ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1996 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 91935 March 4, 1996 - RODOLFO QUIAMBAO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106043 March 4, 1996 - CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY LANDLESS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109645 March 4, 1996 - ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. TIRSO VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115365 March 4, 1996 - ESMENIO MADLOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118126 March 4, 1996 - TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-921 March 5, 1996 - AMPARO A. LACHICA v. ROLANDO A. FLORDELIZA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1009 March 5, 1996 - ALBERTO NALDOZA v. JUAN LAVILLES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 111501 March 5, 1996 - PHIL. FUJI XEROX CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 113930 March 5, 1996 - PAUL G. ROBERTS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115548 March 5, 1996 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1039 March 6, 1996 - FE ALBANO MADRID v. RAYMUNDO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. Nos. 112858-59 March 6, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RALPHY ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120193 March 6, 1996 - LUIS MALALUAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. CBD-174 March 7, 1996 - GIOVANI M. IGUAL v. ROLANDO S. JAVIER

  • G.R. No. 66555 March 7, 1996 - LEONCIO MEJARES, ET AL. v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 95353-54 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO PAT

  • G.R. No. 109390 March 7, 1996 - JGB and ASSOCIATES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112445 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS V. PATROLLA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 113710 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND V. JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116011 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RHODESA B. SILAN

  • G.R. No. 117650 March 7, 1996 - SULPICIO LINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120905 March 7, 1996 - RENATO U. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95260 March 8, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO C. PRADO

  • G.R. No. 110983 March 8, 1996 - REYNALDO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2024 March 11, 1996 - SALVADOR T. CASTILLO v. PABLO M. TAGUINES

  • G.R. No. 108625 March 11, 1996 - ALLIANCE OF DEMOCRATIC FREE LABOR ORGANIZATION v. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113194 March 11, 1996 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119381 March 11, 1996 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. JOSE BRILLANTES

  • G.R. No. 96882 March 12, 1996 - EUTIQUIANO PAGARA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109800 March 12, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO N. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 114388 March 12, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO TRILLES, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-4-156 March 13, 1996 - IN RE: FERNANDO P. AGDAMAG

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1344 March 13, 1996 - VERONICA GONZALES v. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

  • G.R. No. 101332 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARO BERNAL

  • G.R. No. 101699 March 13, 1996 - BENJAMIN A. SANTOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104088-89 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE JAIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 108743 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNALDO B. DONES

  • G.R. No. 112193 March 13, 1996 - JOSE E. ARUEGO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112546 March 13, 1996 - NORTH DAVAO MINING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119073 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 120223 March 13, 1996 - RAMON Y. ALBA v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101070 March 14, 1996 - BALAYAN COLLEGES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102062 March 14, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104685 March 14, 1996 - SABENA BELGIAN WORLD AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119706 March 14, 1996 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73592 March 15, 1996 - JOSE CUENCO BORROMEO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94494 March 15, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO C. LAPURA

  • G.R. No. 103695 March 15, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105819 March 15, 1996 - MARILYN L. BERNARDO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106229-30 March 15, 1996 - LEOVIGILDO ROSALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108001 March 15, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111651 March 15, 1996 - OSMALIK S. BUSTAMANTE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115106 March 15, 1996 - ROBERTO L. DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114988 March 18, 1996 - CATALINO BONTIA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 117667 March 18, 1996 - INLAND TRAILWAYS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-5-42-MTC March 20, 1996 - QUERY OF JUDGE DANILO M. TENERIFE

  • G.R. No. 102360 March 20, 1996 - ROSITA DOMINGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111656 March 20, 1996 - MANUEL MANAHAN, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116665 March 20, 1996 - MELQUIADES D. AZCUNA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-1-07-RTC March 21, 1996 - JDF ANOMALY IN THE RTC OF LIGAO, ALBAY

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-10-06-SCC March 27, 1996 - IN RE: DEMASIRA M. BAUTE

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1071 March 28, 1996 - ELIZABETH ASUMBRADO v. FRANCISCO R. MACUNO

  • G.R. No. 104386 March 28, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR L. LEVISTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121424 March 28, 1996 - IN RE: MAURO P. MAGTIBAY v. VICENTE VINARAO

  • G.R. No. 90215 March 29, 1996 - ERNESTO ZALDARRIAGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94594 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO REDULOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96178-79 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ESMAQUILAN

  • G.R. No. 97785 March 29, 1996 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 99259-60 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO D. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 103525 March 29, 1996 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104296 March 29, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 106083-84 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUINTIN T. GARRAEZ

  • G.R. No. 106600 March 29, 1996 - COSMOS BOTTLING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109312 March 29, 1996 - PLACIDO MIRANDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109614-15 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRONICO GREGORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112346 March 29, 1996 - EVELYN YONAHA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112457-58 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO CARTUANO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112678 March 29, 1996 - EDUARDO M . ESPEJO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112708-09 March 29, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112718 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VLADIMIR L. CANUZO

  • G.R. Nos. 113519-20 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO F. PANLILIO

  • G.R. Nos. 114263-64 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN JENN PORRAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115988 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO V. LIAN

  • G.R. No. 116734 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY B. LAURENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116792 March 29, 1996 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117055 March 29, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 117618 March 29, 1996 - VIRGINIA MALINAO v. LUISITO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118509 March 29, 1996 - LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118870 March 29, 1996 - NERISSA Z. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119193 March 29, 1996 - NEMENCIO GALVEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120715 March 29, 1996 - FERNANDO R. SAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121527 March 29, 1996 - MARCELO L. ONGSITCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 117618   March 29, 1996 - VIRGINIA MALINAO v. LUISITO REYES, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 117618. March 29, 1996.]

    VIRGINIA MALINAO, Petitioner, v. HON. LUISITO REYES, in his capacity as Governor of the Province of Marinduque, SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF MARINDUQUE and WILFREDO RED, in his capacity as Mayor of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, Respondents.

    De Castro & Cagampang Law Offices for Petitioner.

    Isagani L. Cruz, Jr. for respondent Wilfredo R. Red.


    SYLLABUS


    1. POLITICAL LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE; ELECTIVE OFFICIALS; DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS; FORM AND NOTICE OF DECISION; REQUIREMENT THAT THE DECISION OF THE SANGGUNIAN MUST BE IN WRITING STATING CLEARLY AND DISTINCTLY THE FACTS AND THE REASON FOR SUCH DECISION; NOT COMPLIED WITH IN CASE AT BAR. — In order to render a decision in administrative cases involving elective local officials, the decision of the Sanggunian must thus be "in writing stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the reasons for such decision." What the Sanggunian, therefore, did on August 12, 1994 was not to render a decision. Neither may the so-called "Decision" prepared by Sanggunian Member Rodrigo V. Sotto on September 5, 1994 be regarded as the decision of the Sanggunian for lack of the signatures of the requisite majority. Like the procedure in the Supreme Court, the voting following the deliberation of the members of the Sanggunian did not necessarily constitute their decision unless this was embodied in an opinion prepared by one of them and concurred in by the others, in the same way that the voting following the deliberation on a case in the Supreme Court becomes its decision only after the opinion prepared by a Justice is concurred in by others composing the majority. Until they have signed the opinion and the decision is promulgated, the Justices are free to change their votes. Indeed, in his comment in this case, Member Sotto admits that the draft decision he prepared had only his signature "due to the reluctance of some Kagawads to affix their signatures." Consequently the draft never became a decision. It is noteworthy that the draft was signed by Member Sotto in his capacity as "Presiding Chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan" and that it did not provide spaces for the signatures of other members of the Sanggunian had it been intended that it be signed by them. This fact led the DILG to conclude that the draft was simply the report and recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Committee to the Sanggunian. Now, as already stated, the Sanggunian, at its session on October 21, 1994, took another vote and, 7 to 2, decided to dismiss the case against respondent Mayor. This time its decision was made in writing, stating the facts and the law on which it was based, and it was signed by the members taking part in the decision. This, and not the so-called decision of September 5, 1994, is the decision of the Sanggunian.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EXPIRATION OF ELECTIVE OFFICIAL’S TERM OF OFFICE RENDERS THE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE FILED AGAINST HIM FOR ACTS COMMITTED DURING SUCH TERM MOOT AND ACADEMIC. — At all events, this case is now moot and academic as a result of the expiration of respondent’s term during which the act complained of was allegedly committed, and further proceedings against respondent Mayor are barred by his reelection on May 8, 1995.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REELECTION OF ELECTIVE OFFICIAL RESULTS IN A CONDONATION OF WHATEVER MISCONDUCT HE MIGHT HAVE COMMITTED DURING HIS PREVIOUS TERM. — Any administrative disciplinary proceeding against respondent is abated if in the meantime he is reelected, because his reelection results in a condonation of whatever misconduct he might have committed during his previous term.

    4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DECISION OF THE SANGGUNIAN PANLALAWIGAN APPEALABLE TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. — A prime specification of the writ of certiorari, however, is that there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law available to petitioner. But, in the case at bar, petitioner could have appealed the decision of the Sanggunian to the Office of the President as provided in 67 (b) of the Local Government Code.


    D E C I S I O N


    MENDOZA, J.:


    This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus to annul the decision dated October 21, 1994 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Marinduque, dismissing the administrative case filed by petitioner against respondent Mayor Wilfredo Red of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. The ground for the present petition is that the same body already found respondent Mayor guilty of abuse of authority in removing petitioner from her post as Human Resource Manager without due process in another decision which is now final and executory.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    The facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Petitioner Virginia Malinao is Human Resource Manager III of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. Respondent Mayor filed a case against her in the Office of the Ombudsman for gross neglect of duty, inefficiency and incompetence. While the case was pending, he appointed a replacement for Petitioner.

    On February 24, 1994 petitioner filed an administrative case, docketed as Administrative Case No. 93-03, against respondent Mayor in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Marinduque, charging him with abuse of authority and denial of due process.

    On August 12, 1994, the case was taken up in executive session of the Sanggunian. The transcript of stenographic notes of the session 1 shows that the Sanggunian, by the vote of 5 to 3 of its members, found respondent Mayor guilty of the charge and imposed on him the penalty of one-month suspension,

    The result of the voting was subsequently embodied in a "Decision" dated September 5, 1994, 2 signed by only one member of the Sanggunian, Rodrigo V. Sotto, who did so as "Presiding Chairman, Blue Ribbon Committee, Sangguniang Panlalawigan." Copies of the "Decision" were served on respondent Mayor Red as well as on respondent Governor Luisito Reyes on September 12, 1994.

    On September 14, 1994, respondent Mayor filed a manifestation 3 before the Sanggunian, questioning the "Decision" on the ground that it was signed by Sotto alone, "apparently acting in his capacity and designated as ‘Presiding Chairman, Blue Ribbon Committee, Sangguniang Panlalawigan.’" He contended that because of this the decision could only be considered as a recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Committee and he was not bound thereby.

    On September 13, 1994, respondent Mayor sought the opinion of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government regarding the validity of the "Decision."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In his letter dated September 14, 1994, 4 DILG Secretary Rafael M. Alunan III opined that the" ‘decision’ alluded to does not appear to be in accordance with Section 66 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and settled jurisprudence" since

    in the instant case, the purported decision of the Blue Ribbon Committee should have been submitted to, approved and/or adopted by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan as a collegial body inasmuch as the Sangguniang Panlalawigan has the administrative jurisdiction to take cognizance thereof in conformity with Section 61 and Section 66 of the Code. It is not for the said committee to decide on the merits thereof, more so to impose the suspension, as its duty and function is purely recommendatory. If it were at all the intention of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to adopt entirely the recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Committee, it should have so stated and the members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, who may have affirmatively voted thereon or participated in its deliberations, should have affixed their respective signatures on whatever decision that could have been arrived at. . . .

    On the other hand petitioner sent a letter 5 on October 14, 1994 to respondent Governor Reyes, demanding that the "Decision" suspending respondent Mayor from office be implemented without further delay.

    In his letter dated October 20, 1994, 6 respondent Governor informed the Sanggunian that he agreed with the opinion of the DILG for which reason he could not implement the "Decision" in question.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

    On October 21, 1994, 7 the Sanggunian, voting 7 to 2, acquitted respondent Mayor of the charges against him. The vote was embodied in a Decision of the same date, which was signed by all members who had thus voted. 8

    Hence this petition.

    I. Petitioner’s basic contention is that inasmuch as the "Decision" of September 5, 1994 had become final and executory, for failure of respondent Mayor to appeal, it was beyond the power of the Sanggunian to render another decision on October 21, 1994 which in effect reversed the first decision.

    These contentions are without merit. What petitioner claims to be the September 5, 1994 "Decision" of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan bore the signature of only one member (Rodrigo V. Sotto) who signed the "Decision" as "Presiding Chairman, Blue Ribbon Committee, Sangguniang Panlalawigan." Petitioner claims that at its session on August 12, 1994, the Sanggunian by the vote of five members against three found respondent Mayor guilty of having removed petitioner as Human Resources Officer III without due process and that this fact is shown in the minutes of the session of the Sanggunian. The minutes referred to read in pertinent part as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    KGD. SOTTO — No if he [respondent Mayor] is acquitted, then let’s acquit it. Whatever is the decision everybody goes to the majority.

    (There was nominal voting from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan member. For NOT GUILTY OR GUILTY)

    KGD. ZOLETA — I vote not guilty.

    KGD. MUHI — Guilty.

    KGD. LIM — Not guilty.

    KGD. RAZA — First I would like to say that I will decide on the merit of the case. The fact that the Civil Service ordered the reinstatement wherein Virginia Molinao is included, only means that the Supreme Court duly constituted has found the merit of the decision of the Civil Service.

    I vote that the Mayor is guilty.

    KGD. PINAROC — Guilty.

    KGD. DE LUNA — Guilty, there is no due process and to protect the integrity of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

    KGD. LAGRAN — Guilty.

    KGD. ZOLETA — My reason for voting "not guilty" is that the mayor acted in good faith, he just followed the order of the reorganization recommended by the Placement Committee.

    KGD. REJANO — The order of the reorganization was given by the Civil Service Commission and based on the contention made by Kgd. Palamos that since there should be reorganization to be conducted by the Civil Service Commission the mayor was supposed to go on with that reorganization and based on the reorganization there should be a screening committee to check whether the employees are really working efficiently. Based on the case that has been given to Mrs. Malinao, based on the witnesses, Ligeralde, Monterozo and Pastrana and then decided that Mayor Red has done in good faith.

    So I vote Not Guilty.

    Five (5) voted GUILTY:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Kgd. Muhi

    Kgd. Raza

    Kgd. Pinaroc

    Kgd. Lagran

    Kgd. De Luna

    Three (3) voted NOT GUILTY:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Kgd. Rejano

    Kgd. Zoleta

    Kgd. Lim

    KGD. SOTTO — Punishment . . .

    Censure? Reprimand? Suspension?

    KGD. LAGRAN — I suggest that only those who voted "guilty" should vote as to what punishment should be given.

    KGD. LIM — All the members should given the right to vote.

    (THE VOTING PROCEEDED.)

    Kgd. Muhi — Suspension

    Kgd. Raza — Suspension

    Kgd. Pinaroc — Suspension

    Kgd. Lagran — Suspension

    Kgd. de Luna — Suspension

    KGD. ZOLETA — Since we voted "not guilty" therefore "no punishment.’

    KGD. REJANO — "No punishment"

    KGD. LIM — "No punishment"

    KGD. SOTTO — How many months?

    KGD. MUHI — One month.

    KGD. RAZA — One month.

    KGD. PINAROC — One month.

    KGD. LAGRAN — One month.

    KGD. DE LUNA — One month.

    KGD SOTTO — Be it on record that on August 12, 1994 during the Executive Session of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan en banc the respondent is hereby found "guilty."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Effective upon receipt of the Decision, copy furnished: the counsel for Respondent, the Counsel for Complainant, the Municipal Treasurer, Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, the — Provincial Auditor, the Civil Service Commission, Boac, Marinduque, the DILG, Boac, Marinduque, the Provincial Governor.

    Contrary to petitioner’s claim, what the minutes only show is that on August 12, 1994 the Sanggunian took a vote on the administrative case of respondent Mayor and not that it then rendered a decision as required by 66(a) of the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) which provides as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    66. Form and Notice of Decision. — (a) The investigation of the case shall be terminated within ninety (90) days from the start thereof. Within thirty (30) days after the end of the investigation, the Office of the President or the sanggunian concerned shall render a decision in writing stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the reasons for such decision. Copies of said decision shall immediately be furnished the respondent and all interested parties.

    In order to render a decision in administrative cases involving elective local officials, the decision of the Sanggunian must thus be "in writing stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the reasons for such decision." What the Sanggunian, therefore, did on August 12, 1994 was not to render a decision.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

    Neither may the so-called "Decision" prepared by Sanggunian Member Rodrigo V. Sotto on September 5, 1994 be regarded as the decision of the Sanggunian for lack of the signatures of the requisite majority. Like the procedure in the Supreme Court, the voting following the deliberation of the members of the Sanggunian did not necessarily constitute their decision unless this was embodied in an opinion prepared by one of them and concurred in by the others, in the same way that the voting following the deliberation on a case in the Supreme Court becomes its decision only after the opinion prepared by a Justice is concurred in by others composing the majority. until they have signed the opinion and the decision is promulgated, the Justices are free to change their votes. 9

    Indeed, in his comment 10 in this case, Member Sotto admits that the draft decision he prepared had only his signature "due to the reluctance of some Kagawads to affix their signatures." Consequently the draft never became a decision. It is noteworthy that the draft was signed by Member Sotto in his capacity as "Presiding Chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan" and that it did not provide spaces for the signatures of other members of the Sanggunian had it been intended that it be signed by them. This act led the DILG to conclude that the draft was simply the report and recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Committee to the Sanggunian.

    Now, as already stated, the Sanggunian, at its session on October 21, 1994, took another vote and, 7 to 2, decided to dismiss the case against respondent Mayor, This time its decision was made in writing, stating the facts and the law on which it was based, and it was signed by the members taking part in the decision. This, and not the so-called decision of September 5, 1994, is the decision of the Sanggunian.

    Petitioner complains that no notice of the session by the Sanggunian on October 21, 1994 was given to her. None was really required to be given to her. The deliberation of the Sanggunian was an internal matter.

    II. Petitioner brought this case by way of Petition for certiorari and mandamus. A prime specification of the writ of certiorari, however, is that there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law available to petitioner. But, in the case at bar, petitioner could have appealed the decision of the Sanggunian to the Office of the President as provided in 67(b) of the Local Government Code.

    III. At all events, this case is now moot and academic as a result of the expiration of respondent’s term during which the act complained of was allegedly committed, and further proceedings against respondent Mayor are barred by his reelection on May 8, 1995.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

    Pursuant to 66(b) of the Code, the penalty of suspension cannot exceed the unexpired term of the respondent or a period of six (6) months for every administrative offense. On the other hand, any administrative disciplinary proceeding against respondent is abated if in the meantime he is reelected, because his reelection results in a condonation of whatever misconduct he might have committed during his previous term. 11

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr. and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Torres, Jr., is on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Petition, Annex B, Rollo, pp. 21-29. Vice Governor Rosa E. Lecaroz, as presiding officer of the Sanggunian, inhibited herself on the ground that her husband was petitioner’s counsel. Accordingly, Rodrigo V. Sotto, as the most senior member of the Sanggunian, presided. Five members of the Sanggunian, namely, Romeo M. Muhi, Eleuterio R. Raza, Jr., Florentino B. Pinaroc, Baron L. Lagran, and Bonifacio R. de Luna, voted to find the Mayor "Guilty," while three members, namely Teodorito J. Rejano, Cesaria G. Zoleta, and Augusto M. Lim, Sr., voted "Not Guilty."cralaw virtua1aw library

    2. Petition, Annex A, Rollo, pp. 17-20.

    3. Petition, Annex G-1, Rollo, pp. 39-41.

    4. Petition, Annex G, Rollo, pp. 35-38.

    5. Petition, Annex C, Rollo, pp. 30-31.

    6. Petition, Annex G-2, Rollo, p. 42.

    7. Petition, Annex I, Rollo, pp. 48-55.

    8. Comment of Governor Reyes, Annex 1, Rollo, pp. 156-159, Comment of Sanggunian member Sotto, Annex 2, Rollo, pp. 227- 230. Sanggunian members Teodorito J. Rejano, Cesaria G. Zoleta, Norma J. Ricohermoso, Juan Maximo Lim, Florentino B. Pinaroc, Eleuterio R. Raza, Jr., and Baron L. Lagran voted to dismiss the case, while members Romeo M. Muhi and Bonifacio R. de Luna dissented. Member Rodrigo V. Sotto, who signed the decision of September 5, 1994, did not vote. Sanggunian member Pinaroc, Raza, Jr. and Lagran changed their earlier vote of "Guilty" to "Not Guilty."cralaw virtua1aw library

    9. See, e.g., Misolas v. Panga, 181 SCRA 648, 663 (1990) (Sarmiento, J.’s dissent).

    10. Rollo, pp. 220-222.

    11. Aguinaldo v. COMELEC, res., G.R. Nos. 105128-30, June 9, 1992; Aguinaldo v. Santos, 212 SCRA 768 (1992). Cf. Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120905 and Garcia v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120940, March 7, 1996.

    G.R. No. 117618   March 29, 1996 - VIRGINIA MALINAO v. LUISITO REYES, ET AL.




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED