Case Summary (G.R. No. 226935)
Antecedents of the Case
In the May 2010 elections, Degamo secured a position as Provincial Board Member of Negros Oriental. After the deaths of the elected Governor and Vice Governor, he assumed the governorship by succession. Subsequently, he sought calamity funds from the Office of the President due to natural disasters in the province. On June 5, 2012, a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) was issued for P961,550,000.00 in calamity funds, but was later withdrawn due to noncompliance with guidelines. Despite this, Degamo awarded numerous infrastructure contracts from these funds, leading to a Notice of Disallowance from the Commission on Audit for lack of fund availability.
Ombudsman Ruling and Appeal
In October 2013, Gaudan filed a complaint against Degamo before the Ombudsman, which led to the issuance of a Joint Resolution finding probable cause for indictments on multiple counts of malversation and administrative misconduct. Initially, the Ombudsman ruled that Degamo was guilty of grave misconduct; however, he was later dismissed from service but was exempted from penalties under the condonation doctrine due to his reelection in 2013. Following a reconsideration motion, the Ombudsman reversed course, dismissing him from service altogether.
CA Proceedings and Resolutions
Degamo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the invalidity of the withdrawal of SARO and the applicability of the condonation doctrine. The CA granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) given the urgency of the matter, stating that the execution of the Ombudsman’s order would irreparably harm Degamo's ability to serve as governor. The CA later reduced the charge against Degamo to simple misconduct instead of grave misconduct and ruled that he could not be penalized due to his prior reelection, effectively applying the condonation doctrine.
Consolidation and Issues
The Supreme Court consolidated the three cases as they raised overlapping legal issues. The principal questions revolved around the applicability of the condonation doctrine to administrative liability and the validity of the CA's injunction against the Ombudsman’s orders.
Court's Ruling on the Applicability of Condonation Doctrine
The Supreme Court ruled that the condonation doctrine had been abandoned in a prior landmark case, but must be applied prospectively. Thus, officials reelected before the finality of the abandonment retain the right to defend ag
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 226935)
Background of the Case
- The case involves three consolidated petitions filed against Roel R. Degamo, addressing the resolutions and orders issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) regarding administrative charges against him.
- The petitions stem from the Ombudsman's Joint Resolution and Joint Order that found Degamo guilty of administrative misconduct related to the mishandling of calamity funds.
Antecedents
- Roel R. Degamo was elected as a Provincial Board Member of Negros Oriental in May 2010 and later assumed the position of Governor due to the vacancies caused by the deaths of the elected Governor and Vice Governor.
- As Governor, Degamo requested calamity funds for rehabilitation projects following Typhoon Sendong and an earthquake, receiving an initial fund allocation of P961,550,000.00.
- The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) subsequently withdrew part of these funds due to noncompliance with guidelines, leading to a demand for the return of P480,775,000.00.
- Despite the DBM’s withdrawal, Degamo proceeded to award contracts for infrastructure projects and disbursed advance payments, which were later disallowed by the Commission on Audit (COA) for lack of available funds.