Case Digest (G.R. No. 154616)
Facts:
The case involves Governor Antonio Calingin as the petitioner against the Court of Appeals and several government officials, including Executive Secretary Renato S. de Villa and DILG Secretary Joey Lina, as respondents. The events leading to this case began with a Resolution issued by the Office of the President on March 22, 2001, which suspended Governor Calingin for 90 days in OP Case No. 00-1-9220. This suspension was implemented by a Memorandum from Undersecretary Eduardo R. Soliman of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) on April 30, 2001, authorized by Secretary Lina. Following this, on May 3, 2001, Governor Calingin filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Office of the President. The DILG's Memorandum was based on a resolution from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) that granted an exemption to the election ban on the movement of public officers, as stipulated in COMELEC Resolution No. 3401. On May 7, 2001, Calingin filed a petition for...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 154616)
Facts:
Suspension Order by the Office of the President:
The Office of the President issued a Resolution on March 22, 2001, suspending Governor Antonio Calingin of Misamis Oriental for 90 days in OP Case No. 00-1-9220 (DILG ADM. Case No. P-16-99). This suspension was based on a complaint filed by Vice Governor Danilo P. Lagbas and others.Implementation by the DILG:
On April 30, 2001, Undersecretary Eduardo R. Soliman of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) issued a Memorandum implementing the suspension order. This implementation was authorized by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) through Resolution No. 3992, which granted an exemption to the election ban on the movement of public officers.Election Ban and COMELEC Resolution:
COMELEC Resolution No. 3401 prohibited the suspension of elective officials during the election period (January 2, 2001, to July 13, 2001) unless prior written approval from COMELEC was obtained. COMELEC Resolution No. 3992, issued on April 24, 2001, granted the exemption to implement the suspension order against Governor Calingin.Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration:
On May 3, 2001, Governor Calingin filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Office of the President, challenging the suspension order.Petition for Prohibition:
On May 7, 2001, Governor Calingin filed a petition for prohibition before the Court of Appeals to prevent the DILG from executing the suspension order. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on May 11, 2001, and denied the motion for reconsideration on July 1, 2002.Appeal to the Supreme Court:
Governor Calingin appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the suspension order during the election period and in finding that the decision of the Office of the President was final and executory.
Issue:
Finality of the Office of the President’s Decision:
Whether the decision of the Office of the President suspending Governor Calingin was final and executory, despite the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration.Validity of COMELEC’s Exemption:
Whether the exemption granted by COMELEC in Resolution No. 3992, allowing the suspension of Governor Calingin during the election period, was valid.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that:
The decision of the Office of the President was final and executory under Section 67 of the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), which applies specifically to administrative cases involving elective local officials. The Administrative Code of 1987, which allows a Motion for Reconsideration to suspend the finality of a decision, does not apply in this case because the Local Government Code, being a later and more specific law, prevails.
The exemption granted by COMELEC in Resolution No. 3992 was valid. The request for exemption was supported by the necessary documents, including the Affidavit of Complaint, Affidavit of Controversion, and Draft Resolution. The suspension order was approved by the Office of the President before the issuance of COMELEC Resolution No. 3992, and the requirements under COMELEC Resolution No. 3529 were satisfied.
Ratio:
Finality of Administrative Decisions:
Under Section 67 of the Local Government Code, decisions of the Office of the President in administrative cases involving elective local officials are final and executory. The filing of a Motion for Reconsideration does not suspend the execution of the decision. This principle was affirmed in Lapid v. Court of Appeals, which held that the Local Government Code, being a special law, prevails over the Administrative Code of 1987, which is of general application.Immediate Execution Pending Appeal:
The Local Government Code mandates that decisions of the Office of the President are immediately executory, even pending appeal. This is in line with Section 68 of the Local Government Code, which provides that an appeal does not prevent a decision from becoming final or executory.Validity of COMELEC’s Exemption:
COMELEC Resolution No. 3992, which granted the exemption to implement the suspension order during the election period, was valid. The request for exemption complied with the requirements under COMELEC Resolution No. 3529, and the suspension order was approved by the Office of the President before the issuance of the COMELEC resolution. A draft resolution, when properly supported by the required documents, can serve as a valid basis for granting an exemption.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the suspension of Governor Antonio Calingin, ruling that the decision of the Office of the President was final and executory under the Local Government Code and that the exemption granted by COMELEC was valid. The petition was denied, and the resolutions of the Court of Appeals were affirmed.