G.R. No. 226935 - Gaudan vs. Degamo

In the May 2010 elections, Roel R. Degamo won a seat as Provincial Board Member of Negros Oriental.
Following the deaths of Governor‑elect Emillio C. Macias II and Vice Governor‑elect Agustin Perdices, Degamo, as the highest vote-getter, assumed the governorship by succession.
In May 2013, Degamo ran and was elected as Governor of the Province, thereby solidifying his electoral mandate.

As acting Governor, Degamo requested the release of calamity funds for fiscal year 2012 to rebuild infrastructures damaged by Typhoon Sendong and a major earthquake.
On June 5, 2012, DBM Regional Office No. VII issued SARO No. ROVII-12-0009202 for an amount of ₱961,550,000.00, with 50% of that sum released two days later.
On June 19, 2012, DBM Undersecretary Mario L. Relampagos notified Degamo about the immediate withdrawal of the SARO due to noncompliance with DPWH guidelines regarding large-scale fund releases.
Consequently, DBM Regional Office No. VII, through Director Carmela S. Fernan, issued a negative SARO withdrawing the funds and demanded the return of ₱480,775,000.00.

On July 16, 2012, Degamo questioned the validity of the negative SARO and refused to return the funds, arguing that the withdrawal was improper.
Despite the DBM directive, the Provincial Government, through its Bids and Awards Committee, proceeded with a pre‑procurement conference and awarded contracts for various infrastructure projects funded partly by advance payments totaling ₱143,268,441.59.
The Commission on Audit later questioned the disbursements due to the lack of proper fund availability, eventually disallowing the advanced payments in November 2012.

On October 29, 2013, June Vincent Manuel S. Gaudan filed a Complaint‑Affidavit with the Ombudsman charging Degamo and other officials with (a) Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification under RA 3019 and (b) Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Abuse of Authority.
In the Joint Resolution dated January 12, 2016, the Ombudsman found probable cause against Degamo for 11 counts of malversation and imposed administrative penalties including dismissal, cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification.
Subsequently, upon Gaudan’s urgent motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman reversed its condonation application (which had shielded Degamo due to his reelection) via the Joint Order dated May 16, 2016, leading to his dismissal.

On June 16, 2016, Degamo filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 with the CA with a prayer for a TRO and other injunctive reliefs to stop the implementation of the Ombudsman’s Joint Order.
Degamo contended that (a) he could not be held liable for the disbursements since the DBM’s withdrawal of funds was illegal, and (b) his reelection in 2013 automatically invoked the condonation doctrine protecting him from administrative charges.
The CA issued a TRO on June 23, 2016, granting provisional injunctive relief on the basis of “extreme urgency” and the potential irreparable harm arising from his dismissal.
Gaudan filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied in subsequent CA resolutions dated August 22, 2016 and November 10, 2016.

Three petitions consolidated before the Supreme Court under G.R. Nos. 226935, 228238, and 228325.
The consolidated issues involved both criminal and administrative aspects regarding Degamo’s alleged misconduct and the application of the condonation doctrine in light of his reelection and subsequent rulings such as Carpio Morales and Madreo.

Whether the condonation doctrine justified the issuance of a TRO by the CA to enjoin the implementation of the Ombudsman’s Joint Order dated May 16, 2016.
Whether the condonation doctrine is applicable to Degamo, who initially assumed office by succession and later was reelected as Governor.

Whether Degamo should be held liable only for simple misconduct instead of grave misconduct.
Whether the Ombudsman’s Joint Order dismissing Degamo from service was immediately executory.
Whether the condonation doctrine is unconstitutional given its lack of statutory or constitutional foundation.

Whether Degamo is liable solely for simple misconduct, as opposed to grave misconduct.
Whether the condonation doctrine is applicable to Degamo given the timeline of his reelection and the administrative proceedings.