THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 139813. January 31, 2001]
JOELBITO-ONON, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE NELIA YAP FERNANDEZ, R.T.C. Br. 50 – Puerto Princesa City and Palawan, and ELEGIO QUEJANO, JR., respondents.
D E C I S I O N
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
This Petition for Certiorari
and Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
and writ of injunction seeks the reversal of the Order of the Regional Trial
Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City,[1] Branch 50 in SPL.
PROC. NO. 1056 entitled “Elegio F. Quejano, Jr., petitioner vs. Joel Bito-Onon,
et. al., respondents” which denied herein petitioner’s motion to dismiss the
Petition for Review of the Resolution of the Board of Election Supervisors
dated August 25, 1997 in case number L-10-97 filed by herein private respondent
with said court.
It appears from the
records that the petitioner, Joel Bito-Onon is the duly elected Barangay
Chairman of Barangay Tacras, Narra, Palawan and is the Municipal Liga Chapter
President for the Municipality of Narra, Palawan. The private respondent, Elegio Quejano, Jr. on the other hand, is
the duly elected Barangay Chairman of Barangay Rizal, Magsaysay, Palawan and is
the Municipal Liga Chapter President for the Municipality of Magsaysay,
Palawan. Both Onon and Quejano were
candidates for the position of Executive Vice-President in the August 23, 1997
election for the Liga ng Barangay Provincial Chapter of the province of
Palawan. Onon was proclaimed the winning candidate in the said election
prompting Quejano to file a post proclamation protest with the Board of
Election Supervisors (BES), which was decided against him on August 25, 1997.
Not satisfied with the
decision of the BES, Quejano filed a Petition for Review of the decision of the
BES with the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City
(RTC). On April 26, 1999, Onon filed a
motion to dismiss the Petition for Review raising the issue of jurisdiction. Onon claimed that the RTC had no
jurisdiction to review the decisions rendered by the BES in any post
proclamation electoral protest in connection with the 1997 Liga ng mga Barangay
election of officers and directors. In
his motion to dismiss, Onon claimed that the Supplemental Guidelines for the
1997 Liga ng mga Barangay election issued by the DILG on August 11, 1997 in its
Memorandum Circular No. 97-193, providing for review of decisions or
resolutions of the BES by the regular courts of law is an ultra vires
act and is void for being issued without or in excess of jurisdiction, as its
issuance is not a mere act of supervision but rather an exercise of control
over the Liga’s internal organization.
On June 22, 1999, the RTC
denied Onon’s motion to dismiss. In its
order, the RTC ratiocinated that the Secretary of the Department of Interior
and Local Government[2] is vested with the power “to establish and prescribe
rules, regulations and other issuances and implementing laws on the general
supervision of local government units and the promotion of local autonomy and
monitor compliance thereof by said units.”[3] The RTC added that
DILG Circular No. 97-193 was issued by the DILG Secretary pursuant to his
rule-making power as provided for under Section 7, Chapter II, Book IV of the
Administrative Code.[4] Consequently, the
RTC ruled that it had jurisdiction over the petition for review filed by
Quejada.[5]
Motion for
reconsideration of the aforesaid Order was denied[6] prompting the petitioner to file the present
petition wherein the following issues are raised:
A. WHETHER OR NOT
THE QUESTIONED PROVISION IN MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR 97-193 WAS ISSUED BY THE DILG
SECRETARY IN EXCESS OF HIS AUTHORITY.
B. WHETHER OR NOT
THE RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ISSUING THE
QUESTIONED ORDERS.[7]
In support of his
petition, Onon argues that the “Supplemental Guidelines for the 1997
Synchronized Election of the Provincial and Metropolitan Chapters and for the
Election of the National Chapter of the Liga ng mga Barangay” contradicts the
“Implementing Rules and Guidelines for the 1997 General Elections of the Liga
ng mga Barangay Officers and Directors” and is therefore invalid. Onon alleges that the Liga ng mga Barangay
(LIGA) is not a local government unit considering that a local government unit
must have its own source of income, a certain number of population, and a
specific land area in order to exist or be created as such. Consequently, the DILG only has a limited
supervisory authority over the LIGA.
Moreover, Onon argues that even if the DILG has supervisory authority
over the LIGA, the act of the DILG in issuing Memorandum Circular No. 97-193 or
the supplemental rules and guidelines for the conduct of the 1997 LIGA
elections had the effect of modifying, altering and nullifying the rules
prescribed by the National Liga Board.
Onon posits that the issuance of said guidelines allowing an appeal of
the decision of the BES to the regular courts rather than to the National Liga
Board is no longer an exercise of supervision but an exercise of control.[8]
In his comment to the
petition, private respondent Quejano argues that the Secretary of the DILG has
competent authority to issue rules and regulations like Memorandum Circular No.
97-893. The Secretary of DILG’s
rule-making power is conferred by the Administrative Code. Considering that the Memorandum Circular was
issued pursuant to his rule making power, Quejano insists that the lower court
did not commit any reversible error when it denied Onon’s motion to dismiss.[9]
On the other hand, the
public respondent represented herein by the Solicitor General, filed a separate
Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Comment agreeing with the position of
petitioner Onon. The Solicitor General
affirms Onon’s claim that in issuing the questioned Memorandum Circular, the
Secretary of the DILG effectively amended the rules and guidelines promulgated
by National Liga Board. This act was no
longer a mere act of supervision but one of control. The Solicitor General submits that the RTC committed grave abuse
of discretion in not dismissing the petition for review of the BES decision
filed before it for failure of the petitioner to exhaust the rightful remedy
which was to appeal to the National Liga Board.[10]
On October 27, 1999, this
Court denied petitioner Onon’s motion for the issuance of restraining order for
lack of merit.
After a careful review of
the case, we sustain the position of the petitioner.
The resolution of the
present controversy requires an examination of the questioned provision of
Memorandum Circular No. 97-193 and the Implementing Rules and Guidelines for
the 1997 General Elections of the Liga ng mga Barangay Officers and Directors
(GUIDELINES). The memorandum circular reads, insofar as pertinent, as follows:
“Any post-proclamation protest must be filed with the BES within
twenty-four (24) hours from the closing of the election. The BES shall decide the same within
forty-eight (48) hours from receipt thereof.
The decision of the BES shall be final and immediately executory without
prejudice to the filing of a Petition for Review with the regular courts of
law.”[11] (emphasis
supplied)
On the other hand, the
GUIDELINES provides that the BES shall have the following among its duties:
“To resolve any post-proclamation electoral protest which must be
submitted in writing to this Board within twenty-four (24) hours from the close
of election; provided said Board shall render its decision within forty-eight
(48) hours from receipt hereof; and provided further that the decision must be
submitted to the National Liga Headquarters within twenty-four (24) hours from
the said decision. The decision of the
Board of Election Supervisors in this respect shall be subject to review by
the National Liga Board the decision of which shall be final and executory.”[12] (emphasis
supplied)
Memorandum Circular No.
97-193 was issued by the DILG Secretary pursuant to the power of general
supervision of the President over all local government units which was
delegated to the DILG Secretary by virtue of Administrative Order No. 267 dated
February 18, 1992.[13] The President’s
power of general supervision over local government units is conferred upon him
by the Constitution.[14] The power of
supervision is defined as “the power of a superior officer to see to it that
lower officers perform their functions in accordance with law.”[15] This is
distinguished from the power of control or “the power of an officer to alter or
modify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of
his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for the latter.”[16]
On many occasions in the
past, this court has had the opportunity to distinguish the power of
supervision from the power of control.
In Taule vs. Santos,[17] we held that the
Chief Executive wielded no more authority than that of checking whether a local
government or the officers thereof perform their duties as provided by
statutory enactments. He cannot
interfere with local governments provided that the same or its officers act
within the scope of their authority.
Supervisory power, when contrasted with control, is the power of mere
oversight over an inferior body; it does not include any restraining authority
over such body.[18] Officers in control
lay down the rules in the doing of an act.
If they are not followed, it is discretionary on his part to order the
act undone or re-done by his subordinate or he may even decide to do it
himself. Supervision does not cover
such authority. Supervising officers
merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he himself does not lay down
such rules, nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, he may order
the work done or re-done to conform to the prescribed rules. He cannot prescribe his own manner for the
doing of the act.[19]
Does the President’s
power of general supervision extend to the liga ng mga barangay, which is not a
local government unit?[20]
We rule in the
affirmative. In Opinion No. 41, Series
of 1995, the Department of Justice ruled that the liga ng mga barangay is a
government organization, being an association, federation, league or union
created by law or by authority of law, whose members are either appointed or
elected government officials. The Local
Government Code[21] defines the liga ng mga barangay as an organization
of all barangays for the primary purpose of determining the representation of
the liga in the sanggunians, and for ventilating, articulating and
crystallizing issues affecting barangay government administration and securing,
through proper and legal means, solutions thereto.[22] The liga shall
have chapters at the municipal, city, provincial and metropolitan political
subdivision levels. The municipal and
city chapters of the liga shall be composed of the barangay representatives of
the municipal and city barangays respectively. The duly elected presidents of the component municipal and city
chapters shall constitute the provincial chapter or the metropolitan political
subdivision chapter. The duly elected
presidents of highly urbanized cities, provincial chapters, the Metropolitan
Manila chapter and metropolitan political subdivision chapters shall constitute
the National Liga ng mga Barangay.[23]
The liga at the
municipal, city, provincial, metropolitan political subdivision, and national
levels directly elect a president, a vice-president and five (5) members of the
board of directors. The board shall
appoint its secretary and treasurer and create such other positions as it may
deem necessary for the management of the chapter.[24]
The ligas are primarily
governed by the provisions of the Local Government Code.[25] However, their
respective constitution and by-laws shall govern all other matters affecting the
internal organization of the liga not otherwise provided for in the Local
Government Code provided that the constitution and by-laws shall be suppletory
to the provisions of Book III, Title VI of the Local Government Code and shall
always conform to the provisions of the Constitution and existing laws.[26]
Having in mind the
foregoing principles, we rule that Memorandum Circular No. 97-193 of the DILG
insofar as it authorizes the filing a Petition for Review of the decision of
the BES with the regular courts in a post proclamation electoral protest is of
doubtful constitutionality. We agree
with both the petitioner and the Solicitor General that in authorizing the
filing of the petition for review of the decision of the BES with the regular
courts, the DILG Secretary in effect amended and modified the GUIDELINES
promulgated by the National Liga Board and adopted by the LIGA which provides
that the decision of the BES shall be subject to review by the National Liga
Board. The amendment of the GUIDELINES
is more than an exercise of the power of supervision but is an exercise of the
power of control, which the President does not have over the LIGA. Although the DILG is given the power to
prescribe rules, regulations and other issuances, the Administrative Code
limits its authority to merely “monitoring compliance” by local government
units of such issuances.[27] To monitor means
“to watch, observe or check” and is compatible with the power of supervision of
the DILG Secretary over local governments, which is limited to checking whether
the local government unit concerned or the officers thereof perform their
duties as per statutory enactments.[28] Besides, any doubt
as to the power of the DILG Secretary to interfere with local affairs should be
resolved in favor of the greater autonomy of the local government.[29]
The public respondent
judge therefore committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction in not dismissing the respondent’s Petition for Review for
failure to exhaust all administrative remedies and for lack of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
GRANTED. The Order of the Regional
Trial Court dated June 22, 1999 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Petition for Review filed by the private
respondent docketed as SPL. PROC. NO. 1056 is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman),
Vitug, Panganiban, and Sandoval-Gutierrez,
JJ., concur.
[1] Penned by Judge Nelia Yap Fernandez.
[2] Secretary Robert Z. Barbers.
[3] RTC Order quoting Book IV, Title XII, Chapter
1, Sec. 3 (2) of the Administrative Code; Rollo, 84.
[4] “(3) Promulgate rules and regulations
necessary to carry out department objectives, policies, functions, plans,
programs and projects;”
[5] Rollo, 84-85.
[6] Order dated July 26, 1999; Rollo, 89.
[7] Memorandum for the Petitioner, 3; Rollo,
155.
[8] Petition, 7-12; Rollo, 10-15.
[9] Comment, 4-7; Rollo, 119-121.
[10] Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Comment,
3-5; Rollo, 126-128.
[11] Article II, par. 3.
[12] § 1, Article VIII, par. 1.2.2.
[13] See Whereas clauses, Memorandum Circular No.
97-193, August 11, 1997.
[14] § 4, Article X.
[15] Drilon vs. Lim 335 SCRA 135, 141
[1994].
[16] Ibid, 140-141.
[17]
200 SCRA 512.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Drilon vs. Lim Supra, 142.
[20] As a general rule, the creation of a local
government unit or its conversion from one level to another level shall be
based on verifiable indicators or viability and projected capacity to provide
services. These are income, population
and land area. See § 7, Local Government
Code, Republic Act No. 7160.
[21] Republic Act No. 7160.
[22] § 491, Local Government Code.
[23] § 492, Local Government Code.
[24] § 493, Local Government Code.
[25] Book III, Title VI, Local Government Code.
[26] § 507, Local Government Code.
[27] Taule vs. Santos, 200 SCRA 512, 523
[1991].
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.