Title
Supreme Court
Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay Don Mariano Marcos vs. Martinez
Case
G.R. No. 170626
Decision Date
Mar 3, 2008
A barangay official challenged his removal by the Sangguniang Bayan; the Supreme Court ruled only courts can remove elective local officials, affirming judicial authority under the Local Government Code.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 170626)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Context
    • Petitioners: The Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay Don Mariano Marcos, Municipality of Bayombong, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, represented by Barangay Kagawad members.
    • Respondent: Severino Martinez, the incumbent Punong Barangay (Barangay Captain) of Barangay Don Mariano Marcos.
    • The Sangguniang Barangay is the legislative body of the barangay local government unit, organized under Philippine laws.
  • Administrative Complaint and Proceedings
    • On November 5, 2004, Martinez was administratively charged with Dishonesty and Graft and Corruption before the Sangguniang Bayan of Bayombong, as the disciplining authority over barangay elective officials (per Section 61, Local Government Code).
    • On December 6, 2004, an Amended Administrative Complaint was filed alleging:
      • Failure to remit income from the solid waste management project (sale of compost-derived fertilizer) and recyclable materials to the Barangay Treasurer.
      • Unauthorized use of the garbage truck for private hauling without proper accounting or benefits to the barangay.
      • Use of barangay funds to maintain the garbage truck instead of using collected fees from the project.
      • Unliquidated traveling expenses for seminar/lakbay-aral in 2003 due to respondent’s nonattendance.
      • Martinez declined to discuss the allegations during Sangguniang Bayan sessions.
    • Martinez failed to file an Answer to the Amended Complaint and was declared in default. He was placed under preventive suspension for 60 days pending resolution.
  • Decision and Implementation Efforts
    • On July 28, 2005, the Sangguniang Bayan rendered a Decision removing Martinez from office.
    • The Decision was sent to the Municipal Mayor, Severino Bagasao, who issued a memorandum on August 3, 2005, stating:
      • The Sangguniang Bayan lacked power to remove Martinez but the Decision remained valid unless reversed.
      • Martinez was to be placed under indefinite suspension, and the complainant was to assume acting functions of Punong Barangay pursuant to R.A. 7160 Sections 67 and 68.
  • Judicial Proceedings
    • On August 26, 2005, Martinez filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Bayombong, challenging the Sangguniang Bayan’s Decision.
    • On October 20, 2005, the RTC declared the Sangguniang Bayan’s Decision and the Mayor’s memorandum void, ruling the Sangguniang Bayan exceeded its jurisdiction by removing Martinez, who could only be removed by order of the proper court under Section 60 of the Local Government Code.
    • The RTC denied the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration on November 30, 2005.
  • Subsequent Developments
    • Martinez’s term expired on October 29, 2007, after synchronized barangay elections, rendering the case moot and academic.
    • The Supreme Court took cognizance of the legal question because it was capable of repetition yet evading review.

Issues:

  • Whether the Sangguniang Bayan may validly remove an elective barangay official, namely the Punong Barangay, from office.
  • Whether Martinez properly assailed the Sangguniang Bayan’s Decision removing him via a special civil action without exhausting administrative remedies.
  • The effect of the doctrine of separation of powers on the authority of the Sangguniang Bayan and courts regarding the removal of elective local officials.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.