Title
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 Summary (G.R. No. 170626)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking reversal of the Bayombong RTC orders dated 20 October 2005 and 30 November 2005 in Special Civil Action No. 6727. The RTC had declared void the Sangguniang Bayan’s decision removing Punong Barangay Martinez and Mayor Bagasao’s implementing memorandum; petition challenges those RTC rulings.

Administrative Charges and Amended Complaint

On 5 November 2004, the Sangguniang Barangay filed a verified administrative complaint against Martinez for Dishonesty and Graft and Corruption before the Sangguniang Bayan pursuant to Section 61 of the Local Government Code. An Amended Administrative Complaint was filed on 6 December 2004 adding charges of Dishonesty, Misconduct in Office and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Allegations Against Punong Barangay Martinez

Allegations included: failure to remit income from the solid waste management project (specifically sale of compost-derived fertilizer) since 2001; failure to remit proceeds from sale of recyclable materials collected during garbage collection; unauthorized use of the barangay garbage truck for private hauling without evident income entries; use of barangay funds for truck repairs and operating expenses instead of utilizing truck-collected fees; unliquidated travel expenses for a 2003 seminar which Martinez allegedly did not attend despite receiving an advance; and repeated refusals to discuss these issues during Sangguniang sessions.

Administrative Proceedings, Default and Preventive Suspension

Martinez failed to file an Answer to the Amended Administrative Complaint and was declared in default by the Sangguniang Bayan. He was placed under preventive suspension for 60 days, effective until 8 August 2005.

Sangguniang Bayan Decision and Mayor’s Interim Action

On 28 July 2005, the Sangguniang Bayan rendered a Decision imposing the penalty of removal from office on Martinez. The Decision was forwarded to Municipal Mayor Severino Bagasao for implementation. On 3 August 2005, Mayor Bagasao issued a Memorandum stating that the Sangguniang Bayan was not empowered to order Martinez’s removal but that the Decision remained valid until reversed; he ordered an indefinite suspension of Martinez pending appeal period and directed Jose Cenen Santos to assume as Acting Punong Barangay pursuant to Sections 67 and 68 of R.A. No. 7160.

Petition for Certiorari and RTC Rulings

Martinez filed Special Civil Action for Certiorari with prayer for TRO and preliminary injunction in the RTC (docketed Special Civil Action No. 6727). On 20 October 2005 the trial court issued an Order declaring the Sangguniang Bayan’s Decision and Mayor Bagasao’s Memorandum void, holding that the proper courts—and not the Sangguniang Bayan—have power to remove an elective local official under Section 60 of the Local Government Code. The court also ruled Martinez properly invoked certiorari because the assailed order was a patent nullity. A Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied in an Order dated 30 November 2005.

Mootness and Justiciability Considerations

Although Martinez’s term expired following the synchronized Barangay and SK elections on 29 October 2007, the Supreme Court proceeded to resolve the legal question because it was capable of repetition yet evading review. The Court nonetheless addressed the merits.

Statutory Framework: Sections 60, 61 and 67, Local Government Code

Section 60 of the Local Government Code enumerates grounds for disciplinary actions and expressly provides that “An elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated above by order of the proper court.” Section 61 prescribes filing venues for administrative complaints against elective officials (barangay officials’ complaints filed before the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan, whose decision shall be final and executory). Section 67 establishes administrative appeal routes (e.g., sangguniang panlalawigan for decisions of component city sanggunian and sangguniang bayan).

Legislative History and Intent

Senate deliberations during the framing of the Local Government Code reflect an intent to confine removal of elective local officials to the courts (regional trial courts, Sandiganbayan or appellate courts). The legislative discussion contemplated use of the term “proper court” to capture jurisdictional allocation to courts rather than political disciplining authorities.

Precedent Interpreting Disciplinary Authority: Salalima and Pablico

Jurisprudence cited includes Salalima v. Guingona, Jr., where the Court invalidated a rule granting disciplining authorities the power to remove elected officials, holding the power to remove elected officials is exclusively vested in the proper courts per Section 60. Pablico v. Villapando reiterated that disciplining authorities may not exercise removal power and that Article 125(b) (or analogous provisions) of the implementing rules that vested removal power in disciplining authorities were void as repugnant to Section 60.

Separation of Powers and Rationale for Judicial Exclusivity

The Court emphasized that conferring removal power to local legislative bodies would risk partisan or capricious removals that would frustrate the electorate’s will; v

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.