G.R. No. L-20368; February 28, 1964
Crispin Bongcawil, petitioner, vs. The Provincial Board of Lanao del Norte, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Crispin Bongcawil, Mayor of Maigo, Lanao del Norte, faced an administrative complaint filed on March 7, 1960, leading to his 30-day suspension. After hearings, the provincial board members individually prepared opinions, with two favoring exoneration and one favoring conviction. Petitioner received copies, and no appeal was filed by the complainant. However, nearly two years later, on September 7, 1962, a newly constituted provincial board—following the vacancies created after two original members launched congressional candidacies—adopted a decision drafted by the former Vice-Governor, which found petitioner guilty and recommended his dismissal. Petitioner was again suspended pending the decision’s finality.
Respondents asserted that the original board had designated the Vice-Governor to draft a decision, but formal board action was suspended due to the members’ candidacies and subsequent vacancies. The newly appointed board members then convened, studied the evidence and the draft, and unanimously adopted it as the board’s final decision on September 7, 1962. Petitioner received this decision but did not appeal to the Office of the President, instead filing this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari is proper to challenge the provincial board’s resolution dismissing petitioner from office.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court ruled that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, a prerequisite for judicial intervention. Under Section 2190 of the Revised Administrative Code, an appeal to the Office of the President was available, but petitioner did not pursue it. This failure alone warranted dismissal of the certiorari action.
On the merits, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the provincial board. The individual opinions prepared earlier did not constitute a final, collective board decision. A deliberative body like the provincial board must formally adopt a resolution for a decision to be binding. Here, no such resolution was passed by the original board before the vacancies occurred. The subsequent resolution of September 7, 1962, adopted by the properly constituted board after reviewing the record and the draft, was its first and only official action. Therefore, the board acted within its authority. Petitioner’s remedy was an administrative appeal, not a direct judicial challenge.