $utuall" e9clusive and not
alternative or successive :O!ando vs. #ourt of )ppeals, *.. S#R) .@*;. 7ore so when
the law, that is the Local ,overn$ent #ode, e9plicitl" provides the proper re$ed" is
appeal and the foru$ to &o is the Office of the -resident.
The rationale of the #ourt of )ppeals in dis$issin& the petition is Auite si$ple. -etitioner should
have appealed the decision of the San&&unian& -anlalawi&an of Lanao (el Norte to the Office of
the -resident pursuant to the Local ,overn$ent #ode.
Sections .:!; and .@:!; of the Local ,overn$ent #ode of BB are &er$ane on the $atter, to
wit3
Sec. .. 6or$ and 6ilin& of )d$inistrative #o$plaints. D ) verified co$plaint a&ainst
an" errin& local elective official shall !e prepared as follows3
. . .
:!; ) co$plaint a&ainst an" elective official of a $unicipalit" shall !e filed !efore the
san&&unian& panlalawi&an whose decision $a" !e appealed to the Office of the
-residentE . . . .
. . .
Sec. .@. )d$inistrative )ppeals. D (ecisions in ad$inistrative cases $a", within thirt"
:*0; da"s fro$ receipt thereof, !e appealed to the followin&3
. . .
:!; The Office of the -resident, in the case of decision of the san&&unian& panlalawi&an
and the san&&unian& panlun&sod of hi&hl" ur!aniFed cities and independent co$ponent
cities.
It is apparent fro$ the fore&oin& provisions of law that the re$ed" of appeal to the Office of the
-resident was availa!le to petitioner. Since appeal was availa!le, resort to filin& a petition for
certiorari, prohi!ition and $anda$us with the #ourt of )ppeals under Rule .5,
4
was inapt.
The essential reAuisites for a petition for certiorari under Rule .5 of the BB@ Rules of #ivil
-rocedure are :; the writ is directed a&ainst a tri!unal, a !oard, or an officer e9ercisin& %udicial
or Auasi+%udicial functionsE :'; such tri!unal, !oard, or officer has acted without or in e9cess of
%urisdictionE or with &rave a!use of discretion a$ountin& to lac2 or e9cess of %urisdictionE and :*;
there is no appeal or an" plain, speed", and adeAuate re$ed" in the ordinar" course of law.
5
The e9istence and availa!ilit" of the ri&ht of appeal proscri!es a resort to certiorari, !ecause one
of the reAuire$ents for avail$ent of the latter re$ed" is precisel" that there should !e no
appeal.
.
The writ of certiorari dealt with in Rule .5 of the Rules of #ourt is a prero&ative writ, never
de$anda!le as a $atter of ri&ht, Gnever issued e9cept in the e9ercise of %udicial discretion.G
@

Under the circu$stances of this case, petitioner failed to clearl" show that an appeal to the Office
of the -resident was not the plain, speed", and adeAuate re$ed", which would %ustif" %udicial
intervention.
4ell settled is the rule that certiorari will lie onl" when a tri!unal, !oard or officer e9ercisin&
%udicial or Auasi+%udicial functions has acted without or in e9cess of its or his %urisdiction, or with
&rave a!use of discretion a$ountin& to lac2 or e9cess of %urisdiction.
/
)s a condition for the
filin& of a petition for certiorari, Section of Rule .5 of the Rules of #ourt additionall" reAuires
that Gno appeal, nor an" plain, speed" and adeAuate re$ed" in the ordinar" course of lawG $ust
!e availa!le.
B
It is, thus, clear that the availa!ilit" of the ri&ht of appeal precludes recourse to the special civil
action for certiorari.
'0
Lastl", we are not convinced that the e9ceptions to the rule of e9haustion of ad$inistrative
re$edies appl" in this case since the petitioner failed to clearl" show that fle9i!ilit" in its
application is warranted.
45ERE6ORE, findin& no reversi!le error on the part of the #ourt of )ppeals, the ancillar"
reliefs pra"ed for are denied, and the petition is, as it is here!", (IS7ISSE(. #osts a&ainst
petitioner.
SO OR(ERE(.
Austria-Martinez, (Acting Chairman), and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
Puno, (Chairman), J., on official leave.
Tinga, J., on leave.
2oot"ote9

BB@ Rules of #ivil -rocedure.

'
Rollo, p. B.
*
Rollo, pp. .0+@*, penned !" 1ustice Ro!erto 8arrios, with 1ustices 8ienvenido Re"es
and Re!ecca (e ,uia+Salvador, concurrin&.
4
Rollo, p. *.
5
Rollo, pp. ., /5+/..
.
Rollo, pp. @4+/0.
@
BB@ Rules of #ivil -rocedure.
/
Rollo, p. '..
B
Rollo, p. '..
0
Rollo, pp. ''+'4.

Rollo, pp. '.+'@.

'
Rollo, pp. '/+'B.
*
Rollo, p. @.
4
BB@ Rules of #ivil -rocedure.
5
Rivera v. Espiritu, ,.R. No. *554@, '* 1anuar" '00', *@4 S#R) *5.
.
7etropolitan 7anila (evelop$ent )uthorit" v. 1)N#O7 Environ$ental #orp., ,.R.
No. 4@4.5, *0 1anuar" '00', *@5 S#R) *'0.
@
Nunal v. #o$$ission on )udit, ,.R. No. @/.4/, '4 1anuar" B/B, .B S#R) *5..
/
Section of Rule .5 of the BB@ Rules of #ivil -rocedure.
B
Oa$inal v. #astillo, ,.R. No. 5'@@., 0/ Octo!er '00*, 4* S#R) /B, citin&
National Steel #orporation v. #ourt of )ppeals, */ -hil. 'B :'000;E -rovince of
8ulacan v. #ourt of )ppeals, *5B -hil. @@B :BB/;.
'0
I!id., citin& Le" #onstruction and (evt. #orp. v. 5"att Industrial 7anufacturin& #orp.,
,.R. No. **45, 'B )u&ust '000, **B S#R) ''*, and Ra"$undo v. #ourt of )ppeals,
,.R. No. *@@B*, 'B Septe$!er BBB, *5 S#R) 4B4.