G.R. No. 102448 - Cuartero vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 102448)

Key Dates

May 27, 1997: Respondent took initial oath and assumed office following proclamation in the 1997 Barangay Elections.
January 18–20, 1999: Trial court declared rival Roque Fermo winner and granted execution pending appeal; respondent vacated office on January 20, 1999.
September 16, 1999: COMELEC annulled the trial court’s January 20, 1999 order and ordered Fermo to cease performing functions and to relinquish office to respondent pending appeal.
October 27–28, 1999: COMELEC issued writ of execution directing Fermo to vacate; Fermo refused. Respondent began performing functions at the SK-Hall on October 28, 1999.
November 12, 1999: COMELEC issued alias writ of execution (returned unsatisfied).
November 16, 1999: Respondent re-took oath before Mayor Mathay.
November 17, 1999: Fermo turned over barangay assets to respondent.
October–December 1999 and January 2000: City Council investigatory and disciplinary proceedings, resolutions, and payroll approvals leading to findings of grave misconduct and recommendation of suspension; judicial proceedings followed culminating in the RTC summary judgment (Nov. 13, 2000) and Supreme Court decision (July 14, 2003).

Applicable Law and Procedural Framework

1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable by instruction for this decision).
1991 Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160), specifically Section 61 (form and filing of administrative complaints against barangay officials), Section 67 (administrative appeals to the Office of the President for sangguniang panlungsod decisions of highly urbanized cities), and Section 68 (effect of appeal on executory decisions and entitlement to salaries/emoluments).
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45 (special civil actions), under which the petition for review was brought.
Jurisprudence cited and applied by the courts (cases and principles reproduced in the record).

Material Facts

Respondent was proclaimed winner and duly assumed office in 1997 after taking an oath. An election protest by Roque Fermo resulted in a trial court order declaring Fermo winner and ordering execution pending appeal, prompting respondent to vacate. COMELEC later annulled the trial court’s execution order and directed Fermo to desist pending appeal; writs of execution issued by COMELEC were, however, resisted by Fermo and his supporters, impeding physical possession of the barangay hall. Respondent nonetheless exercised barangay functions at an alternate site (SK-Hall), made appointments (Barangay Secretary and Treasurer), and the barangay council approved payrolls and appropriations covering specified periods. Certain barangay councilors refused to sign the payroll and later filed complaints alleging graft and falsification, contending that appointments and payroll effectivity dates were improperly antedated and that respondent and others conspired to deprive petitioners of salaries.

Procedural History

Investigatory and disciplinary proceedings before the Quezon City Council’s Special Investigation Committee resulted in a finding that respondent lacked authority to make appointments prior to his re-taking of oath but concluded respondent and others acted in good faith; respondent was found guilty of grave misconduct and recommended two months’ suspension. The Council adopted the committee’s recommendations and implemented suspension by appointing an acting barangay chairman.
Respondent sought certiorari relief in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City; RTC rendered summary judgment annulling the Council’s decision and exonerating respondent on the ground of lack of bad faith. Petitioners then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

Whether respondent’s re-taking of the oath of office was a condition sine qua non to the validity of his re-assumption of office after the COMELEC annulled the writ ousting him pending appeal.
The proper date of respondent’s valid re-assumption of office for purposes of validating his appointments and payroll actions (October 28, 1999 – date writ was served and respondent began to discharge functions at the SK-Hall, or November 17, 1999 – date of physical turn-over of barangay assets).
Whether petitioners’ administrative remedies were exhausted before seeking judicial relief, including whether filing with the Office of the President under the Local Government Code was required prior to court intervention.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies — Analysis and Ruling

The Court analyzed Sections 61, 67 and 68 of the Local Government Code. Section 61 makes complaints against elective barangay officials subject to the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan, whose decision is "final and executory." Section 67 permits appeals to the Office of the President from sangguniang panlungsod decisions of highly urbanized cities; Section 68 provides that an appeal does not prevent a decision from being final and executory and outlines compensation consequences if an appeal results in exoneration.
The RTC’s reasoning that Section 67 rendered the Council’s decision unappealable to the Office of the President was incorrect because Section 68 explicitly contemplates appeals and preserves the executory nature of administrative decisions while still allowing appellate review. The Court reiterated the general rule that administrative remedies must be exhausted before judicial intervention, but recognized the well-established exception allowing judicial resolution when the issue is purely one of law.
The Supreme Court found the issues presented (appealability and the legal significance of re-taking the oath) to be legal questions appropriate for judicial resolution and therefore permitted the RTC’s exercise of jurisdiction despite the general exhaustion rule. The Court, however, emphasized that the RTC reached correct results albeit for different reasoning.

Oath of Office Requirement — Analysis and Ruling

The Court reaffirmed the principle that taking an oath of office is a qualifying requirement and prerequisite to full investiture, but once a public officer has been proclaimed and duly sworn, the pendency of an election protest does not ipso facto bar assumption and exercise of functions unless there is a final and executory annulment or a valid execution of unseating pending appeal.
In this case, respondent had been duly proclaimed and took his initial oath on May 27, 1997. COMELEC’s September 16, 1999 resolution annulled the trial court’s execution removing him pending appeal and ordered Fermo to cease performing functions and relinquish office to respondent. The Supreme Court treated COMELEC’s annulment as restoring the status quo ante (the last peaceful uncontested situation), effectively treating respondent’s original proclamation and oath as continuing to vest him with office.
Consequently, respondent’s re-taking of the oath on November 16, 1999 was deemed a mere formality and not a condition sine qua non for the validity of his re-assumption of office. The earlier oath conferred plenary rights that were not extinguished by the temporary, non-executed removal that COMELEC later set aside.

Date of Valid Re-assumption and Validity of Acts — Analysis and Ruling

The Court addressed whether respondent’s re-assumption took effect when he began discharging functions at the SK-Hall on October 28, 1999 (after service of COMELEC’s writ and despite Fermo’s physical refusal to yield the barangay hall), or only upon the physical turnover of barangay assets on November 17, 1999.
The Court held that respondent effectively re-assumed office beginning October 28, 1999. It refused to allow petitioners to profit from Fermo’s deliberate refusal to comply with lawful writs of execution; sanctioning a later effective date would reward and incentivize noncompliance with court and quasi-judicial processes. The proper administration of justice requires obedience to such processes; the COMELEC’s orders reinstating respondent restored his authority notwithstanding obstacles to physical occupation.
Because respondent lawfully re-assumed functions on October 28, 1999 and exercised authority (albeit from an alternative venue), his appointments of Godofredo L. Ramos and Rodel G. Liquido and the grant of emoluments for the period claimed were lawful acts arising from that re-assumption and therefore valid. The committee’s factual finding that respondents acted in good faith supported the conclusion that no grave misconduct was committed in making those appointments or granting compensation.

Payroll, Signature Removal, and Allegation of Conspiracy — Analysis and Ruling

Petitioners alleged that respondent connived with other barangay officials to cross out petitioners’ names on the payroll, thereby preventing them from receiving salaries for the covered period. The payroll actually bore petitioners’ names and corresponding salaries, but petitioners intentionally refused to sign and acknowledge receipt as a form of protest.
The Court invoked the legal maxim quod quis ex culpa sua damnum sentit (he who suffers injury by his own fault is not considered to have suffered damage) to reject petitioners’ contention. Because petitioners themselves declined to accept the payroll amounts as a deliberate protest, they cannot claim injury from their own conduct. The investigative committee correctly dismissed the conspiracy/connivance charge against respondent on these facts.

Remedies and Relief Concerning Salar

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 102448)

Procedural Posture

Petition filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure challenging the November 13, 2000 Summary Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 77, which set aside the Quezon City Council’s decision finding respondent guilty of grave misconduct.
RTC Summary Judgment rendered in favor of respondent Manuel D. Laxina, Sr., annulled the City Council’s disciplinary decision, lifted suspension, and ordered restoration of benefits.
Petitioners are barangay councilors and the Chairman of the Special Investigation Committee on Administrative Cases against Elected Barangay Officials of the Quezon City Council, joined by the City Mayor, Ismael A. Mathay, Jr.
The COMELEC previously issued resolutions and writs affecting possession of the barangay office; the COMELEC’s September 16, 1999 resolution annulling a writ of execution was affirmed by this Court in G.R. No. 140179 (Fermo v. COMELEC).
This petition presents pure questions of law; the Court first addressed exhaustion of administrative remedies before adjudicating substantive legal issues.

Relevant Facts — Election, Proclamation, and Initial Oath

Respondent Manuel D. Laxina was proclaimed winner in the 1997 Barangay Elections for Barangay Batasan Hills, Quezon City, took his oath on May 27, 1997, and thereafter assumed office.
Rival Roque Fermo filed an election protest with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Quezon City, Branch 40; on January 18, 1999, the MTC declared Fermo the winner.
Respondent appealed to COMELEC from the MTC decision; Fermo moved for execution pending appeal, and on January 20, 1999 the trial court granted execution pending appeal, prompting respondent to vacate and relinquish the position to Fermo.

COMELEC Proceedings and Writs

Respondent petitioned COMELEC to question the January 20, 1999 trial court order granting execution pending appeal.
On September 16, 1999, the COMELEC En Banc issued a resolution granting the petition, annulling the January 20, 1999 order, and ordering Fermo to cease performing the functions of Punong Barangay and to relinquish to Manuel Laxina pending final resolution of appeal.
On October 27, 1999, COMELEC issued a writ of execution directing Fermo to vacate the barangay chairmanship; on October 28, 1999, Fermo was served with the writ but refused to acknowledge receipt and refused to vacate the barangay hall.
Respondent moved for contempt; on November 12, 1999 COMELEC issued an alias writ of execution which was likewise returned unsatisfied.

Respondent’s Actions and Appointments After COMELEC Writs

Despite Fermo’s refusal to vacate the barangay hall, respondent and his staff discharged functions and held office at the SK-Hall of Batasan Hills beginning October 28, 1999.
On October 28, 1999 respondent purportedly commenced functional activities at the SK-Hall.
On October 28, 1999 respondent appointed Godofredo L. Ramos as Barangay Secretary (appointed effective November 1, 1999 per later resolution) and on November 8, 1999 appointed Rodel G. Liquido as Barangay Treasurer.
Respondent took his oath of office anew on November 16, 1999 before Mayor Ismael Mathay, Jr.; records indicate his oath was taken on November 16, 1999 (panunumpa sa katungkulan), while the City Committee’s finding recorded November 17, 1999 as the turnover date.
On November 17, 1999, Roque Fermo turned over all assets and properties of the barangay to respondent.

Barangay Council Resolutions, Payroll, and Compensation

On November 20, 1999, the Barangay Council issued Resolution No. 001-S-1999 ratifying Ramos’ appointment effective November 1, 1999, and Resolution No. 002-S-1999 ratifying Liquido’s appointment effective November 1, 1999.
To accommodate appointees of Fermo who objected to the resolutions, respondent agreed to grant them allowances and remunerations for the period November 1–7, 1999.
On December 11, 1999, the barangay council adopted Resolution No. 017-S-99 authorizing appropriation of P864,326.00 for November–December 1999 salaries of barangay officials and employees.
Pursuant to that resolution, payroll was issued on December 18, 1999 listing respondent and his appointed barangay secretary and treasurer as entitled to compensation for services rendered for the period November 8, 1999 to December 31, 1999.
Petitioners Jose G. Mendoza, Jr., Rosario E. Espino and Teresita S. Mendoza refused to sign Resolution No. 017-S-99 and the payroll.

Complaint to Quezon City Council and Allegations

In January 2000, petitioner barangay councilors filed with the Quezon City Council a complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and falsification of legislative documents against respondent and other barangay officials who signed the challenged resolution and payroll.
Petitioners alleged the payroll falsely represented that respondent and his appointees rendered services starting November 8, 1999 when, they claimed, they commenced to serve only on November 17, 1999 after respondent’s oath and assumption.
Petitioners further alleged respondent fraudulently antedated the effectivity date of the barangay secretary and treasurer’s appointments to November 1, 1999, and that respondent connived with other barangay officials in crossing out the petitioners’ names from the payroll, thereby preventing them from receiving salaries for November 8 to December 31, 1999.

Defendants’ Position and Joint Counter-Affidavit

Defendants asserted that re-taking the oath of office was a mere formality, not a requirement to validly discharge duties, and thus respondent could lawfully perform functions despite the later oath.
They claimed respondent’s appointees were entitled to remuneration because they commenced to render services as early as October 28, 1999.
Defendants explained that the names of the three petitioners were crossed out from the payroll to prevent delay in releasing salaries to listed barangay officials and employees, and denied conspiracy or bad faith.

Findings and Resolutions of the Special Investigation Committee

On October 2, 2000, the Special Investigation Committee on Administrative Cases of the City ruled respondent had no power to make appointments prior to his oath taking on November 16, 1999.
The Committee nevertheless found respondent and other barangay officials acted in good faith when they erroneously approved remuneration for respondent’s appointees starting November 8, 1999.
The Committee found respondent guilty of grave misconduct for the unauthorized appointments and approved remuneration dates and recommended a penalty of two months suspension.
Charges against Barangay Secretary Ramos and Barangay Treasurer Liquido were dismissed because the City Council’