Case Digest (G.R. No. 234228)
Facts:
Justo Q. Sinag et al. v. The Honorable Sangguniang Panlalawigan ng Batangas, G.R. No. 234228, February 25, 2025, the Supreme Court En Banc, Gesmundo, C.J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are Justo Q. Sinag et al., former officials and residents of Barangay Dacanlao; respondents are the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas, the Offices of the Provincial Assessor and Provincial Treasurer of Batangas, the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Calaca, and Barangay San Rafael.In 1997 the Sangguniang Panlalawigan enacted Ordinance No. 05, s. 1997 abolishing Barangay San Rafael and merging it with Barangay Dacanlao; COMELEC Resolution No. 2987 set a plebiscite for February 28, 1998. Residents of San Rafael filed Civil Case No. 3442 in RTC Branch 11 seeking annulment of Ordinance No. 5 and a TRO; the RTC denied TRO for lack of jurisdiction, prompting a petition to the Supreme Court (docketed G.R. No. 132603). COMELEC nevertheless conducted the plebiscite on February 28, 1998 in which a majority ratified the abolition. The Supreme Court in G.R. No. 132603 (Salva v. Makalintal) issued a status-quo directive (March 10, 1998) and later (Sept. 18, 2000) set aside the RTC Branch XI order and remanded Civil Case No. 3442 to the RTC to proceed, deferring execution of plebiscite results pending Civil Case No. 3442.
RTC Branch 9, Balayan, rendered a Decision on November 15, 2006 in Civil Case No. 3442 upholding the validity of Ordinance No. 5. While that appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 88994) was pending, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan on August 6, 2009 enacted Provincial Ordinance No. 002, s. 2009 (Ordinance No. 2) expressly repealing Ordinance No. 5 and purporting to reinstate Barangay San Rafael. Petitioners (Sinag et al.) filed Civil Case No. 4877 in RTC Branch 9 on September 8, 2009 to annul Ordinance No. 2 and obtained a preliminary injunction; they later moved for judgment on the pleadings.
RTC Branch 9, by order of October 14, 2013, granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings but nevertheless dismissed the petition for nullity, reasoning that Ordinance No. 5 was never implemented and San Rafael continuously retained corporate existence; the RTC invoked the presumption of regularity and validity in favor of Ordinance No. 2. The motion for reconsideration was denied (Dec. 10, 2014). Sinag et al. appealed by notice of appeal under Rule 41 to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA (Eleventh Division) dismissed the appeal on October 26, 2016 for being an improper remedy, holding that the controversy raised only questions of law and the proper remedy was a petition for...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals right to dismiss petitioners' appeal under Rule 41 as an improper remedy, instead of allowing a petition for review under Rule 45?
- Did the trial court err in declaring that Barangay San Rafael was not legally abolished by Sangguniang Panlalawigan Ordinance No. 5?
- Did the trial court err in refusing to apply the constitutional and statutory requirements for the creation/division of a barangay in assessing the validity of Provincial Ordinance No. 002, s. 2009?
- Did the trial court err in declaring Ordinance No. 002, s. 2009 valid des...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)