AGUEDO F. AGBAYANI, AS PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF PANGASINAN, THE PROVINCIAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE AND MANUEL F. MANUEL, CHAIRMAN, PETITIONERS, VS. JUDGE ROMEO D. MAGAT OF THE COURT …

Agbayani versus Magat

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Governor Aguedo Agbayani of Pangasinan and the Provincial Complaints Committee, through its chairman Manuel Manuel, against Judge Romeo Magat of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul Judge Magat's order of preliminary mandatory injunction directing the reinstatement of Victoriano Sevilleja as provincial engineer. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between a valid exercise of the governor's power to suspend and a grave abuse of discretion correctible by the courts, and because it shows how a criminal acquittal does not automatically erase an administrative charge.

Procedural History

The dispute began in the Provincial Complaints Committee. Governor Agbayani filed a complaint against Sevilleja for disobedience, grave misconduct, dishonesty and grave insubordination, and three days later suspended him for ninety days. Sevilleja went first to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, which the Court dismissed in May 1977. He then filed a petition for prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan to restrain the administrative investigation, and Governor Agbayani was later impleaded as respondent. On May 17, 1977, Judge Magat issued a preliminary mandatory injunction ordering Sevilleja's reinstatement. The governor and the committee assailed that order in this certiorari and prohibition petition filed on May 24, 1977. The Court initially dismissed the petition for lack of interest and lifted its restraining order, but on motion for reconsideration it reinstated the case, set it for oral argument, and gave the parties time to compromise. No compromise was reached. The Sandiganbayan later acquitted Sevilleja of attempted estafa on reasonable doubt, and Sevilleja argued that this rendered the case moot.

Facts

On October 1, 1976, Governor Agbayani filed with the Provincial Complaints Committee a complaint against Provincial Engineer Victoriano Sevilleja for alleged disobedience, grave misconduct, dishonesty and grave insubordination. Three days later, the governor suspended Sevilleja for ninety days.

Sevilleja resisted. He first brought a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed. He then filed a petition for prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan to restrain the administrative investigation, and Governor Agbayani was later included as respondent. On May 17, 1977, Judge Magat issued a preliminary mandatory injunction ordering Sevilleja's reinstatement.

The governor and the committee challenged that order before the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan, on August 26, 1981, acquitted Sevilleja and one Leonardo Abule of attempted estafa on the ground of reasonable doubt. Sevilleja contended that the acquittal rendered the case and the administrative case moot and academic, because the criminal charge rested on the same averments as the administrative case, which involved his alleged purchase of twenty four bailey panels of inferior quality for the renovation of the Braganza bridge.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioners, Governor Agbayani and the Provincial Complaints Committee, have a cause of action for certiorari and prohibition against Judge Magat's order of preliminary mandatory injunction.
• Whether or not Judge Magat acted within his jurisdiction and without grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of May 17, 1977, directing Sevilleja's reinstatement.
• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan's acquittal of Sevilleja rendered the case and the administrative case moot and academic.

Applicable Provisions

The decision turns on the settled rule that certiorari and prohibition lie only where a tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Court applied this standard to Judge Magat's injunction and found no such defect, so the petition could not prosper.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Governor Agbayani and Manuel have no cause of action for certiorari and prohibition. The extraordinary writs are not a remedy for every perceived error; they are reserved for acts done without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.

On the second issue, the Court held that Judge Magat acted within his jurisdiction and did not act with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the restraining order of May 17, 1977. The trial court therefore committed no jurisdictional error that would justify annulment of its order.

On the third issue, the Court did not treat the Sandiganbayan acquittal as rendering the administrative matter moot. The acquittal rested on reasonable doubt, and the Court proceeded to resolve the petition on its merits, dismissing it because the jurisdictional ground for the extraordinary writs was absent.

Doctrine

Certiorari and prohibition are extraordinary remedies available only when a tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. A trial court that issues a preliminary mandatory injunction within its jurisdiction, and without grave abuse of discretion, commits no correctible error by certiorari; the remedy of the aggrieved party is ordinary appeal, not an extraordinary petition. An acquittal in a criminal case on the ground of reasonable doubt does not automatically extinguish a separate administrative proceeding, because the quantum of proof and the issues differ. A Bar candidate should state these as rules tied to the jurisdictional standard the Court applied.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, the restraining order of May 27, 1977 was lifted, and costs were taxed against the petitioners.

Remember This

Memorize this line: certiorari and prohibition lie only for lack of or excess of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and Judge Magat's reinstatement order fell within his jurisdiction. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of the extraordinary writs and the effect of a criminal acquittal on a pending administrative charge.