Facts:

The case involves Mayor Sobaida T. Balindong of the Municipality of Tagoloan, Province of Lanao del Norte, as the petitioner, and multiple respondents, including Vice Governor Timoteo D. Dacalos, Provincial Board Members, and Governor Imelda Q. Dimaporo, among others. Mayor Balindong was elected in the local and national elections held in May 2001 and officially took her oath of office on June 30, 2001. On August 10, 2001, she received a notice regarding an administrative case filed against her by Municipal Treasurer Mia M. Dimaalam, claiming misconduct including dishonesty, oppression, grave misconduct, abuse of authority, and usurpation of authority; this was formally docketed as Administrative Case No. 01-2001 before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Provincial Board) of Lanao del Norte.

On November 8, 2001, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan issued a decision suspending her for six months, stating that the findings against her were substantiated by substantial and convincing evidence

...

Facts:

Election and Assumption of Office

• Mayor Sobaida T. Balindong was elected as the Municipal Mayor of Tagoloan, Lanao Del Norte in the May 2001 simultaneous local and national elections.
• She assumed office and took her oath on 30 June 2001, thereby commencing her term as mayor.

Initiation of Administrative Case

• On 10 August 2001, petitioner received a notice informing her that an administrative case had been filed against her by Municipal Treasurer Mia M. Dimaalam.
• The charges included Dishonesty, Oppression, Grave Misconduct, Abuse of Authority, and Usurpation of Authority, and the case was docketed as Administrative Case No. 01-2001.

Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s Resolution and Suspension

• On 08 November 2001, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Lanao Del Norte issued a decision suspending petitioner for six (6) months, finding her guilty by substantial, preponderant, and convincing evidence of misconduct in office and/or grave abuse of authority.
• The decision clearly stated that the suspension was effective immediately upon receipt, pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 66-b and Sec. 68 of RA 7160.

Filing of Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus

• On 06 December 2001, petitioner filed a petition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, coupled with an application for a preliminary injunction (writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction) and a prayer for a temporary restraining order.
• The petition aimed to challenge the suspension order and to secure a temporary status quo by enjoining the implementation of the suspension.
• The Court of Appeals responded by issuing a temporary restraining order on 18 December 2001 and subsequently granted a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction on 13 March 2002 upon petitioner’s compliance with the injunction bond requirement.
• The bond, amounting to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000), was approved on 26 March 2002, fulfilling the procedural requirements prior to the issuance of the injunction on 01 April 2002.

The Court of Appeals’ Dispositive Decision

• On 30 June 2003, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision dismissing petitioner’s appeal for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, holding that her chosen remedy was improper.
• The court ruled that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, noting that the Local Government Code explicitly provides the recourse available to such administrative complaints—namely, an appeal to the Office of the President.
• The decision underscored that petitioner's recourse via certiorari was barred because an adequate and plain remedy (appeal) was available under Sections 61(b) and 67(b) of the Local Government Code of 1991.

Issue:

Appropriateness of the Petition

• Whether the petitioner’s filing of a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule 65 was the proper judicial remedy available, given the existence of an alternative remedy.
• Whether the petitioner should have exhausted the available administrative remedy, specifically appealing to the Office of the President pursuant to the Local Government Code.

Jurisdiction and Special Civil Action

• Whether the petitioner met the essential prerequisites for a petition for certiorari, particularly the absence of any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
• Whether the use of certiorari against a decision rendered by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, which is subject to appeal, was procedurally and substantively proper.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)