Title
Mendoza vs. Laxina, Sr.
Case
G.R. No. 146875
Decision Date
Jul 14, 2003
Barangay Captain Laxina reinstated by COMELEC after election protest; appointments and payroll upheld, no grave misconduct found.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 146875)

Petitioners

Councilors Mendoza, Espino, Mendoza and Banal (Special Committee Chairman), joined by Mayor Mathay, challenged Laxina’s readmission and disciplinary exoneration following alleged irregularities in appointment dates and payroll entries.

Respondent

Manuel D. Laxina Sr., twice proclaimed Barangay Captain of Batasan Hills in the 1997 Barangay Elections, subsequently unseated by an election protest, then reinstated by COMELEC resolution pending appeal.

Key Dates

• May 27, 1997: Laxina takes original oath and assumes office.
• January 18–20, 1999: Metropolitan Trial Court declares Fermo winner; orders execution pending appeal; Laxina vacates.
• September 16, 1999: COMELEC annuls execution and orders Fermo to cease functions.
• October 27–28, 1999: COMELEC issues writ of execution; Fermo refuses to vacate.
• November 12, 1999: Alias writ of execution issued.
• November 16, 1999: Laxina takes oath before Mayor Mathay.
• November 17, 1999: Fermo turns over barangay assets.
• November 20 & December 11–18, 1999: Barangay Council ratifies appointments; payroll prepared.
• January 2000: Petitioners file complaint for anti-graft and falsification before Quezon City Council.
• October 2–9, 2000: Special Committee finds Laxina guilty of grave misconduct; Council adopts findings and suspends him.
• November 13, 2000: RTC, Branch 77, grants Laxina’s certiorari petition and issues summary judgment exonerating him.
• July 14, 2003: Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Local Government Code of 1991, particularly:
– Section 61(c): Administrative complaints against barangay officials filed with sangguniang panlungsod; decision final and executory.
– Section 67(b): Appeal from sangguniang panlungsod decision to Office of the President within 30 days.
– Section 68: Appeal does not stay execution; exonerated official entitled to salary and benefits during pendency.

Factual Background

Laxina was proclaimed winner in the 1997 Barangay Elections, took oath May 27, 1997, and assumed office. Fermo’s election protest led to a trial court order unseating Laxina pending appeal (January 20, 1999), prompting Laxina’s temporary vacatur. On appeal to COMELEC, the execution was annulled (September 16, 1999), and writs of execution issued (October 27 and November 12, 1999) to restore Laxina. Fermo’s refusal to vacate delayed physical turnover until November 17, 1999, although Laxina and staff already discharged official functions from October 28, 1999. Laxina appointed a secretary and treasurer effective November 1, 1999; the Barangay Council ratified these appointments and appropriated salaries covering November–December 1999. Petitioners refused to sign the payroll, then lodged administrative and graft complaints alleging unauthorized appointments before Laxina’s November 16 oath and fraudulent antedating of appointment and payroll dates.

Procedural Posture

A Special Investigation Committee found Laxina guilty of grave misconduct (appointment and payroll antedation) but in good faith; recommended suspension. The Quezon City Council adopted its findings and suspended Laxina. Laxina petitioned the RTC for certiorari, which granted summary judgment, lifted suspension, and restored benefits. Petitioners elevated pure questions of law to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

Issue on Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Petitioners argued Laxina erred by filing certiorari with the RTC instead of appealing to the Office of the President under Section 67(b). The Supreme Court held that although administrative remedies must generally be exhausted, purely legal questions (appealability of sangguniang panlungsod decisions; necessity of re-oath) warrant immediate judicial review. Section 68 ensures that appeal does not prejudice salary recovery, so mandamus to the Office of the President would not render relief moot.

Issue on Oath of Office Requirement

The Court reaffirmed that taking an oath is a constitutional prerequisite to assumption of public office. However, once duly sworn and proclaimed, a public officer’s right to office remains intact pending final resolution of an election protest. COMELEC’s annulment of the executi




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.