G.R. No. 256116 - Main T. Mohammad vs. Office of the Secretary, Department of Justice

Bonifacio G. Garcia filed a complaint on June 21, 2005 with the Office of the Environmental Ombudsman against Mayor Julius Cesar Vergara and Vice-Mayor Raul Mendoza.
At that time, Mayor Vergara was in his third term (2004-2007) as Mayor of Cabanatuan City.
The complaint alleged that Mayor Vergara and Vice-Mayor Mendoza maintained an open burning dumpsite located between Barangays San Isidro and Valle Cruz, which was overdue for closure and rehabilitation.
The dumpsite was described as a four-storey high mountain of mixed garbage exposing residents of 87 barangays to toxic solid wastes.
It was further alleged that the respondents ordered and permitted littering and dumping of solid wastes and allowed the collection of non-segregated and unsorted wastes despite Republic Act No. 9003 (Solid Waste Management Act).
Complaints from residents and letters from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the National Solid Waste Management Commissioner to comply with R.A. 9003 were ignored.

Mayor Vergara and Vice-Mayor Mendoza denied willful or gross neglect in a Joint Counter-Affidavit.
They contended being aware since 1999 of garbage problems and that they had prepared a master plan for dumpsite transfer and setting up a Materials Recovery Facility before R.A. 9003’s enactment.

Mayor Vergara was found guilty by the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II for violation of Section 5(a) of R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials).
Section 5(a) requires public officials to act promptly on letters and requests within 15 working days.
The Ombudsman imposed a six-month suspension on Mayor Vergara for neglect of duty in failing to implement R.A. 9003, recommending the same penalty for Vice-Mayor Mendoza.

Mayor Vergara filed a motion for reconsideration invoking the doctrine of condonation due to his re-election as Mayor in May 2010.
The Office of the Ombudsman affirmed the guilt but reduced the penalty from suspension to reprimand in 2012.
Mayor Vergara filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA granted the petition in 2014, ruling that the doctrine of condonation applies since the misconduct was committed in the prior term and Mayor Vergara was re-elected by the same electorate.
The Ombudsman’s motion for partial reconsideration was denied by the CA in 2015.
The Ombudsman filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking to reverse the CA’s ruling.

Whether the doctrine of condonation applies to absolve respondent Mayor Vergara of administrative liability for misconduct committed during his previous term despite a gap in re-election.
Whether the doctrine of condonation is consistent with the 1987 Constitution’s mandate that public office is a public trust requiring accountability at all times.