G.R. No. 257342 - Mary Elizabeth Ortiga Ty vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Prospero Arreza Pichay, Jr.

The Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) is a government-owned and controlled corporation created under Presidential Decree No. 198, primarily serving as a specialized lending institution for local water utilities.
Prospero Arreza Pichay, Jr. was Chairman of the LWUA Board of Trustees.
On September 23, 2008, LWUA Board Resolution No. 145 was issued to establish a "Water Development Bank."
Legal advice from the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) stated the creation was within LWUA's corporate powers, subject to Department of Finance (DOF) and Presidential approval, and compliance with banking laws.
Due to a moratorium on new banks, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) suggested acquiring an existing financing company and applying for quasi-banking authority.
BSP further limited LWUA ownership to 60% of voting stock in a domestic bank and required prior Monetary Board approval for certain stock transfers.
LWUA proceeded to acquire 60% of Express Savings Bank Inc. (ESBI) shares valued at P780 million.
BSP reiterated the need for prior approval for the majority ownership change and requested related documentation.
DOF sent a letter highlighting LWUA's proposed investment as inconsistent with government corporate sector rationalization.

LWUA employees filed consolidated criminal and administrative complaints against Pichay, Jr. and others for grave misconduct and related offenses before the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman).
On July 4, 2011, Ombudsman found Pichay, Jr. and others guilty of grave misconduct and imposed penalties including dismissal from service, forfeiture of benefits except leave credits, and disqualification from holding public office.
Pichay, Jr.'s motion for reconsideration was denied.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the Ombudsman's decision on October 23, 2013 and February 24, 2014, finding substantial evidence of grave misconduct.
These rulings were elevated to the Supreme Court in Pichay, Jr. v. Tutol.

Ombudsman transmitted its decision and joint order to COMELEC and the House of Representatives for implementation of the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office.
The Sandiganbayan affirmed the finding of probable cause for criminal charges against Pichay, Jr. and others, which was elevated to the Supreme Court.
Despite the pending cases, Pichay, Jr. filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Member of the House of Representatives (HOR) 1st District of Surigao del Sur in October 2018.
In his COC, Pichay, Jr. answered "no" to a question regarding prior liability involving perpetual disqualification.

Mary Elizabeth Ortiga Ty, opposing candidate, filed a Petition to Deny Due Course and Cancel Pichay, Jr.'s COC before COMELEC.
HRET, in a related case (Murillo v. Pichay, Jr.), dismissed a similar petition without prejudice, citing the Supreme Court case in progress.
COMELEC denied Ty's Petition to Deny Due Course.
Ty filed an Ad Cautelam Petition for Quo Warranto with HRET against Pichay, Jr.
On February 11, 2021, HRET dismissed the Quo Warranto petition without prejudice, relying on stare decisis from Murillo case and reasoning that accessory penalties such as perpetual disqualification are not immediately executory unlike principal penalties such as dismissal from service.
HRET adopted the concurring opinion of Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe that accessory penalties pending appeal should not bar candidacy, noting that immediate application would affect future terms not yet served.
Ty's motion for reconsideration was denied by HRET.

The Supreme Court issued a consolidation resolution on November 11, 2021, affirming the CA decision and Sandiganbayan resolutions imposing dismissal and accessory penalties on Pichay, Jr.
The Court ruled that the penalty of dismissal from service inherently includes perpetual disqualification from holding public office under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS).
The Court rejected Pichay, Jr.'s argument limiting disqualification to government employment only, confirming perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

The sole issue was whether HRET gravely abused discretion by ruling that accessory penalties like perpetual disqualification are not immediately executory.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as moot since after the 2022 elections, neither party holds the seat.
Judicial notice was taken of prior Court rulings upholding dismissal and accessory penalties against Pichay, Jr.
The Court cited that the rules of administrative discipline and penalties are grounded in E.O. No. 292 and RRACCS, applying equally to accessory penalties.

Whether the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office imposed by the Ombudsman is not immediately executory pending finality of administrative cases.