condonation doctrine abandoned

8/18/2019 Condonation Doctrine Abandoned

1/36

Condonation Doctrine Abandoned

Source:http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015novemberdecisions.php?id!"1

#.$. %os. 21&12'(2&) %ovember 10) 2015 ( C*%C+,-A CA$,* *$AS) ,% +$ CAAC,- AS -+

*34DSA%) etitioner) v. C*4$- * AAS 6S,7-+ D,8,S,*%9 A%D *A$ $;,% S. 3,%A) $.)$espondents.

EN BANC

G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALE, IN HER CAPACIT! A THE OMB"#MAN) Petitioner ) v. CO"RT O$APPEAL %I&TH #I'IION( AN# )E)OMAR ER*IN . BINA!, )R.) Respondents.

# E C I I O N

PERLA-BERNABE, J.+

"All government is a trust, every branch of government is a trust, and immemorially acknowledged so tobe1Chan$obles8irtualawlibrar

Te Cse

3e@ore the Court is a petition @or certiorari and prohibition2 @iled on arch 25) 2015 b petitioner ConchitaCarpio orales) in her capacit as the *mbudsman 6*mbudsman9) throuh the *@@ice o@ the Solicitor#eneral 6*S#9) assailin: 6a9 the $esolutionB dated arch 1') 2015 o@ public respondent the Court o@Appeals 6CA9 in CA-G.R. P No. 1/5) which ranted private respondent eomar rwin S. 3ina) r.s63ina) r.9 praer @or the issuance o@ a temporar restrainin order 6-$*9 aainst the implementation o@ theoint *rder" dated arch 10) 20)15 o@ the *mbudsman in *3(C(A(15(005E to 00'B 6preventive suspensionorder9 preventivel suspendin him and several other public o@@icers and emploees o@ the Cit #overnmento@ aFati) @or siG 6'9 months without paH and 6b9 the $esolution5 dated arch 20) 2015 o@ the CA) orderinthe *mbudsman to comment on 3ina) r.s petition @or contempt ' in CA-G.R. P No. 1/50.

ursuant to the $esolution& dated April ') 2015) the CA issued a writ o@ preliminar inunctionE 6;,9 in CA(#.$. S %o. 1B!"5B which @urther enoined the implementation o@ the preventive suspension order)promptin the *mbudsman to @ile a supplemental petition! on April 1B) 2015.

Te $s

*n ul 22) 201") a complaint/a@@idavit10 was @iled b Att. $enato . 3ondal and %icolas >Chin> nciso 8,be@ore the *@@ice o@ the *mbudsman aainst 3ina) r. and other public o@@icers and emploees o@ the Cit#overnment o@ aFati 63ina) r.) et al 9) accusin them o@ lunder11 and violation o@ $epublic Act %o. 6$A9B01!)12 otherwise Fnown as >-he Anti(#ra@t and Corrupt ractices Act)> in connection with the @ive 659phases o@ the procurement and construction o@ the aFati Cit +all arFin 3uildin 6aFati arFin3uildin9.1B

*n September !) 201") the *mbudsman constituted a Special anel o@ ,nvestiators1" to conduct a @act(@indin investiation) submit an investiation report) and @ile the necessar complaint) i@ warranted 61stSpecial anel9.15 ursuant to the *mbudsmans directive) on arch 5) 2015) the 1st Special anel @iled a


2/36

complaint1' 6*3 Complaint9 aainst 3ina) r.) et al ) charin them with siG 6'9 administrative cases1& @or#rave isconduct) Serious Dishonest) and Conduct reudicial to the 3est ,nterest o@ the Service) and siG6'9 criminal cases1E @or violation o@ Section B 6e9 o@ $A B01!) alversation o@ ublic unds) and alsi@icationo@ ublic Documents 6*3 Cases9.1!

As to 3ina) r.) the *3 Complaint alleed that he was involved in anomalous activities attendin the@ollowin procurement and construction phases o@ the aFati arFin 3uildin proect) committed durin his

previous and present terms as Cit aor o@ aFati:

B34, )r.s $3rs Term %2010 o 201(20

6a9 *n eember 21, 2010) 3ina) r. issued the %otice o@ Award21 @or Pse III o@ the aFati arFin3uildin proect to +ilmarcs Construction Corporation 6+ilmarcs9) and conseIuentl) eGecuted thecorrespondin contract22 on eember 28, 2010)2Bwithout the reIuired publication and the lacF o@architectural desin)2" and approved the release o@ @unds there@or in the @ollowin amounts as @ollows: 6191B0)51E)B!".E0 on #eember 15, 2010H25 629 1B")"&0)'5!.'" on anuar 1!) 2011H2' 6B9!2)&&5)202.2& on $ebr9r 25, 2011H2& 6"9 5&)1"E)'25.51 on Mr 28, 2011H2E659 "0)!0E)&50.'1on M , 2011H2! and 6'9 10')'&2)&'1.!0 on ul &) 2011HB0

6b9 *n A9:9s 11, 2011) 3ina) r. issued the %otice o@ AwardB1 @or hase ,8 o@ the aFati arFin 3uildinproect to +ilmarcs) and conseIuentl) eGecuted the correspondin contractB2 on Auust 1E) 2011)BB withoutthe reIuired publication and the lacF o@ architectural desin)B" and approved the release o@ @unds there@or inthe @ollowin amounts as @ollows: 619 1E2)B25)5BE.!& on *ctober ") 2*11HB5 629 1&B)1B2)'0'.!1 on

*ctober 2E)2011HB' 6B9 E0)"0E)&B5.20 on December 12) 2011HB&6"9 '2)E&E)2!1.E1 on ebruar 10)2012HBE and 659 5!)'B!)1'&.!0 on *ctober 1) 2012HB!

6c9 *n September ') 2012) 3ina) r. issued the %otice o@ Award "0 @or hase 8 o@ the aFati arFin 3uildinproect to +ilmarcs) and conseIuentl) eGecuted the correspondin contract"1 on September 1B)2012)"2 without the reIuired publication and the lacF o@ architectural desin)"B and approved the release o@the @unds there@or in the amounts o@ B2)B!E)220.05"" and B0)5E2)'2!.B0"5 on December 20) 2012H and

B34, )r.s eo4; Term %201 o 2016("'

6d9 *n ul B) 201B and ul ") 201B) 3ina) r. approved the release o@ @unds @or the remainin balance o@the September 1B) 2012 contract with +ilmarcs @or hase 8 o@ the aFati arFin 3uildin proect in theamount o@ 2&)""B)'2!.!&H"& and

6e9 *n )9


3/36

*n arch 11) 2015) a cop o@ the preventive suspension order was sent to the *@@ice o@ the Cit aor) andreceived b aricon Ausan) a member o@ 3ina) r.s sta@@. 5&

Te Proee;34:s Be=ore e CA

*n even date)5E 3ina) r. @iled a petition @or certiorari 5! be@ore the CA) docFeted as CA-G.R. P No.

1/5) seeFin the nulli@ication o@ the preventive suspension order) and prain @or the issuance o@ a -$*and/or ;, to enoin its implementation.'0Pr3mr3


4/36

the CA had no urisdiction to rant 3ina) r.s praer @or a -$*) citin Section 1" o@ $A '&&0)E2 or >-he*mbudsman Act o@ 1!E!)> which states that no inunctive writ could be issued to dela the *mbudsmansinvestiation unless there is prima @acie evidence that the subect matter thereo@ is outside the latters urisdictionHEB and 6b9 the CAs directive @or the *mbudsman to comment on 3ina) r.s petition @or contemptis illeal and improper) considerin that the *mbudsman is an impeachable o@@icer) and there@ore) cannot besubected to contempt proceedins.E"

,n his commentE5

@iled on April ') 2015) 3ina) r. arues that Section 1) Article 8,,, o@ the 1!E& Constitutionspeci@icall rants the CA udicial power to review acts o@ an branch or instrumentalit o@ overnment)includin the *@@ice o@ the *mbudsman) in case o@ rave abuse o@ discretion amountin to lacF or eGcess o@ urisdiction) which he asserts was committed in this case when said o@@ice issued the preventive suspensionorder aainst him.E' 3ina) r. posits that it was incumbent upon the *mbudsman to1 have been apprised o@the condonation doctrine as this would have weihed heavil in determinin whether there was stronevidence to warrant the issuance o@ the preventive suspension order.E& ,n this relation) 3ina) r. maintainsthat the CA correctl enoined the implementation o@ the preventive suspension order iven his clear andunmistaFable riht to public o@@ice) and that it is clear that he could not be held administrativel liable @oran o@ the chares aainst him since his subseIuent re(election in 201B operated as a condonation o@ anadministrative o@@enses he ma have committed durin his previous term.EE As reards the CAs order @or the*mbudsman to comment on his petition @or contempt) 3ina) r. submits that while the *mbudsman isindeed an impeachable o@@icer and) hence) cannot be removed @rom o@@ice eGcept b wa o@ impeachment)an action @or contempt imposes the penalt o@ @ine and imprisonment) without necessaril resultin inremoval @rom o@@ice. -hus) the @act that the *mbudsman is an impeachable o@@icer should not deprive the CA

o@ its inherent power to punish contempt.E!

eanwhile) the CA issued a Reso


5/36

Te Iss9es Be=ore e Co9r

3ased on the parties respective pleadins) and as raised durin the oral aruments conducted be@ore thisCourt) the main issues to be resolved in seriatim are as @ollows:

,. ;hether or not the present petition) and not motions @or reconsideration o@ the assailed CAissuances in CA(#.$. S %o. 1B!"5B and CA(#.$. S %o. 1B!50") is the *mbudsmans

plain) speed) and adeIuate remedH cralawlawlibrar

,,. ;hether or not the CA has subect matter urisdiction over the main petition @orcertiorari inCA(#.$. S %o. 1B!"5BH cralawlawlibrar

,,,. ;hether or not the CA has subect matter urisdiction to issue a -$* and/or ;, enoininthe implementation o@ a preventive suspension order issued b the *mbudsmanH cralawlawlibrar

,8. ;hether or not the CA ravel abused its discretion in issuin the -$* and eventuall) the;, in CA(#.$. S %o. 1B!"5B enoinin the implementation o@ the preventive suspensionorder aainst 3ina) r. based on the condonation doctrineH and

8. ;hether or not the CAs directive @or the *mbudsman to comment on 3ina) r.s petition

@or contempt in CA( #.$. S %o. 1B!50" is improper and illeal.

Te R9


6/36

urisprudence states that >


7/36

Court11!9 @rom issuin a writ o@ inunction to dela an investiation bein conducted b the *@@ice o@ the*mbudsman. #enerall speaFin) >120 Considerin the teGtual Iuali@ier >to dela)> which connotes asuspension o@ an action while the main case remains pendin) the >writ o@ inunction> mentioned in thispararaph could onl re@er to inunctions o@ the provisional Find) consistent with the nature o@ a provisionalinunctive relie@.

-he eGception to the no inunction polic is when there is prima facie evidence that the subect matter o@ theinvestiation is outside the o@@ices urisdiction. -he *@@ice o@ the *mbudsman has disciplinar authorit overall elective and appointive o@@icials o@ the overnment and its subdivisions) instrumentalities) and aencies)with the eGception onl o@ impeachable o@@icers) embers o@ Conress) and the udiciar.121 %onetheless) the*mbudsman retains the power to investiate an serious misconduct in o@@ice alleedl committed bo@@icials removable b impeachment) @or the purpose o@ @ilin a veri@ied complaint @or impeachment) [email protected] %ote that the *mbudsman has concurrent urisdiction over certain administrative cases whichare within the urisdiction o@ the reular courts or administrative aencies) but has primar urisdiction toinvestiate an act or omission o@ a public o@@icer or emploee who is under the urisdiction o@ theSandianbaan.12B

*n the other hand) the seo4; r:r o= e3o4 1, RA 6770 provides that no appeal or application@or remed ma be heard aainst the decision or @indins o@ the *mbudsman) with the eGception o@ theSupreme Court on pure Iuestions o@ law. -his pararaph) which the *mbudsman particularl relies on in

aruin that the CA had no urisdiction over the main CA(#.$. S %o. 1B!"5B petition) as it is supposedlthis Court which has the sole urisdiction to conduct a udicial review o@ its decisions or @indins) is vaue @ortwo 629 reasons: 619 it is unclear what the phrase >application @or remed> or the word >@indins> re@ers toHand 629 it does not speci@ what procedural remed is solel allowable to this Court) save that the same betaFen onl aainst a pure Iuestion o@ law. -he tasF then) is to appl the relevant principles o@ statutorconstruction to resolve the ambiuit.

>-he underlin principle o@ all construction is that the intent o@ the leislature should be souht in the wordsemploed to eGpress it) and that when @ound


8/36

appeal procedure.

G G G G

e4or Teo=3so T. G934:o4, )r.. Does this mean that) @or eGample) i@ there are eGhaustiveremedies available to a respondent) the respondent himsel@ has the riht to eGhaust the administrativeremedies available to him?

e4or A4:r. es) r. resident) that is correct.

e4or G934:o4. And he himsel@ ma cut the proceedin short b appealing to the Supreme $ourtonly on certiorari ?

e4or A4:r. "n %uestion of la, yes.

e4or G934:o4. And no other remedy is available to him?

e4or A4:r. Going to the Supreme $ourt, Mr. &resident?

e4or G934:o4. es. ;hat , mean to sa is) at what stae) @or eGample) i@ he is a presidentialappointee who is the respondent) i@ there is @ no certiorari available) is the respondent iven the riht toeGhaust his administrative remedies @irst be@ore the *mbudsman can taFe the appropriate action?

e4or A4:r. es) r. resident) because we do not intend to chane the administrative law principlethat be@ore one can o to court) he must e#haust all administrative remedies ### available to him before hegoes and seeks (udicial review.

G G G G

e4or Ne


9/36

e4or A4:r. -he distinuished #entleman has stated it so well.

e4or Go4D


10/36

@or reconsideration shall be resolved within three 6B9 das @rom @ilin: Provided, -hat onl one motion @orreconsideration shall be entertained.Chan$obles8irtualawlibrar

indins o@ @act b the *@@ice o@ the *mbudsman when supported b substantial evidence are conclusive.An order) directive or decision imposin the penalt o@ public censure or reprimand) suspension o@ not morethan one 619 months salar shall be @inal and unappealable.

I4 the decision or @indins o@ the *mbudsman)> R9


11/36

$4 "5 Appeal from !ourt of Appeals to *upreme !ourt

G G G G

Section 2. Contents o@ etition. L -he petition shall contain a concise statement o@ the matters involved) the

assinment o@ errors made in the court below) and the reasons relied on @or the allowance o@ the petition)and it should be accompanied with a true cop o@ the udment souht to be reviewed) toether with twelve6129 copies o@ the record on appeal) i@ an) and o@ the petitioners brie@ as @iled in the Court o@ Appeals. Averi@ied statement o@ the date when notice o@ udment and denial o@ the motion @or reconsideration) i@ an)were received shall accompan the petition.

O4@indins>issued b the *mbudsman. ore sini@icantl) b o4=3434: e reme; o R9


12/36

,n +abian, the Court strucF down the @ourth pararaph o@ Section 2&) $A '&&0 as unconstitutional since ithad the e@@ect o@ increasin the appellate urisdiction o@ the Court without its advice and concurrence inviolation o@ Section B0) Article 8, o@ the 1!E& Constitution.1B! oreover) this provision was @ound to beinconsistent with Section 1) $ule "5 o@ the present 1!!& $ules o@ rocedure which) as above(intimated)applies onl to a review o@ >udments or @inal orders o@ the Court o@ Appeals) the Sandianbaan) the Courto@ -aG Appeals) the $eional -rial Court) or other courts authoriMed b lawH> and not o@ Iuasi(udicialaencies) such as the *@@ice o@ the *mbudsman) e reme; 4o? be34: R9cover the same speci@ic or particular subectmatter)>1"5 that is) the manner o@ udicial review over issuances o@ the *mbudsman.

%ote that since the second pararaph o@ Section 1") $A '&&0 is clearl determinative o@ the eGistence o@ theCAs subect matter urisdiction over the main CA(#.$. S %o. 1B!"5B petition) includin all subseIuentproceedins relative thereto) as the *mbudsman hersel@ has developed) the Court deems it proper toresolve this issue e# mero motu 6on its own motion1"'9. -his procedure) as was similarl adoptedin +abian, @inds its bearins in settled case law:

-he conventional rule) however) is that a challene on constitutional rounds must be raised b a part tothe case) neither o@ whom did so in this case) but that is not an in@leGible rule) as we shall eGplain.

Since the constitution is intended @or the observance o@ the udiciar and other departments o@ theovernment and the udes are sworn to support its provisions) the courts are not at libert to overlooF ordisreard its commands or countenance evasions thereo@. ;hen it is clear ) that a statute transresses theauthorit vested in a leislative bod) it is the dut o@ the courts to declare that the constitution) and not thestatute) overns in a case be@ore them @or udment.

-hus) while courts will not ordinaril pass upon constitutional Iuestions which are not raised in thepleadins) the rule has been reconiMed to admit o@ certain eGceptions. ,t does not preclude a court @rominIuirin into its own urisdiction or compel it to enter a udment that it lacFs urisdiction to enter. ,@ astatute on which a courts urisdiction in a proceedin depends is unconstitutional) the court has no urisdiction in the proceedin) and since it ma determine whether or not it has urisdiction) it necessaril@ollows that it ma inIuire into the constitutionalit o@ the statute.

Co4s393o4< @9es3o4s, 4o r3se; 34 e re:9


13/36

mero motu ma taFe coniMance o@ lacF o@ urisdiction at an point in the case where that @act is developed.-he court has a clearl reconiMed riht to determine its own urisdiction in an proceedin.1"&6$mphasissupplied 9

#. Co4se@9e4e o= 34va special civilaction @or !ertiorari is within the concurrent oriinal urisdiction o@ the Supreme Court and the Court o@Appeals) such petition should be initiall @iled with the Court o@ Appeals in observance o@ the doctrine o@hierarch o@ courts.> urther) the Court upheld arata v. Abalos, r .155 6une ') 20019) wherein it was ruledthat the remed aainst @inal and unappealable orders o@ the *@@ice o@ the *mbudsman in an administrativecase was a $ule '5 petition to the CA. -he same verdict was reached in Ruivivar 15' 6September 1') 200E9.

-hus) with the unconstitutionalit o@ the second pararaph o@ Section 1") $A '&&0) the Court) consistentwith eGistin urisprudence) concludes that the CA has subect matter urisdiction over the main CA(#.$. S%o. 1B!"5B petition. -hat bein said) the Court now eGamines the obections o@ the *mbudsman) this timeaainst the CAs authorit to issue the assailed -$* and ;, aainst the implementation o@ the preventivesuspension order) incidental to that main case.

III.

rom the inception o@ these proceedins) the *mbudsman has been adamant that the CA has no urisdictionto issue an provisional inunctive writ aainst her o@@ice to enoin its preventive suspension orders. As basis)she invoFes e =3rs r:r o= e3o4 1, RA 6770 in conunction with her o@@ices independenceunder the 1!E& Constitution. She advances the idea that >


14/36

independence necessar @or the e@@ective per@ormance o@ their @unction as overnment critic.

,t was under the 1!&B Constitution that the *@@ice o@ the *mbudsman became a constitutionall(mandatedo@@ice to ive it political independence and adeIuate powers to en@orce its mandate. ursuant to the 6 1!&BConstitution) resident erdinand arcos enacted residential Decree 6D9 %o. 1"E&) as amended b D %o.1'0& and D %o. 1'B0) creatin the *@@ice o@ the *mbudsman to be Fnown as -anodbaan. ,t was tasFedprincipall to investiate) on complaint or motu proprio) an administrative act o@ an administrative aenc)

includin an overnment(owned or controlled corporation. ;hen the *@@ice o@ the -anodbaan wasreoraniMed in 1!&!) the powers previousl vested in the Special rosecutor were trans@erred to the-anodbaan himsel@. +e was iven the eGclusive authorit to conduct preliminar investiation o@ all casesconiMable b the Sandianbaan) @ile the correspondin in@ormation) and control the prosecution o@ thesecases.

;ith the advent o@ the 1!E& Constitution) a new *@@ice o@ the *mbudsman was created b constitutional@iat. "4e 34 e 1/7 Co4s393o4, 3s 34;ee4;e4e ?s eress


15/36

ree; b e Co4s393o4 3se partiall unconstitutional inso@ar as it subected theDeput *mbudsman to the disciplinar authorit o@ the resident @or violatin the principle o@ independence.eanwhile) the validit o@ Section E 629) $A '&&0 was maintained inso@ar as the *@@ice o@ the Special

rosecutor was concerned since said o@@ice was not considered to be constitutionall within the *@@ice o@ the*mbudsman and is) hence) not entitled to the independence the latter enos under the Constitution.1'&

As ma be deduced @rom the various discourses in Gon/ales &&& ) the concept o@ *mbudsmans independencecovers three 6B9 thins:

$3rs+ re3o4 b e Co4s393o4) which means that the o@@ice cannot be abolished) nor itsconstitutionall speci@ied @unctions and privilees) be removed) altered) or modi@ied b law) unless theConstitution itsel@ allows) or an amendment thereto is madeH cralawlawlibrar


16/36

eo4;+ =3s< 9o4om) which means that the o@@ice >ma not be obstructed @rom


17/36

been seriousl disputed. ,n @act) the issue anent its constitutionalit was properl raised and presenteddurin the course o@ these proceedins.1&B ore importantl) its resolution is clearl necessar to thecomplete disposition o@ this case.1&"

,n the endurin words o@ ustice aurel in Angara v. %he $lectoral !ommission 6 Angara9)1&5 the >Constitutionhas blocFed out with de@t stroFes and in bold lines) allotment o@ power to the eGecutive) the leislative1&' -he constitutional demarcation o@ the three @undamental

powers o@ overnment is more commonl Fnown as the principle o@ separation o@ powers. ,n the landmarFcase o@ elgica v. choa, r. 3elgica4)1&& the Court held that >there is a violation o@ the separation o@ powersprinciple when one branch o@ overnment undul encroaches on the domain o@ another.>1&E ,n particular)>there is a violation o@ the principle when there is impermissible 6a9 inter@erence with and/or 6b9 assumptiono@ another departments @unctions.>1&!

4nder Section 1) Article 8,,, o@ the 1!E& Constitution) 9;33< o?er 3s


18/36

%ote that the CAs certiorari urisdiction) as above(stated) is not onl or3:349 courts should be @iled with the $eional -rial Court) andthose aainst the latter) with the Court o@ Appeals.1E!

;hen a court has s9be mer 9r3s;33o4 over a particular case) as con@erred unto it b law) saidcourt ma then eer3se 3s 9r3s;33o4 acIuired over that case) which is called 9;33< o?er.

)9;33< o?er) as vested in the Supreme Court and all other courts established b law) has been de@inedas the >o1!0 4nder Section 1) Article 8,,, o@ the 1!E& Constitution) it includes >the dut o@ the courts o@

ustice o se


19/36

and leal assistance to the underprivileed. Such rules shall provide a simpli@ied and ineGpensive procedure@or the speed disposition o@ cases) shall be uni@orm @or all courts o@ the same rade) and shall not diminish)increase) or modi@ substantive rihts. $ules o@ procedure o@ special courts and Iuasi(udicial bodies shallremain e@@ective unless disapproved b the Supreme Court. 6$mphases and underscoring supplied 9

,n $chegaray v. *ecretary of ustice1!5 6cheara9) the Court traced the evolution o@ its rule(maFinauthorit) which) under the 1!B51!' and 1!&B Constitutions)1!& had been priorl subected to a power(sharin

scheme with Conress.1!E As it now stands) the 1!E& Constitution e9 place a comma 6)9 to be @ollowed b>the phrase with the concurrence o@ the %ational Assembl.> ventuall) a compromise @ormulation wasreached wherein 6a9 the Committee members areed to Commissioner AIuinos proposal o ;ethe %ational Assembl ma repeal) alter) or supplement the said rules with the advice andconcurrence o@ the Supreme Court> and 6b9 in turn) Commissioner AIuino areed o ?3;r? his proposalto add >the phrase with the concurrence o@ the %ational Assembl.> Te 4:es ?ere rove;,ereb


20/36

-he power o@ a court to issue these provisional inunctive relie@s coincides with its 34ere4 o?er o 3ss9ewhere a eneral power is con@erred or dut enoined)ever particular power necessar @or the eGercise o@ the one or the per@ormance o@ the other is alsocon@erred.>215

,n the 4nited States) the >34ere4 o?ers ;or34e re@ers to the principle) b which the courts deal withdiverse matters over which the are thouht to have intrinsic authorit liFe procedural


21/36

6mphases supplied9

Sini@icantl) *mothers characteriMed a courts issuance o@ provisional inunctive relie@ as an eGercise o@ thecourts inherent power) and to this end) stated that an attempt on the part o@ Conress to inter@ere with thesame was constitutionall impermissible:

,t is a result o@ this @oreoin line o@ thinFin that we now adopt the lanuae @rameworF o@ 2E Am.ur.2d),nunctions) Section 15) and once and @or all maFe clear that a court) once havin obtained urisdiction o@ acause o@ action) has) as an incidental to its constitutional rant o@ power) inherent power to do all thinsreasonabl necessar to the administration o@ ustice in the case be@ore it. I4 e eer3se o= 3s o?er, o9r, ?e4 4eessr 34 or;er o roe or reserve e s9be mer o= e e 3s 9;:me4 e==e3ve, m :r4 or 3ss9e emorr34943o4 34 3; o= or 43


22/36

Payment of +iling8 ocket +eesH222 6b9 Re7 Petition for Recognition of the $#emption of the Government*ervice &nsurance *ystem 3G*&*4 from Payment of 6egal +ees922B and 6c9 aguio )arket :endors )ulti5Purpose !ooperative 3A)AR:$)P!4 v. !abato5!ortes22" ;hile these cases involved leislative enactmentseGemptin overnment owned and controlled corporations and cooperatives @rom pain @ilin @ees) thus)e@@ectivel modi@in $ule 1"1 o@ the $ules o@ Court 6$ule on eal ees9) it was) nonetheless) ruled that erero:3ve o me4;, ree< or eve4 esb


23/36

ACTING OLICTOR GENERAL HILBA!.>romulate rules concernin the protection and en@orcement o@ constitutional rihts) pleadin) practice andprocedure in all courts...>

)"TICE LEONEN+*Fa) we can stop with that) promulate rules concernin pleadin) practice and procedure in all courts. -hisis the power) the competence) the urisdiction o@ what constitutional oran?

ACTING OLICITOR GENERAL HILBA!+-he Supreme Court) our +onor.

)"TICE LEONEN+

-he Supreme Court. -his is di@@erent @rom Article 8,,, Sections 1 and 2 which weve alread been discussedwith ou b m other colleaues) is that not correct?

ACTING OLICITOR GENERAL HILBA!+

Correct) our +onor.

)"TICE LEONEN+

*Fa) so in Section 2)


24/36

our +onor) Conress cannot impair the power o@ the Court to create remedies) G G G.

)"TICE LEONEN.;hat about bill


25/36

Iuestioned inunctive writs enoinin the implementation o@ the preventive suspension order aainst 3ina)r. At the risF o@ belaborin the point) these issuances were merel ancillar to the eGercise o@ theCAs certiorari urisdiction con@erred to it under Section ! 619) Chapter , o@ 3 12!) as amended) and which ithad alread acIuired over the main CA(#.$. S %o. 1B!"5B case.

I'.

-he @oreoin notwithstandin) the issue o@ whether or not the CA ravel abused its urisdiction in issuinthe -$* and ;, in CA(#.$. S %o. 1B!"5B aainst the preventive suspension order is a persistin obectionto the validit o@ said inunctive writs. or its proper analsis) the Court @irst provides the conteGt o@ theassailed inunctive writs.

A. 9be mer o= e CAs 343943ve ?r3s 3s e reve43ve s9se4s3o4 or;er.

3 nature) reve43ve s9se4s3o4 or;er 3s 4o e4


26/36

619 -he evidence o@ uilt is stronH and

629 ither o@ the @ollowin circumstances co(eGist with the @irst reIuirement: chan$oblesvirtualawlibrar6a9 -he chare involves dishonest) oppression or rave misconduct or nelect in the per@ormance o@ dutH cralawlawlibrar

6b9 -he chare would warrant removal @rom the serviceH or

6c 9 -he respondents continued sta in o@@ice ma preudice the case @iled aainst him.2BB

Chan$obles8irtualawlibrar

B. Te bs3s o= e CAs 34943ve ?r3s 3s e o4;o43o4 ;or34e.

Gaminin the CAs $esolutions in CA(#.$. S %o. 1B!"5B would) however) show that the *mbudsmansnon(compliance with the reIuisites provided in Section 2") $A '&&0 was not the basis @or the issuance o@ theassailed inunctive writs.

-he CAs arch 1') 2015 $esolution which directed the issuance o@ the assailed -$* was based on the caseo@ Gover4or Gr3, )r. v. CA2B" 6Governor Garcia, r.9) wherein the Court emphasiMed that >i@ it wereestablished in the CA that the acts subect o@ the administrative complaint were indeed committed durinpetitioner 2B5 -hus) the Court) contemplatin the application o@ the condonation doctrine) amon others)cautioned) in the said case) that >it would have been more prudent @or 2B'durin the pendenc o@ the proceedins.

Similarl) the CAs April ') 2015 $esolution which directed the issuance o@ the assailed ;, was based on thecondonation doctrine) citin the case o@ Aguinaldo v. Santos2B& -he CA held that 3ina) r. has anostensible riht to the @inal relie@ praed @or) i.e.) the nulli@ication o@ the preventive suspension order) @indinthat the *mbudsman can hardl impose preventive suspension aainst 3ina) r. iven that his re(election in201B as Cit aor o@ aFati condoned an administrative liabilit arisin @rom anomalous activities relativeto the aFati arFin 3uildin proect @rom 200& to 201B.2BE oreover) the CA observed that althouh therewere acts which were apparentl committed b 3ina) r. beond his @irst term ) i.e.) the alleed pamentson ul B) ") and 2") 201B)2B! correspondin to the services o@ +illmarcs and A%A ( still) 3ina) r. cannotbe held administrativel liable there@or based on the cases o@ Salalima v. Guingona, Jr.)2"0 and MayorGarcia v. Mojica ,2"1 wherein the condonation dobtrine was applied b the Court althouh the pamentswere made a@ter the o@@icials election) reasonin that the paments were merel e@@ected pursuant tocontracts eGecuted be@ore said re(election.2"2

-he *mbudsman contends that it was inappropriate @or the CA to have considered the condonation doctrinesince it was a matter o@ de@ense which should have been raised and passed upon b her o@@ice durin theadministrative disciplinar proceedins.2"B +owever) the Court arees with the CA that it was not precluded@rom considerin the same iven that it was material to the propriet o@ accordin provisional inunctiverelie@ in con@ormit with the rulin in Governor Garcia, r.) which was the subsistin urisprudence at thattime. -hus) since condonation was dul raised b 3ina) r. in his petition in CA(#.$. S %o. 1B!"5B)2"" theCA did not err in passin upon the same. %ote that althouh 3ina) r. secondaril arued that the evidenceo@ uilt aainst him was not stron in his petition in CA(#.$. S %o. 1B!"5B)2"5 it appears that the CA @oundthat the application o@ the condonation doctrine was alread su@@icient to enoin the implementation o@ thepreventive suspension order. Aain) there is nothin aberrant with this since) as remarFed in the same caseo@ Governor Garcia, r .) i@ it was established that the acts subect o@ the administrative complaint were indeedcommitted durin 3ina) r.s prior term) then) @ollowin the condonation doctrine) he can no loner beadministrativel chared. ,n other words) with condonation havin been invoFed b 3ina) r. as aneGculpator a@@irmative de@ense at the onset) the CA deemed it unnecessar to determine i@ the evidence o@

uilt aainst him was stron) at least @or the purpose o@ issuin the subect inunctive writs.

;ith the preliminar obection resolved and the basis o@ the assailed writs herein laid down) the Court nowproceeds to determine i@ the CA ravel abused its discretion in applin the condonation doctrine.

C. Te or3:34 o= e o4;o43o4 ;or34e.

#enerall speaFin) condonation has been de@ined as >


27/36

herein elaborated upon ( is not based on statutor law. ,t is a urisprudential creation that oriinated @romthe 1/5/ se o@ &ascual v. 2on. &rovincial (oard of/ueva 3cija)2"& 6ascual9)which was thereforedecided under the =?@ !onstitution.

,n Pascual ) therein petitioner) Arturo ascual) was elected aor o@ San ose) %ueva cia) sometime in%ovember 1!51) and was later re(elected to the same position in 1!55. #9r34: 3s seo4; erm) or on*ctober ') 1!5') the Actin rovincial #overnor @iled ;m343sr3ve r:es be@ore the rovincial 3oard

o@ %ueva cia aainst him @or rave abuse o@ authorit and usurpation o@ udicial @unctions @or actin on acriminal complaint in Criminal Case %o. B55' on December 1E and 20) 1!5". ,n de@ense) Arturo ascualarued that he cannot be made liable @or the acts chared aainst him since the were committed durin hisprevious term o@ o@@ice) and there@ore) invalid rounds @or disciplinin him durin his second term. -herovincial 3oard) as well as the Court o@ irst ,nstance o@ %ueva cia) later decided aainst Arturo ascual)and when the case reached this Court on appeal) it reconiMed that the controvers posed a novel issue (that is) whether or not an elective o@@icial ma be disciplined @or a wron@ul act committed b him durin hisimmediatel precedin term o@ o@@ice.

As there was 4o @ound that cases on the matter are con@lictin due in part) probabl) todi@@erences in statutes and constitutional provisions) and also) in part) to a diverence o@ views with respectto the Iuestion o@ whether the subseIuent election or appointment condones the priormisconduct.>2"E*3o9 :o34: 34o e vr3bin o@@ice> in its state constitution was a time limitation with reard to

the rounds o@ removal) so that an o@@icer could not be removed @or misbehaviour which occurredH prior tothe taFin o@ the o@@ice 6see !ommonwealth v. Rudman9255-he opposite was construed in the Supreme Courto@ ouisiana which tooF the view that an o@@icers inabilit to hold an o@@ice resulted @rom the commission o@certain o@@enses) and at once rendered him un@it to continue in o@@ice) addin the @act that the o@@icer hadbeen re(elected did not condone or pure the o@@ense 6see *tate e# rel. illon v. ourgeois9.25' Also) in theSupreme Court o@ %ew orF) Apellate Division) ourth Department) the court construed the words >in o@@ice>to re@er not to a particular term o@ o@@ice but to an entire tenureH it stated that the whole purpose o@ theleislature in enactin the statute in Iuestion could easil be lost siht o@) and the intent o@ the law(maFinbod be thwarted) i@ an unworth o@@icial could not be removed durin one term @or misconduct @or aprevious one 62ewman v. *trobel 9.25&


28/36

629 or another) condonation depended on whether or not the public o@@icer was a successor in the sameo@@ice @or which he has been administrativel chared. -he >own(successor theor)> which is reconiMed innumerous States as an eGception to condonation doctrine) is premised on the idea that each term o@ a re(elected incumbent is not taFen as separate and distinct) but rather) rearded as one continuous term o@o@@ice. -hus) in@ractions committed in a previous term are rounds @or removal because a re(electedincumbent has no prior term to speaF o@ 25E 6see Attorney5General v. %uftsH25!*tate v. 1elsh92'0Bawkins v.

!ommon !ouncil of Grand Rapids92'1

%erritory v. *anches92'2

and %ibbs v. !ity of Atlanta9.2'B

69 urthermore) some State courts tooF into consideration the continuin nature o@ an o@@ense in caseswhere the condonation doctrine was invoFed. ,n State e# rel. ouglas v. )egaarden,2'" the public o@@icerchared with malversation o@ public @unds was denied the de@ense o@ condonation b the Supreme Court o@innesota) observin that >the lare sums o@ mone illeall collected durin the previous ears are stillretained b him.> ,n *tate e# rel. eck v. Barvey 2'5 the Supreme Court o@ Pansas ruled that >there is nonecessit> o@ applin the condonation doctrine since >the misconduct continued in the present term o@o@@iceinso@ar as nondeliver and eGcessive prices are concerned) G G G there remains a continuin dut onthe part o@ the de@endant to maFe restitution to the countr G G G) this dut eGtends into the present term)and nelect to dischare it constitutes misconduct.>

*verall) the @oreoin data clearl contravenes the preliminar conclusion in Pascual that there is a >weiht

o@ authorit> in the 4S on the condonation doctrine. ,n @act) without an coent eGeesis to showthat Pascual had accounted @or the numerous @actors relevant to the debate on condonation) an outrihtadoption o@ the doctrine in this urisdiction would not have been proper.

At an rate) these 4S cases are onl o@ persuasive value in the process o@ this Courts decision(maFin.>2'& -here@ore) the ultimateanalsis is on whether or not the condonation doctrine) as espoused in Pascual, and carried over innumerous cases a@ter) can be held up aainst prevailin leal norms. %ote that the doctrine o@ staredecisis does not preclude this Court @rom revisitin eGistin doctrine. As aduded in the case o@ elgica)the stare decisis rule should not operate when there are power@ul countervailin considerations aainst itsapplication.2'E ,n other words) stare decisis becomes an intractable rule onl when circumstances eGist topreclude reversal o@ standin precedent.2'! As the *mbudsman correctl points out) urisprudence) a@ter all)is not a riid) atemporal abstractionH it is an oranic creature that develops and devolves alon with thesociet within which it thrives.2&0 ,n the words o@ a recent 4S Supreme Court Decision) >2&1

,n this case) the Court arees with the *mbudsman that since the time Pascual was decided) the leallandscape has radicall shi@ted. Aain) Pascual was a 1!5! case decided under the 1!B5 Constitution) whichdated provisions do not re@lect the eGperience o@ the ilipino eople under the 1!&B and 1!E& Constitutions.-here@ore) the plain di@@erence in settin) includin) o@ course) the sheer impact o@ the condonation doctrineon public accountabilit) calls @or Pascual's udicious re(eGamination.

#. Tes34: e Co4;o43o4 #or34e.

Pascual's ratio decidendi ma be dissected into three 6B9 parts:

!irst ) the penalt o@ removal ma not be eGtended beond the term in which the public o@@icer was elected@or each term is separate and distinct:

O==e4ses omm3e;, or s ;o4e, ;9r34: rev3o9s erm re :e4er


29/36

Second ) an elective o@@icials re(election serves as a condonation o@ previous misconduct) thereb cuttinthe riht to remove him there@orH and


30/36

not @urther distinuish) as lon as the wrondoin that ave rise to the public o@@icials culpabilit wascommitted prior to the date o@ reelection.2E2 6$mphasis supplied 9Chan$obles8irtualawlibrar

-he Court) citin !ivil *ervice !ommission v. *o(or )2EB also clari@ied that e o4;o43o4 ;or34e ?o9


31/36

public o@@ice isa public trust)> is an overarchin reminder that ever instrumentalit o@ overnment should eGercise theiro@@icial @unctions onl in accordance with the principles o@ the Constitution which embodies the parameters o@ the peoples trust. Te 4o3o4 o= 9b


32/36

G G G G

6b9 -he penalt o@ suspension shall not eGceed the uneGpired term o@ the respondent or a period o@ siG 6'9months @or ever administrative o@@ense) nor shall said penalt be a bar to the candidac o@ the respondentso suspended as lon as he meets the Iuali@ications reIuired @or the o@@ice.

$eadin the 1!E& Constitution toether with the above(cited leal provisions now leads this Court to the

conclusion that the doctrine o@ condonation is actuall bere@t o@ leal bases.

-o bein with) the concept o@ 9b


33/36

o@@icials administrative liabilit is eGtinuished b the @act o@ re(election. -hus) at all events) no lealprovision actuall supports the theor that the liabilit is condoned.

$elatedl it should be clari@ied that there is no truth in Pascual's postulation that the courts would bedeprivin the electorate o@ their riht to elect their o@@icers i@ condonation were not to be sanctioned. ,npolitical law) election pertains to the process b which a particular constituenc chooses an individual to holda public o@@ice. ,n this urisdiction) there is) aain) no leal basis to conclude that election automaticall

implies condonation. %either is there an leal basis to sa that ever democratic and republican state hasan inherent reime o@ condonation. ,@ condonation o@ an elective o@@icials administrative liabilit wouldperhaps) be allowed in this urisdiction) then the same should have been provided b law under ourovernin leal mechanisms. a it be at the time o@ Pascual or at present) b no means has it been shownthat such a law) whether in a constitutional or statutor provision) eGists. -here@ore) in@errin @rom thismani@est absence) it cannot be said that the electorates will has been abdicated.

Iuall in@irm is Pascual's proposition that the electorate) when re(electin a local o@@icial) are assumed tohave done so with Fnowlede o@ his li@e and character) and that the disrearded or @orave his @aults ormisconduct) i@ he had been uilt o@ an. Su@@ice it to state that 4o s9 res9m3o4 e3ss 34 4s9e or roe;9r< r9


34/36

law o@ the land) the are also subect to Article " o@ the Civil Code which provides that >laws shall have noretroactive e@@ect unless the contrar is provided.> -his is eGpressed in the @amiliar leal maGim le# prospicit,non respicit ) the law looFs @orward not bacFward. -he rationale aainst retroactivit is eas to perceive. -heretroactive application o@ a law usuall divests rihts that have alread become vested or impairs theobliations o@ contract and hence) is unconstitutional.B10Chan$obles8irtualawlibrar

,ndeed) the lessons o@ histor teach us that institutions can reatl bene@it @rom hindsiht and recti@ its

ensuin course. -hus) while it is trul perpleGin to thinF that a doctrine which is barren o@ leal anchoraewas able to endure in our urisprudence @or a considerable lenth o@ time) this Court) under a newmembership) taFes up the cudels and now abandons the condonation doctrine.

E. Co4se@9e4e o= r9


35/36

eo4;) the condonation doctrine is a peculiar urisprudential creation that has persisted as a de@ense o@elective o@@icials to escape administrative liabilit. ,t is the @irst time that the leal intricacies o@ this doctrinehave been brouht to lihtH thus) this is a situation o@ eGceptional character which this Court must ultimatelresolve. urther) since the doctrine has served as a perennial obstacle aainst eGactin public accountabilit@rom the multitude o@ elective local o@@icials throuhout the ears) it is indubitable that paramount publicinterest is involved.

T3r;) the issue on the validit o@ the condonation doctrine clearl reIuires the @ormulation o@ controllinprinciples to uide the bench) the bar) and the public. -he issue does not onl involve an in(depth eGeesiso@ administrative law principles) but also puts to the @ore@ront o@ leal discourse the potenc o@ theaccountabilit provisions o@ the 1!E& Constitution. -he Court owes it to the bench) the bar) and the public toeGplain how this controversial doctrine came about) and now) its reasons @or abandonin the same in view o@ its relevance on the parameters o@ public o@@ice.

A4; =o9r) the de@ense o@ condonation has been consistentl invoFed b elective local o@@icials aainst theadministrative chares @iled aainst them. -o provide a sample siMe) the *mbudsman has in@ormed the Courtthat >@or the period o@ ul 201B to December 201" alone) E5 cases @rom the uMon *@@ice and 2" cases @romthe Central *@@ice were dismissed on the round o@ condonation. -hus) in ust one and a hal@ ears) over ahundred cases o@ alleed misconduct ( involvin in@ractions such as dishonest) oppression) ross nelect o@dut and rave misconduct ( were placed beond the reach o@ the *mbudsmans investiator andprosecutorial powers.>B15 videntl) this @orti@ies the @indin that the case is capable o@ repetition and mustthere@ore) not evade review.

,n an event) the abandonment o@ a doctrine is wholl within the preroative o@ the Court. As mentioned) itis its own urisprudential creation and ma there@ore) pursuant to its mandate to uphold and de@end theConstitution) revoFe it notwithstandin supervenin events that render the subect o@ discussion moot. chanrobleslaw

'.

;ith all matters pertainin to CA(#.$. S %o. 1B!"5B passed upon) the Court now rules on the @inal issue onwhether or not the CAs $esolutionB1' dated arch 20) 2015 directin the *mbudsman to comment on 3ina)r.s petition @or contempt in CA(#.$. S %o. 1B!50" is improper and illeal.

-he sole premise o@ the *mbudsmans contention is that) as an impeachable o@@icer) she cannot be thesubect o@ a chare @or indirect contemptB1& because this action is criminal in nature and the penalt there@orwould result in her e@@ective removal @rom o@@ice.B1E +owever) a readin o@ the a@oresaid arch 20) 2015$esolution does not show that she has alread been subected to contempt proceedins. -his issuance) in?@act) maFes it clear that notwithstandin the directive @or the *mbudsman to comment) e CA s 4o4eessr3


36/36

an administrative circular dul issued there@orH cralawlawlibrar

6b9 -he condonation doctrine is ABAN#ONE#) but the abandonment is PROPECTI'E in e@@ectH cralawlawlibrar

6c 9 -he Court o@ Appeals 6CA9 is #IRECTE# to act on respondent eomar rwin S. 3ina) r.s 63ina) r.9

petition @or certiorari in CA(#.$. S %o. 1B!"5B in liht o@ the *@@ice o@ the *mbudsmans supervenin

issuance o@ its oint Decision dated *ctober !) 2015 @indin 3ina) r. administrativel liable in the siG 6'9

administrative complamts) docFeted as *3(C(A(15(005E) *3(C(A(15(005!) *3(C(A(15(00'0) *3(C(A(15(00'1) *3(C(A(15(00'2) and *3(C(A(15(00'BH and

6d 9 A@ter the @ilin o@ petitioner *mbudsman Conchita Carpio oraless comment) the CA is#IRECTE# to

resolve 3ina) r.s petition @or contempt in CA(#.$. S %o. 1B!50" with utmost dispatch.

O OR#ERE#. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrar

*ereno, !.. !arpio, 6eonardo5e !astro, el !astillo, :illarama, r., Pere/, Reyes, and 6eonen, .) concur.

:elasco, r., eralta) and ardeleMa) .) no part.

rion, .) no part/ on leave.

)endo/a, .) on leave.

ersamin, .) please see m concurrin J dissentin opinion.