GR 170312; (June, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170312. July 24, 2009.
PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE MANUEL B. GAITE, in his official capacity as Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs of the Office of the President, and the GAMES AND AMUSEMENT BOARD, represented herein by its Chairman, Eduardo R. Villanueva, Respondents.
FACTS
The Philippine Basketball Association (PBA) is an association of basketball clubs that conducts professional basketball games. Presidential Decree No. 871 placed professional basketball under the control of the Games and Amusement Board (GAB) and mandated the PBA to remit 3% of its gross receipts and income from television, radio, and motion pictures to the GAB. The PBA granted exclusive broadcast rights to Viva Vintage Sports, Inc. (VVSI). VVSI defaulted on its franchise fee payments to the PBA, affecting the PBA’s ability to remit the required 3% to the GAB. The GAB assessed the PBA for its 3% share based on the gross receipts earned from broadcasts, regardless of actual collection. The parties submitted the dispute to the Office of the President (OP), with the PBA depositing the assessed amount in escrow under a Memorandum of Agreement. The OP, through Deputy Executive Secretary Manuel B. Gaite, ruled in favor of the GAB, interpreting PD No. 871 to mean the 3% is based on income earned, not actually received. The PBA’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The PBA filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it for being an improper remedy. The PBA then filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the PBA’s petition for certiorari for being an improper remedy to challenge the decision of the Office of the President.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The proper remedy from a decision or resolution of the Office of the President, which is a quasi-judicial agency, is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The PBA incorrectly availed of certiorari despite the availability of appeal. The PBA’s argument that it chose certiorari due to urgency and the GAB’s attempt to release the escrow funds was unavailing, as it could have sought a provisional remedy. The existence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law precludes resort to certiorari. Having sustained the dismissal on procedural grounds, the Court found no reason to discuss the substantive issue regarding the interpretation of Section 8 of PD No. 871.