G.R. No. 157901 - Orix Metro Leasing and Fice Corp. vs. M/V "Pilar-I

Virginia Malinao, Human Resource Manager III of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, filed an administrative case (Administrative Case No. 93-03) against respondent Mayor Wilfredo Red.
The charges against Mayor Red included abuse of authority and denial of due process for removing petitioner from her position without affording her due process.
Prior to the filing of the administrative case, Mayor Red had initiated a case against petitioner in the Office of the Ombudsman for gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, and incompetence, prompting him to appoint a replacement for petitioner while the case was pending.

On February 24, 1994, petitioner formally filed her administrative case with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
On August 12, 1994, the Sanggunian conducted an executive session where the administrative case was deliberated.

The session’s stenographic notes indicate that a vote was taken which resulted in five members voting "Guilty" and three members voting "Not Guilty" against Mayor Red.
The minutes of the session captured the members’ individual votes and discussions regarding the charge, the appropriate penalty (with suspension being the favored sanction by those voting "Guilty"), and the nuances of the due process issue.

A draft "Decision" was prepared on September 5, 1994, purportedly embodying the results of the vote, but it was signed solely by Sangguniang member Rodrigo V. Sotto in his capacity as “Presiding Chairman, Blue Ribbon Committee, Sangguniang Panlalawigan.”
Copies of the September 5 draft "Decision" were served on both Mayor Red and Governor Luisito Reyes on September 12, 1994.
Respondent Mayor, on September 14, 1994, filed a manifestation contesting the authority of the draft "Decision," arguing that it was merely a recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Committee and not a binding decision of the full Sanggunian.
Further complicating the matter, on September 14, 1994, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), Rafael M. Alunan III, opined that the "decision" did not comply with Section 66 of the Local Government Code and settled jurisprudence, as it lacked the necessary formality of being a collegial decision.
Petitioner, on October 14, 1994, sent a letter to Governor Reyes demanding enforcement of the draft "Decision," to which Governor Reyes responded on October 20, 1994, stating his disagreement with the DILG’s opinion and his inability to implement the said decision.
Subsequently, on October 21, 1994, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan reconvened and, by a vote of 7 to 2, rendered a formal decision dismissing the administrative case against Mayor Red. This decision:

Was properly in writing, stated the facts and legal basis for the dismissal, and was signed by all members who participated in the vote.
Represented the operative decision of the Sanggunian, superseding the draft "Decision" of September 5, 1994.

Petitioner contended that the draft decision of September 5, 1994, being final and executory due to Mayor Red’s failure to appeal, precluded the Sangguniang Panlalawigan from rendering a subsequent decision on October 21, 1994.
The controversy also involved issues regarding the absence of a formal notice to petitioner about the October 21 session; however, it was determined that notice was not required as the deliberations were an internal matter.
Petitioner initiated the relief sought via a petition for certiorari and mandamus, arguing that the subsequent reversal of the draft decision violated administrative finality.

By the time of the petition, the administrative proceedings had become moot and academic due to:

The expiration of respondent Mayor’s term during which the alleged act occurred.
His subsequent reelection on May 8, 1995, which under Section 66(b) of the Local Government Code effectively condoned any misconduct committed during the previous term.

Whether the draft decision of September 5, 1994—signed solely by Rodrigo V. Sotto in his capacity as Presiding Chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee—constituted a final and executory decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
Whether such a draft, lacking the formal signatures of the requisite majority of the body, could legally bar subsequent administrative actions.

Whether petitioner’s choice of a petition for certiorari and mandamus was proper, given that an appeal to the Office of the President under Section 67(b) of the Local Government Code was available as a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

Whether the reelection of Mayor Red and the expiration of his term render the administrative case moot, as administrative actions become abated or condoned under Section 66(b) when the official is reelected.