CARANDANG, J.:
WHEREFORE, the complaint for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Grave Abuse of Authority, Serious (sic) Dishonesty, and Grave Misconduct against respondents Dennis H. Dino, Rodosendo A. Razo, Jr., Sonia G. Revilla, Liza L. Hollon, Carmencita S. Morata, Orencio C. Luzuriaga is dismissed for lack of merit.De Castro sought reconsideration, arguing inter alia that the administrative complaint should have been dismissed because of the condonation doctrine.
Judgment is likewise rendered finding respondents Helen C. de Castro and Toby C. Gonzales, Jr. guilty of Grave Misconduct. They are hereby meted the penalty of dismissal from the service with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualifications (sic) from holding public office and bar from taking civil service examination pursuant to Section 10, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 07, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, in relation to Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6770.
In the event however, that the penalty of Dismissal can no longer be enforced due to respondents' separation from service, the penalty shall be conve1ied into a Fine in an amount equivalent to respondents' respective salary for one (1) year, payable to the Office of the Ombudsman, and may be deductible from respondents' retirement benefits, accrued leave credits or any receivable from their office.
The Honorable Secretary of Interior and Local Government is hereby directed to implement this Decision immediately upon receipt thereof pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, as Amended (sic) by Administrative Order No. 17 (Ombudsman Rules Procedure) in relation to Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2006 dated 11 April 2006 and to promptly inform this Office of the action taken hereon.
SO ORDERED.[8] (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the 12 February 2015 Decision and 28 February 2017 Consolidated Order issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-LA-13-0006 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The administrative complaint against Helen C. De Castro is DISMISSED. Toby C. Gonzales, Jr. is found ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE for Simple Misconduct and is meted the penalty of suspension of six (6) months without pay.The CA held that even if the case was instituted prior to the ruling of the Court in Carpio-Morales, the doctrine of condonation may still be applied. Records show that Valeriano filed the administrative complaint against De Castro on December 17, 2012 for acts she supposedly committed in 2007-2008 during her second term ending in 2010. She was re-elected for a third term from 2010-2013 by the same electorate who voted for her when the alleged violations were committed. Thus, the CA concluded that the OMB should have dismissed the administrative case against her, her re-election having operated as a condonation of the alleged misconduct committed during her second term.
SO ORDERED.[18] (Emphasis in the original)
De Castro timely filed a Petition for Review pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules. |
Section 4. Period of appeal. - The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.In this case, the copy of the assailed decision of the OMB was received by De Castro on June 28, 2017, giving her until July 13, 2017 to file her petition. Therefore, De Castro timely filed her Petition for Review on July 12, 2017.
De Castro is not guilty of forum shopping. |
x x x (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers (splitting causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).[31]In the case of International School, Inc. (Manila) v. Court of Appeals,[32] the Court held that reliance on the principle of forum shopping was misplaced. The Court explained that:
While there is an identity of parties in the appeal and in the petition for review on certiorari filed before this Court, it is clear that the causes of action and reliefs sought are unidentical, although petitioner ISM may have mentioned in its appeal the impropriety of the writ of execution pending appeal under the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar. Clearly, there can be no forum-shopping where in one petition a party questions the order granting the motion for execution pending appeal, as in the case at bar, and, in a regular appeal before the appellate court, the party questions the decision on the merits which finds the party guilty of negligence and holds the same liable for damages therefor. After all, the merits of the main case are not to be determined in a petition questioning execution pending appeal and vice versa.[33] (Emphasis supplied; citation omitted)De Castro did not commit forum shopping. While the Petition for Review (docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 151586 & CA-G.R. SP No. 151771) and the Petition for Certiorari and Injunction (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 148348) both questioned the OMB's decision in the same administrative case and involved the same parties, it must be pointed out that the former petition was a mode of appeal under Rule 43. In contrast, the latter petition is an initiatory pleading and the ruling of the CA is not a judgment on the merits that would bar De Castro from appealing the subsequent Consolidated Order of the OMB in the administrative case.
It was imperative, therefore, on the part of the appellate court, as soon as it was apprised of the said considerable grounds, to issue an injunctive relief so as not to render moot, nugatory and ineffectual the resolution of the issues in the certiorari petition. An injunctive relief is not intended to determine a controverted right, but is calculated to prevent a further perpetration of wrong or the doing of any act whereby the right in controversy may be materially injured or endangered, until a full and deliberate investigation of the case is afforded to the party.Based on the foregoing, the CA should have determined whether the injunctive relief should be granted due to the extreme urgency of the situation affecting public interest. Since it involved the dismissal of an elected official, the failure to resolve the injunctive relief prayed for has serious repercussions to the delivery of services to De Castro's constituents. When the CA refused to act on her prayer for injunctive relief due to her pending Motion for Reconsideration, the CA inevitably foreclosed the remedy she was praying for. The decision of the OMB in the administrative case is immediately effective and executory[36] and waiting for the resolution of her Motion for Reconsideration would mean her immediate dismissal during the interim.
In this case, for the CA to defer action on petitioners' application for an injunctive relief pending the filing of respondents' comment is to foreclose altogether the very remedy sought by petitioners when they questioned the alleged illegal preventive suspension. This is so, because the Ombudsman's Order is immediately effective and executory, and the filing of the comment by all of the respondents will entail considerable time.
While we do not entirely blame the CA for being too cautious in not granting any injunctive relief without first considering the counter-arguments of the opposing parties, it would have been more prudent for it to have, at the very least, on account of the extreme urgency of the matter and the seriousness of the issues raised in the certiorari petition, issued a TRO while it awaits the respective comments of the respondents and while it judiciously contemplates on whether or not to issue a writ of preliminary injunction. Verily, the basic purpose of the restraining order is to preserve the status quo until the hearing of the application for preliminary injunction. It is a preservative remedy for the protection of substantive rights and interests.
At this point we must emphasize that the suspension from office of an elective official, whether as a preventive measure or as a penalty, will undeservedly deprive the electorate of the services of the person they have conscientiously chosen and voted into office.
Thus, as the appellate court failed dutifully and prudently to exercise its discretion, in violation of fundamental principles of law and the Rules of Court, its action is correctible by a certiorari writ from this Court.
We therefore accept as correct petitioners' direct elevation to this Court via the petition for certiorari the CA's November 14, 2008 Resolution even if no motion for reconsideration was filed to afford the appellate court an opportunity to rectify its error. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, the certiorari petition, and not a motion for reconsideration with the appellate court, is the plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Indeed, had they not filed the petition, they would have been left with no avenue to protect their rights.
x x x x
Without further belaboring the point, we find it very clear that the extreme urgency of the situation required an equally urgent resolution, and due to the public interest involved, the petitioners are justified in straightforwardly seeking the intervention of this Court. Again, as we repeatedly held in prior cases, the provisions of the Rules should be applied with reason and liberality to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
We hasten to add at this juncture that the petitioners in bringing the matter before this Court as soon as the CA issued the assailed resolution have not violated the proscription on forum shopping. While the parties are the same in this petition and in that in the appellate court, the issues raised and the reliefs prayed for in the two fora are substantially different. To repeat, here, the petitioners question in the main the CA's deferment of action on the application for an injunctive relief. In their petition before the CA, however, they assail the very issuance of the order for their preventive suspension. Further, as well discussed above, this petition is their only remedy. Petitioners' prayer for relief in this petition is, just like in PAL Employees Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., a necessary consequence of the CA's inaction on their pleas.[35] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied, italics in the original)
Petitioner De Castro, on the other hand, cannot be held liable under this disallowance, since she had nothing to do with the preparation of the estimated cost of the BIBT project. Applying the Arias doctrine, the fact that petition De Castro was the final approving authority of the transactions in question and that the officers who processed the same were directly under her supervision, do not suffice to make her liable, in the absence of indication that she had notice of any circumstance that could have aroused her suspicion that what she was approving falls within the purview of an excessive transaction. To be clear, the documents in question involve technical matters that are beyond the professional competence of De Castro.[39] [Citations omitted]However, the Court clarified that:
The lifting of ND No. 2008-06-27-005-101 (2009); and ND No. 2008-06-27-006-101 (2009) totaling P37,976,500.00 is affirmed for want of legal basis without prejudice to the administrative liability of Mayor Helen C. De Castro, Head of Procuring Entity and the BAC members for their violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 9184 and its IRR regarding the full use of the PhilGEPS.[40] (Emphasis supplied)The judgment of the OMB in the administrative case contemplated in the foregoing statement of the Court was appealed to the CA through the Petition for Review (docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 151586 & CA-GR SP No. 151771) and the decision of the CA therein is now the subject of the present petition for review on certiorari.
The condonation doctrine should be applied to De Castro's case. |
x x x [A]bandonment of the condonation doctrine should be prospective in application for the reason that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution, until reversed, shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. Unto this Court devolves the sole authority to interpret what the Constitution means, and all persons are bound to follow its interpretation. As explained in De Castro v. Judicial Bar and Council;The abandonment of the condonation doctrine is prospective in application. Hence, the doctrine may still be applied to cases that were initiated prior to the promulgation of the Carpio-Morales ruling such as the present case which stemmed from a complaint filed on December 17, 2012.
Judicial decisions assume the same authority as a statute itself and, until authoritatively abandoned, necessarily become, to the extent that they are applicable, the criteria that must control the actuations, not only of those called upon to abide by them, but also of those duty-bound to enforce obedience to them.Hence, while the future may ultimately uncover a doctrine's error, it should be, as a general rule, recognized as "good law" prior to its abandonment. Consequently, the people's reliance thereupon should be respected. The landmark case on this matter is People v. Jabinal, wherein it was ruled:
[W]hen a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively, and should not apply to parties who had relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof. [Citations omitted; Italics and emphasis in the original][41]
x x x xBased on the foregoing, the Court applied the condonation doctrine to a public official re-elected through recall election prior to the finality of CarpioMorales. This gives the Court more reason to apply the condonation doctrine to De Castro who was re-elected during the 2010 presidential elections.
x x x [T]he doctrine of condonation is applicable to the case of Lucilo by reason of his re-election, as the term is understood in the application of the doctrine, during the recall election on 8 May 2015. It is undisputed that Lucilo's re-election took place prior to the finality of CarpioMorales, which abandoned the condonation doctrine, on 12 April 2016. Considering that the doctrine of condonation is still a good law at the time of his re-election in 2015, Lucilo can certainly use and rely on the said doctrine as a defense against the charges for prior administrative misconduct on the rationale that his re-election effectively obliterates all of his prior administrative misconduct, if any at all. Further, with his re-election on 8 May 2015, Lucilo already had the vested right, by reason of the doctrine of condonation, not to be removed from his office, which may not be deprived from him or be impaired by the subsequent abandonment in Carpio-Morales of the aforesaid doctrine, or by any new law, doctrine or Court ruling. Accordingly, his re-election on 8 May 2015 rendered moot and academic the administrative complaint filed against him on 22 November 2013 for misconduct allegedly committed on 1 July 2013, hence, must be dismissed.[43]
[37] Section 12 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court states:Section 7. Finality and execution of decision.
x x x x
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal.
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by an officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be ground for disciplinary action against said officer. (Emphasis supplied, italics in the original)