G.R. No. 244828 - Ching vs. Bonachita-Ricablanca

A fire broke out on January 29, 2015 in a residential building in Barangay Poblacion, Sagay, Camiguin, owned by Virgilio Bonachita, the father of Carmelita S. Bonachita-Ricablanca.
The adjacent Petron Bulilit fuel station, connected physically to the building, raised concerns for Ernesto L. Ching, whose residence was nearby.

Ricablanca, while serving as a Barangay Kagawad of Poblacion, Sagay, authored Barangay Resolution No. 16, Series of 2012, which endorsed the construction and operation of the fuel station owned by her father.
She actively participated in the deliberation and approval of the same resolution, thereby raising questions regarding her personal interest.

During the 2013 elections, Ricablanca ran for and won a seat as a Member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Sagay, Camiguin.
On March 26, 2015, Ching filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Ricablanca and seven other public officials, alleging grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of RA 6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
In their counter-affidavits, Ricablanca and the other officials maintained that there was no violation when authoring or approving the resolutions in question.

In the Decision dated October 13, 2015, the Ombudsman found sufficient evidence against Ricablanca:

Ricablanca was held liable for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for her role in both authoring and approving Barangay Resolution No. 16.
The action against her was premised on the fact that she failed to disqualify herself from decisions that could benefit her or her family’s interests.

The penalty imposed was dismissal from service pursuant to Section 10 of A.O. No. 17, with the provision that in the event the penalty could no longer be enforced due to separation from service, it would be converted to a fine equivalent to one year’s salary.
A Motion for Reconsideration filed by Ricablanca on November 20, 2015 was denied on December 23, 2015.

Ricablanca appealed the Ombudsman’s finding before the CA, confronting both factual and procedural grounds:

The CA initially denied her petition and affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision in its Decision dated June 30, 2017.
Among the issues raised was her failure to serve the petition copy to Ching, which the CA found as a procedural lapse without sufficient justification.

The CA found her liable for Gross Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service by virtue of her actions benefiting her father’s gasoline business.
Ricablanca filed a Motion for Reconsideration (dated July 27, 2017) before the CA:

She argued that there was no substantial evidence for grave misconduct.
She contended that her case was analogous to Almario-Templonuevo, wherein the Supreme Court recognized the prospective application of the condonation doctrine.

In its Amended Decision dated June 29, 2018, the CA granted her Motion for Reconsideration:

Reconsidering the earlier decisions, the CA reversed the Order of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman-Mindanao.
It was found that the penalty of dismissal (or its conversion into a fine) was rendered moot due to the applicable condonation doctrine.

Ching filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the amended CA decision, which the CA denied on January 28, 2019.

Ching, as the petitioner, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the amended decision of the CA.
Key issues raised involved both procedural aspects (such as locus standi) and the substantive application of the condonation doctrine.

Whether Ching, as a respondent in the prior administrative case and as someone directly affected by the incident (given his proximity to the fuel station), has the legal standing to file the petition.
Consideration of whether his personal injury (trauma and adverse effects from the fire incident) provides him with a material interest in the case.

Whether Ricablanca’s subsequent re-election (to a different post as Member of the Sangguniang Bayan) constitutes a valid defense by way of condonation for her alleged administrative misconduct committed during her prior term as Barangay Kagawad.
Determining if the electorate, even when changed in scope (from a strictly barangay-based electorate to a wider municipal body politic), still qualifies under the “same body politic” requirement for the doctrine’s application.
Whether the timing of the administrative proceedings and the finality of the abandonment of the condonation doctrine (as per Carpio Morales) affect its applicability to this case.

Whether the resolution authorizing the construction and operation of the fuel station is legally valid given Ricablanca’s participation despite potential conflicts of interest.
The proper interpretation of administrative penalties vis-à-vis the principle that public office is a public trust.