FRANCISCO I.
CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY and AMARI COASTAL BAY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents. [G.R. No. 133250. July 9, 2002].
“x x x.
Third issue: whether the petition merits dismissal
for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
PEA faults petitioner for seeking judicial
intervention in compelling PEA to disclose publicly certain information without
first asking PEA the needed information. PEA claims petitioners direct resort
to the Court violates the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
It also violates the rule that mandamus may issue only if there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
PEA distinguishes the instant case from Taada v.
Tuvera[i] where the Court granted the petition for mandamus
even if the petitioners there did not initially demand from the Office of the
President the publication of the presidential decrees. PEA points out that in Taada,
the Executive Department had an affirmative statutory duty under
Article 2 of the Civil Code[ii] and Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 638[iii] to publish the presidential decrees. There was, therefore, no need for
the petitioners in Taada to make an initial demand from the Office of
the President. In the instant case, PEA claims it has no affirmative statutory
duty to disclose publicly information about its renegotiation of the JVA. Thus,
PEA asserts that the Court must apply the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies to the instant case in view of the failure of petitioner
here to demand initially from PEA the needed information.
The original JVA sought to dispose to AMARI public
lands held by PEA, a government corporation. Under Section 79 of the Government
Auditing Code,[iv]2 the disposition of government lands to private
parties requires public bidding. PEA was under a positive legal duty to
disclose to the public the terms and conditions for the sale of its lands.
The law obligated PEA to make this public disclosure even without demand from
petitioner or from anyone. PEA failed to make this public disclosure because
the original JVA, like the Amended JVA, was the result of a negotiated
contract, not of a public bidding. Considering that PEA had an
affirmative statutory duty to make the public disclosure, and was even in
breach of this legal duty, petitioner had the right to seek direct judicial
intervention.
Moreover, and this alone is determinative of this
issue, the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies does not apply when the issue involved is a purely
legal or constitutional question.[v] The principal issue in the instant case is the capacity of AMARI to
acquire lands held by PEA in view of the constitutional ban prohibiting the
alienation of lands of the public domain to private corporations. We rule that
the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply in the
instant case.
X x x.”
[ii]
Article 2 of the Civil
Code (prior to its amendment by EO No. 200) provided as follows: Laws shall
take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in
the Official Gazette, unless it is provided otherwise, x x x.
[iii]
Section 1 of CA No. 638
provides as follows: There shall be published in the Official Gazette all
important legislative acts and resolutions of the Congress of the Philippines;
all executive and administrative orders and proclamations, except such as have no
general applicability; x x x.
[iv]
Section 79 of the
Government Auditing Codes provides as follows: When government property
has become unserviceable for any cause, or is no longer needed,
it shall, upon application of the officer accountable therefor, be inspected by
the head of the agency or his duly authorized representative in the presence of
the auditor concerned and, if found to be valueless or unsaleable, it may be
destroyed in their presence. If found to be valuable, it may be sold at
public auction to the highest bidder under the supervision of the
proper committee on award or similar body in the presence of the auditor
concerned or other authorized representative of the Commission, after
advertising by printed notice in the Official Gazette, or for not less than
three consecutive days in any newspaper of general circulation, or
where the value of the property does not warrant the expense of publication, by
notices posted for a like period in at least three public places in the
locality where the property is to be sold. In the event that the public
auction fails, the property may be sold at a private sale at such price as may
be fixed by the same committee or body concerned and approved by the Commission.
[v]
Paat v. Court of
Appeals, 266 SCRA 167 (1997); Quisumbing v. Judge Gumban, 193 SCRA 520
(1991); Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., 170 SCRA 256 (1989).
