UDK-15023. January 20, 2014

THIRD DIVISION [ UDK-15023, January 20, 2014 ] RODOLFO JURILLA, ET AL., PERSONS WITH DISABILITY CHAPTER PRESIDENT V. DSWD ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 59, SERIES OF 2003 AND APPLICATION OF R.A. 7160 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1)
the Letter, dated December 9, 2013, of Rodolfo A. Jurilla, Persons with Disability Access Organization Chapter President, addressed to the Honorable Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, requesting the assignment of the "petition complaint" to the proper forum in advancement of the quest for justice of disabled persons; and
(2)
the Letter, dated January 7, 2014, of Atty. Ma. Lourdes EB Oliveros, Chief Justice Staff Head, Office of the Chief Justice, referring said letter of Rodolfo A. Jurilla to the Judicial Records Office, this Court, for appropriate action.
Before the Court is a petition-complaint[1] for mandamus and prohibition filed by Rodolfo Jurilla (Jurilla) against the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) for the enforcement of DSWD Order No. 59, Series of 2003, and Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code.

In February 2012, Jurilla, President of Persons with Disability, Davao City Chapter, wrote a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ), requesting for the liberal interpretation of R.A. No. 7277, as amended by R.A. No. 9442, otherwise known as the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, and asking from various government agencies for the construction of a rehabilitation center for persons with disabilities (PWDs) in Davao City.The said letter was forwarded by the DOJ to the DSWD. The DSWD replied to Jurilla explaining that projects and programs of the DSWD for various sectors and beneficiaries were implemented through planning and specific funding and that the most basic social services including those for PWDs had been devolved to local government units (LGUs) pursuant to DSWD Administrative Order No. 59, Series of 2003. The DSWD further explained that it was coordinating with the LGU on various services and programs for PWDs. It, however, denied his request for the construction of the rehabilitation center.

Hence, Jurilla is now before the Court praying that the government abide by its obligation and accountability to PWDs by enforcing the provision of R.A. No. 7277 and R.A. No. 9442; cause the construction of a rehabilitation center for PWDs in Barangay Matina Pangi, Davao City; and order the DSWD to implement the distribution of PWD identification cards.

The Court resolves to dismiss the petition-complaint, primarily for being defective in form and substance.

It is also fatally defective for failure of the petitioner-complainant to pay the required docket fee. The payment of the docket fees is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement; it is a condition sine qua non for the appeal to be perfected that enables the court to acquire jurisdiction over the case.[2] He likewise failed to attach the required verification and certification on non-forum shopping pursuant to Sections 3 and 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the petitioner-complainant failed to present an actual case or controversy susceptible of judicial resolution, one that is definite, concrete, real or substantial controversy that touches on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.[3]

While the Court commiserates with the plight of the petitioner-complainant and all PWDs, the Court, however, is powerless to grant his prayers. The responsibility and function of delivering social and health care services have indeed been devolved to the LGU pursuant to R.A. No. 7160. This requires Davao City to allocate funds for the purpose, a legislative act that cannot be compelled by mandamus absent a clear duty to do so.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The petitioner is advised to seek the services of a counsel and, if he could not afford one, a lawyer of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANO

Division Clerk of Court

[1] Rollo, pp. 4-5.[2] Julian v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 174193, December 7, 2011, 661 SCRA 745.

[3] Pormento v. Estrada, G.R. No. 191988, August 31, 2010, 629 SCRA 530.