Mejorado v. Department of Finance

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 243324. February 4, 2019.]

FELICITO M. MEJORADO, petitioner,vs. THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY CARLOS G. DOMINGUEZ, THE 2017 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE COMMITTEE ON REWARDS REPRESENTED BY: ANTOINETTE C. TIONKO, AS CHAIRMAN (UNDERSECRETARY, REVENUE OPERATIONS GROUP); BAYANI H. AGABIN, AS VICE CHAIRMAN (UNDERSECRETARY, DOMESTIC FINANCE GROUP); GIL S. BELTRAN, AS MEMBER (UNDERSECRETARY, POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES GROUP), MA. TERESA S. HABUTAN, AS MEMBER (ASSISTANT SECRETARY, CORPORATE AFFAIRS GROUP); HELENA B. HABULAN, AS MEMBER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR III, MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT FUND OFFICE); AND JESUS NATHANIEL MARTIN B. GONZALEZ, AS HEAD OF SECRETARIAT (DIRECTOR, LEGAL AFFAIRS OFFICE), ET AL., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 4, 2019 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 243324 — Felicito M. Mejorado vs. The Department of Finance, represented by Secretary Carlos G. Dominguez, The 2017 Department of Finance Committee on Rewards represented by: Antoinette C. Tionko, as Chairman (Undersecretary, Revenue Operations Group); Bayani H. Agabin, as Vice Chairman (Undersecretary, Domestic Finance Group); Gil S. Beltran, as member (Undersecretary, Policy Development and Management Services Group), Ma. Teresa S. Habutan, as member (Assistant Secretary, Corporate Affairs Group); Helena B. Habulan, as member (Executive Director III, Municipal Development Fund Office); and Jesus Nathaniel Martin B. Gonzalez, as Head of Secretariat (Director, Legal Affairs Office), et al.

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS outright the instant petition. Records reveal that the petition was filed without exhausting all administrative remedies available to petitioner Felicito M. Mejorado (Mejorado).

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that a party aggrieved by an order of an administrative official should first appeal to the higher administrative authority before seeking judicial relief. 1 As such, the petition is dismissed for being premature.

Since Mejorado did not pursue the administrative remedies available to him, his petition for certiorari and mandamus cannot prosper. The availability of the remedy of appealing the assailed decision to the Office of the President (OP) effectively proscribes the right to resort to a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus because one of the requirements to avail of these remedies is that there be no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Mejorado committed a fatal error when he proceeded directly to the Court and questioned the Decision and, later on, the Resolution of the Department of Finance-Committee on Rewards (DOF-COR) — issued by the authority of the Secretary of Finance — which should have been appealed to the OP. The President's power of review emanates from his power of control over the executive departments, bureaus, and offices enshrined under Section 17 of Article VII of the Constitution.

In addition, the instant petition for mandamus has been rendered moot and academic due to the issuance of DOF-COR's Decision and Resolution settling the substantive aspect of Mejorado's claim, the determination of his legal right to his second claim for informer's reward.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.

The petitioner's supplement to petition for certiorari and mandamus (with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order) is NOTED.

SO ORDERED." Del Castillo, J., official on leave; Jardeleza, J., designated as Acting Working Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2636 dated January 31, 2019.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.National Electrification Administration v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 168203, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 659.