Case Digest (G.R. No. 237330)
Facts:
Madreo v. Bayron, G.R. Nos. 237330 and 237579, November 03, 2020, the Supreme Court En Banc, Delos Santos, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners in the two consolidated Rule 45 petitions were Aldrin Madreo (private complainant) and the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB); respondent was Lucilo R. Bayron, then Mayor of Puerto Princesa City (with Karl M. Bayron, his son, also a respondent in the OMB proceedings). Vice‑Mayor Luis Marcaida III sought to intervene below.
In 2013 Mayor Bayron’s city government entered into a Contract of Services engaging his son Karl as Project Manager for a city security task force, the contract containing a notarized attestation that the contractor “is not related within the fourth degree of consanguinity/affinity with the Hiring Authority.” On November 22, 2013 Madreo filed complaints with the OMB charging Bayron and Karl with administrative offenses (Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, etc.) and criminal offenses (including falsification and nepotism), alleging the attestation was false because Karl was Bayron’s biological son.
While the OMB proceedings were pending, a recall election for Mayor was held on May 8, 2015; Bayron was proclaimed the winner and continued in office. The OMB, after investigation, rendered a Decision on November 18, 2016 finding Bayron and Karl administratively liable for Serious Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct and meting the penalty of dismissal; it also found probable cause for criminal indictment. Bayron moved for reconsideration; he filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) on February 2, 2017 while his motion for reconsideration with the OMB was still pending. The OMB later modified its disposition on March 20, 2017, reducing the liability to Simple Dishonesty with three months’ suspension, but on July 6, 2017 it set aside that Joint Order insofar as Bayron was concerned and sought to reinstate its original dismissal disposition, citing loss of jurisdiction due to Bayron’s perfected appeal.
The CA, however, in a decision dated August 8, 2017 reversed the OMB and dismissed the administrative complaint against Bayron on the ground that his May 8, 2015 re‑election in the recall election operated as condonation of prior administrative misconduct (the Aguinaldo/Pascual condonation doctrine). The CA denied subsequent motions for reconsideration in a January 25, 2018 resolution. Madreo and the O...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the abandonment of the condonation doctrine in Carpio‑Morales v. Court of Appeals apply so as to bar Bayron from invoking condonation, given Carpio‑Morales’ prospective application and finality on April 12, 2016?
- If condonation remains available to Bayron, does the doctrine of condonation apply to a re‑election effected via a recall election?
- In view of (1)–(2), should the Court nonetheless resolve whether the OMB correctly found Bayron administratively liable...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)