The Regional Trial Court has dismissed the case filed by Gov. Roel Degamo against the members of the Provincial Board led by Vice Gov. Mark Macias for changing some items in the 2015 Provincial Budget.
Under the Local Government Code, the Governor submits his proposed budget to the Provincial Board for review and, once approved, the Budget will be passed into law.
The Provincial Board changed some items in the submitted Budget last year, realigning some items, to include a P10 million Intelligence Fund.
Degamo filed the case, asking the Court to nullify the transfer of an item in the Proposed Budget and for mandamus.
Named respondents in the case, aside from Vice Governor Macias, were Board Members Jessica Jane J. Villanueva, Melliemoore M. Saycon, Clayborne Clyde L. Lim, Edmund F. Dy, Arnolfo A. Teves, J., Antonia E. Villegas, Georgita F. Martinez, Peve O. Ligan, Rommel L. Erames and Chester V. Lim.
The respondents had voted for the realignment of some items in the 2015 Budget.
However, Branch 39 Judge Arlene Catherine A. Dato dismissed the case in a Resolution dated December 22, 2015, because of the failure of the complainant to exhaust administrative remedies.
Citing Supreme Court decisions, Dato said it is a well settled rule where, if the petitioner has available remedies within the administrative machinery against the action of an administrative board, body or officer, the intervention of the Courts can be resorted to by him only after having exhausted all such remedies.
The rationale of this rule, Dato said, rests upon the presumption that the administrative body, if given the chance to correct its mistakes or error, may amend its decision or a given matter and decide it properly.
The strict application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies will also prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the Court, Judge Dato added.
Petitioner has not shown any valid or compelling reason why he did not seek the intervention of the DILG or the DBM to address his compliant against the herein defendant members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
“The court, therefore, cannot countenance petitioner’s utter disregard of this procedural norm and frustrate its purpose of attaining a just, speedy, inexpensive and orderly judicial proceedings,” the Resolution read.
Dato also said the extraordinary remedy of Mandamus is available only when there is no appeal or any plan, speedy, and adequate remedy in the course of law. Mandamus is granted only in cases where no other remedy is available which is sufficient to afford the redress. (AP)
