Title: Don vs Lacsa

GR 170810 August 7, 2007

Ponente: Carpio-Morales, j.:
Facts:
Petitioners-public school teachers charged before the Sangguniang
Bayan of Juban, Sorsogon respondent Ramon H. Lacsa (respondent),
then Punong Barangay of Bacolod, Juban, Sorsogon, with grave
threats, oppression, grave misconduct, and abuse of authority.
On the directive of the then vice mayor of the Municipality of Juban
in his capacity as presiding officer of the Sangguniang Bayan,
respondent filed his Answer.
A Special Investigating Committee (SIC) created by the Sangguniang
Bayan to investigate the case found sufficient evidence for the
preventive suspension of respondent. The Sangguniang Bayan thus
passed a resolution recommending his preventive suspension.
Acting on the recommendation, the mayor slapped a two-month
preventive suspension against respondent on January 7, 2005.
The SIC later submitted its report finding respondent guilty of
oppression, grave misconduct, and abuse of authority.[3] On March
7, 2005, the Sangguniang Bayan issued Resolution No. 12-2005[4]
adopting the SIC Report. By the same resolution, respondent was
removed from office.
On March 8, 2005, the mayor issued Executive Order No. 8, Series of
2005 implementing Resolution No. 12-2005 of the Sangguniang
Bayan and installing Florencio H. Lacsa, the highest ranking
Sangguniang Barangay member, in place of Ramon H. Lacsa as
Punong Barangay of Bacolod. On even date, respondent received a
copy of the executive order, together with a copy of Sangguniang
Bayan Resolution No. 12-2005.
Twenty one days after receiving a copy of Sangguniang Bayan
Resolution No. 12-2005 or on March 29, 2005, respondent filed
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon a Petition for
Certiorari (With Application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Writ of Preliminary Injunction)[9] against herein petitioners, along
with the Sangguniang Bayan of Juban and Mayor Ma. Teresa Guab-
Fragata. The case was docketed as Special Civil Action No. 2005-
7513.
By Decision of October 24, 2005, Branch 53 of the RTC of Sorsogon
granted respondents petition and accordingly nullified the mayors
executive order.
TC Held that:
[Respondent] is entitled to be informed and have a copy of the
decision rendered by the Sangguniang Bayan of Juban, Sorsogon
pursuant to Section 66 of R.A. 7160, for him to seek the remedies
afforded by law, if he so desires. x x x [He] received Executive
Order No. 8 and attached thereto is Sangguniang Bayan
Resolution No. 12-2005, on the same day, March 8, 2005. It
appears that the . . . Sangguniang Bayan furnished [him] with a
copy of the said resolution not to afford him his remedies on
appeal in violation of Section 66 7160, but to execute said
resolution hastily . . . in utmost disregard of [his] constitutional
right to due process. Pursuant to Section 67 of R.A. 7160, [he] has
thirty (30) days from receipt of the said resolution to file an
appeal. [He] was not afforded the opportunity to elevate
Resolution No. 12-2005 on appeal.
Issue:
1
st
WON respondent Lacsa is entitled to reinstatement or not?
OR WON the trial court act in GAD in applying/interpreting the LGC
specifically sections 61, 67, 68.
2
nd
Whether or not the petition for certiorari is the proper
recourse
Held:
No, Trial Court acted with GAD.

Ratio:
Sections 61 and 67 of the Local Government Code, provide:
Section 61. Form and Filing of Administrative Complaints. A verified
complaint against any erring local elective official shall be prepared as
follows:
(c) A complaint against any elective barangay official shall be filed before
the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned whose
decision shall be final and executory,
Sec. 67. Administrative Appeals. Decisions in administrative cases may,
within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof, be appealed to the following:
For 2
nd
issue:
(b) the Office of the President, in the case of decisions of
the sangguniang panlalawigan and the sangguniang
panlungsod of highly urbanized cities and independent
component cities.
Decisions of the Office of the President shall be final and
executory.
In interpreting the foregoing provisions, the trial court did not consider
Section 68 of the same code which provides:
An appeal shall not prevent a decision from being final and executory. The
respondent shall be considered as having been placed under preventive
suspension during the pendency of an appeal in the event that he wins
such appeal. In the event that the appeal results in exoneration, he shall
be paid his salary and other such emoluments during the pendency of the
appeal.
Obviously, the said Code does not preclude the taking of an appeal. On
the contrary, it specifically allows a party to appeal to the Office of the
President. The [phrase] final and executory x x x in Sections 67 and 68,
respectively, of the Local Government Code, are not, as erroneously ruled
by the trial court, indicative of the appropriate mode of relief from the
decision of the Sanggunian concerned. These phrases simply mean that
the administrative appeals will not prevent the enforcement of the
decisions. The decision is immediately executory but the respondent may
nevertheless appeal the adverse decision to the Office of the President or
to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, as the case may be.
The conditions that would afford respondent to file a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court as he did file one before the RTC that a
tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has
acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no
appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law are not here present.

Title: Barangay Don Mariano Marcos vs Punong Barangay Martinez
GR 170626 March 3, 2008
Ponente: Chico-Nazario, J.:
Facts:
On Nov 5, 2004, the Sangguaniang Barangay of Don Mariano
Marcos filed administrative charges of dishonesty and graft and
corruption against Severino Martinez, its barangay captain, before
the Sangguniang Bayan of Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya.
It alleged that Martinez:
1. failed to submit and fully remit to the barangay treasurer the
income from the solid waste management project for the past three
years (since 2001), particularly the sale of fertilizer derived from
composting;
2. failed to submit/remit to the barangay treasurer the sale of
recyclable materials taken from the garbage collection
3. used the garbage truck for other purposes for private persons;
the barangay derived no income from these activities because none
were reported in the year-end report
4. spent barangay funds for the repair, upkeep and gasoline of the
garbage truck, instead of using the money from the garbage fees
collected under the Solid Waste Management Project
5. collected travelling expenses for a seminar/lakbay-aral in 2003
but did not attend the seminar, because he was in the barangay on
the date of the seminar
6. refused to discuss the problems when these were raised during
the barangay sessions, instead adjourning the session.
Martinez failed to answer the complaint and was declared in default
by the Sangguniang Bayan. He was placed under preventive
suspension for 60 days in June 2005, until August 8 2005. On July
28, 2005, the Sangguniang Bayan rendered its decision, imposing
upon Martinez the penalty of removal from office. The decision was
conveyed to Bayombong Mayor Severino Bagasao for
implementation. Bagasao however said he was not empowered to
order Martinez removal from office, and instead ordered his
indefinite suspension. He directed one of the barangay kagawads
(Cenen Santos) to continue discharging the functions of the
barangay captain in an acting capacity.
Martinez filed a special civil action for certiorari with a prayer for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction before the
Bayombong RTC, questioning the validity of the Sangguniang
Bayans order. The RTC held that both order of the Sangguniang
Bayan and Bagasaos memorandum were void. It held that the
proper court and not the Sangguniang Bayan, is empowered to
remove an elective local official from office, citing Section 60 of the
Local Government Code. Neither could Bagasao prevent Martinez
from assuming his office on the basis of a void order. The case was
appealed to the Supreme Court.
Martinez term of office expired on October 29, 2007, which
rendered the case moot and academic, but the Supreme Court held
that it was capable of repetition yet evading review and ruled on
it.
Issue:
May the Sangguniang Bayan remove from office a local elective
official?
Held:
No.
Ratio:
Section 60 of the Local Government Code said that an elective local
official may be removed from office by order of the proper court. The
Senate deliberations on the Local Government Code show that they meant
the regional trial court of the Sandiganbayan. The phrase was replaced
with the proper court because the cases filed under these courts may still
be appealed or be the subject of an injunction.
The SC noted that in Salalima v Guingona, the Court en banc ruled that even
the President of the Republic had no power to remove local elective officials
because that power is exclusively vested in the proper courts.
While administrative cases involving elective barangay officials may be filed
with, heard and decided by the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang
Bayan, as the case may be, they could only suspend the erring local elective
official. If removal of said official from office is warranted, they could
resolve that charges be filed before the proper court.
The SC said it was clear in Pablico v Villapando that the removal of elective
officials was an exclusive judicial prerogative, and was meant to check any
capriciousness or partisan activity by the disciplining authority.
Congress clearly meant that the removal of an elective local official be
done only after a trial before the appropriate court, where court rules of
procedure and evidence can ensure impartiality and fairness and protect
against political maneuverings. Elevating the removal of an elective local
official from office from an administrative case to a court case may be
justified by the fact that such removal not only punishes the official
concerned but also, in effect, deprives the electorate of the services of the
official for whom they voted.
Thus, if the acts allegedly committed by the barangay official are of a grave
nature and, if found guilty, would merit the penalty of removal from office,
the case should be filed with the regional trial court. Once the court
assumes jurisdiction, it retains jurisdiction over the case even if it would be
subsequently apparent during the trial that a penalty less than removal
from office is appropriate. On the other hand, the most extreme penalty
that the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan may impose on the
erring elective barangay official is suspension; if it deems that the removal
of the official from service is warranted, then it can resolve that the proper
charges be filed in court.