Miranda v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
144760-61, 02 August 2017
Facts:
Sometime in August 1990, Nava, the Department of Education Culture and Sports (DECS) Region XI
Director, and his school superintendents met to discuss Allotment Advice No. B-2-0392-90-2-014
(Allotment Advice) issued by DECS-Manila on 21 June 1990. During the meeting, Nava and his school
superintendents agreed that the allotment, which was in the amount of P9.36 million and intended for
the nationalized high schools in the region, be sub-allotted instead to the divisions and be used to
procure science laboratory tools and devices (SLTDs). It was further agreed that the public bidding be
dispensed with because the procurement had to be undertaken before the end of calendar year 1990;
otherwise, the allotment would revert to the national fund.
On two separate occasions, the DECS Division of Davao Oriental (DECS- Davao Oriental) procured SLTDs
from D'Implacable Enterprises (D'Implacable), owned by Antonio S. Tan (Tan) with business address at
West Capitol Drive, Pasig, Metro Manila.
The DECS-Davao Oriental paid D'Implacable, whose sales representative was Miranda, using the
allotments intended as additional miscellaneous operating expenses for the twenty nationalized high
schools of Davao Oriental.
COA filled criminal cases because of the overpricing causing the government to lose P398,962.55.
Miranda filed for certiorari under Rule 65 (special civil action) after Sandigan Bayan dismissed her motion
to quash
ISSUE:
RULING:
No, that is not correct. The court held that Rule 65 as special civil action of certiorari will not lie unless
the aggrieved party has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
A recourse affording prompt relief from the injurious effects of the judgment or acts of a lower court or
tribunal is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" remedy. In the given case, Miranda claimed that
there was no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to her in the ordinary
course of law. She no longer sought from the Sandiganbayan a reconsideration of its ruling denying her
motion because her arraignment was already scheduled on 2 October 2000, thus, her prayer for
injunctive relief. The plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to Miranda, which she opted not to
avail of, was to file a motion for reconsideration so as to
afford the Sandiganbayan another chance to review any actual or conjured errors it may have committed
when it resolved her motion to quash. Therefore filling Rule 65 as a special civil action in this case is not
correct.
