G.R. No. L-14047; January 30, 1960
PRIMO PANTI, ET AL., petitioners. PRIMO PANTI, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CATANDUANES, ETC., and THE HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

On September 4, 1957, the Governor of Catanduanes lodged administrative charges against Mayor Primo Panti and other officials of Virac. Mayor Panti was suspended on September 6. After several postponements due to the respondents’ absence, the Provincial Board, on October 21, found the charges substantiated and recommended their dismissal. The case was forwarded to the Executive Secretary. Meanwhile, Mayor Panti filed petitions before the Court of First Instance (CFI) challenging the suspension. The CFI dismissed his petition, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court. On February 28, 1958, the Executive Secretary ordered a re-hearing of the charges, with a warning that no postponements would be entertained. The Provincial Board set the re-hearing for March 21, 1958. Mayor Panti claimed he received notice only on the afternoon of March 20. At the hearing, he requested a postponement to secure counsel and witnesses, which the Board denied, allowing them until March 25 to proceed. On March 25, appearing without counsel, Mayor Panti again moved for postponement. The Board denied the motion. Mayor Panti then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the CFI against the Provincial Board and the Executive Secretary, alleging grave abuse of discretion in denying the postponement. The CFI dismissed the petition for being insufficient in substance. Mayor Panti appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus challenging the Provincial Board’s denial of a motion for postponement of the administrative re-hearing.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The matter of adjournments and postponements is generally within the discretion of the hearing tribunal. Such discretion will not be interfered with via mandamus or certiorari unless a grave abuse is shown. Given the Executive Secretary’s explicit instruction that no further postponements be entertained during the re-hearing, the petition failed to make out a case for grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies applies. Recourse to courts cannot be had until all administrative remedies are exhausted. The lower court correctly held that the order denying the postponement could be corrected by the Executive Secretary, to whom an appeal could be made. The appellant’s own petition showed that the Executive Secretary had previously granted relief by ordering a re-hearing. Therefore, the petition was properly dismissed.