Title
Almario-Templonuevo vs. Office of the Ombudsman
Case
G.R. No. 198583
Decision Date
Jun 28, 2017
Elected official's administrative liability condoned after re-election; Ombudsman's suspension deemed moot under condonation doctrine.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 198583)

Facts:

Election and Administrative Charge

  • Arlyn Almario-Templonuevo (Templonuevo) was elected as a Sangguniang Bayan Member of the Municipality of Caramoan, Catanduanes, in the May 2007 elections. She served from July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2010. In the May 2010 elections, she was elected as Municipal Vice Mayor of the same municipality.
  • Chito M. Oyardo (Oyardo) filed an administrative complaint against Templonuevo before the Office of the Ombudsman, docketed as OMB-L-A-08-0097-B, for violation of Section 2, Paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 9287.

Ombudsman's Decision

  • On January 6, 2010, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found Templonuevo guilty of simple misconduct and imposed a penalty of one month suspension without pay. The decision was final, executory, and unappealable under Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17.

Receipt of Decision and Election as Vice Mayor

  • Templonuevo received the Ombudsman's decision on September 27, 2010, after her term as Sangguniang Bayan Member had expired. However, she had already been elected as Vice Mayor in the May 2010 elections.

Direct Filing of Petition for Certiorari

  • Without filing a motion for reconsideration, Templonuevo directly filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals (CA). She argued that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering her suspension after her term had expired and she had been re-elected.

CA's Dismissal of the Petition

  • The CA dismissed Templonuevo's petition on February 17, 2011, citing her failure to file a motion for reconsideration. The CA held that certiorari is not available if other remedies, such as a motion for reconsideration, are available. Templonuevo's motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA on September 8, 2011.

Elevation to the Supreme Court

  • Templonuevo elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. She argued that the CA erred in dismissing her petition and that her re-election as Vice Mayor condoned her administrative liability under the doctrine of condonation.

Issue:

  1. Whether the CA erred in dismissing Templonuevo's petition for failure to file a motion for reconsideration from the Ombudsman's decision.
  2. Whether the CA erred in not applying the doctrine of condonation, given Templonuevo's election as Vice Mayor.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court granted Templonuevo's petition.

  1. Motion for Reconsideration Not Required: The Court ruled that a motion for reconsideration is not required when the penalty imposed by the Ombudsman is one month suspension, as such decisions are final, executory, and unappealable under Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07. Templonuevo was justified in filing a Rule 65 petition directly with the CA.

  2. Doctrine of Condonation Applies: The Court held that the doctrine of condonation applies to Templonuevo's case. Her re-election as Vice Mayor of the same municipality condoned her administrative liability for acts committed during her previous term as Sangguniang Bayan Member. The Court emphasized that the condonation doctrine applies even when the public official is elected to a different position, provided the electorate is the same.

Ratio:

  • (Unlock)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.