CRISPIN BONGCAWIL, PETITIONER VS. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF LANAO DEL NORTE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the
resolution approved by respondents on September 7, 1962 adopting the
decision prepared on the same date by former Vice Governor Valerio V.
Rovira by virtue of the authority given him to do so in a resolution
adopted by the Provincial Board of Lanao del Norte which recommends the
dismissal from office of petitioner as Mayor of Maigo, of the same
province, as well as to restrain respondents from carrying out the
import of said resolution.

The facts, as alleged in the petition, are: On March 7, 1960, one
Victorio Dy filed a complaint with the Provincial Board of Lanao Del
Norte charging petitioner with the commission of certain irregularities
in his capacity as Mayor of Maigo of the same province. Because of the
filing of said complaint, petitioner was suspended from office for 30
days by Governor Mohamad Ali Dimaporo. Meanwhile, the complaint was
given due course and was set for hearing after petitioner had filed his
answer. After the case was submitted for decision, the individual
members of the provincial board prepared their respective opinions, two
of which for exoneration while the third for conviction. Petitioner
received copies of these opinions, which became final for lack of
appeal on the part of the complainant. However, on September 7, 1962,
after the lapse of almost two years since the filing of the complaint,
the provincial board, acting thru its new members, in gross violation
of law and with grave abuse of discretion, rendered a new decision on
the same complaint which was embodied in a resolution adopted on the
same date wherein it made its own the decision prepared by former Vice
Governor Valerio V. Rovira which recommended petitioner’s dismissal. As
a result, the suspension of petitioner was ordered pending the finality
of the decision. And considering that the decision rendered by the new
provincial board, although headed by the same governor, is null and
void for having been rendered in violation of law and with grave abuse
of discretion, petitioner has interposed the present petition for
certiorari.

On the other hand, the version given by respondents is as follows:
When Victorio Dy filed his complaint against petitioner on March 7,
1960 with the Provincial Board of Lanao Del Norte, copy thereof was
served on petitioner who was given 48 hours from receipt within which
to file his answer. After petitioner had filed his answer, the
complaint was set for hearing, at which complainant and petitioner
submitted evidence both oral and documentary. Thereafter, the case was
submitted to the provincial board for decision. Then the provincial
board passed a resolution designating Vice Governor Valerio V. Rovira
to draft the decision in the case having in view the evidence submitted
and, accordingly, Rovira submitted said draft sometime in August, 1961
for deliberation and study by the provincial board. But before a final
decision could be adopted even if the provincial board had begun its
study and deliberation on the matter, Vice Governor Rovira and Board
Member Bienvenido L. Padilla both launched their candidacies for the
office of congressman of the province in the elections held in 1961
thereby vacating their positions in the board in accordance with the
Revised Election Code, and to fill their vacancies, Arsenio A.
Quibranza and Sheik Cosain Ali Usman were appointed by the President as
Vice Governor and board member, respectively. On September 7, 1962, the
provincial board as newly constituted was convened at a special meeting
to deliberate on the decision of the case of petitioner as prepared by
former Vice Governor Rovira, including the opinion submitted by Member
Felixberto Avellanosa, and after a study made on the case, together
with the evidence extant on the record, the board unanimously resolved
to adopt the decision prepared by former Vice Governor Rovira wherein
the latter found petitioner guilty of the charges preferred against him
and recommended his dismissal from office.

It further appears that notwithstanding the fact that petitioner
received copy of the decision of September 7, 1962, he failed to take
any step to appeal to the Office of the President as provided in
Section 2190 of the Revised Administrative Code, but instead filed the
present petition for certiorari.

There are several reasons why the present petition cannot be
sustained one of them being petitioner’s failure to appeal from the
decision of the Provincial Board of Lanao Del Norte to the Office of
the President as provided in Section 2190 of the Revised Administrative
Code which shows that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
as required by law before he may be given the right to interpose the
present special civil action.

Another reason is the fact that, as the facts clearly show, the case
of petitioner has not been actually acted upon by the provincial board
that had actually conducted the examination and received the evidence
even if the individual written opinions of its members had been
actually prepared and submitted for the reason that by virtue of a
resolution unanimously approved by said board action on the case was
suspended because two of its members launched their candidacies for the
office of congressman of the province in the elections held in 1961
thereby vacating their respective positions, and that only after they
were duly substituted when the newly constituted provincial board
formally and finally acted upon the case and rendered its decision on
September 7, 1962. The contention of petitioner that after the case was
submitted for decision to the former provincial board its members had
written their individual decisions two of which were for exoneration
and the third for conviction and that of said individual decisions he
was duly informed and, as a consequence, said decision should be given
binding force and effect, cannot be entertained, for the most that can
be said is that said decisions were merely drafts prepared by the
individual members of the board but that the same had not yet been
finally acted upon by the board itself. At least, petitioner has not
been able to show any resolution of the former provincial board
adopting any of said decisions as its own as is the usual procedure on
matters that are acted upon by a deliberative body like the Provincial
Board of Lanao del Norte. The truth is that the only formal resolution
adopted by the said board in the case of petitioner is that dated
September 7, 1962 which, as already stated, reiterates the decision
prepared by former Vice Governor Rovira recommending the dismissal of
petitioner from his office as Mayor of Maigo, Lanao del Norte. In the
circumstances, we have no other alternative than to hold that
respondents acted in the proper exercise of their functions as Members
of the Provincial Board of Lanao del Norte, and that if petitioner was
not satisfied with such decision, his remedy was to appeal to the
Office of the President as provided for by law. This he failed to do.

Wherefore, petition is denied. No costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.