Lizares v. Hechanova
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Mario T. Lizares, then Mayor of Talisay, Occidental Negros, was administratively charged with corruption and maladministration in the disbursement of public funds for allegedly improving and asphalting a private road. The charge was initially dismissed by the Provincial Governor. However, the Governor later preferred the charge, and after investigation by the Provincial Board, the Mayor was acquitted. Procedural History: Upon the complainant's appeal to the Office of the President, respondent Executive Secretary, by authority of the President, revoked the Provincial Board's decision and suspended Mayor Lizares for one month. The Petition: Mayor Lizares filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the Executive Secretary's decision, arguing that the President lacked the power to revoke his acquittal by the Provincial Board under the constitutional provision of general supervision over local governments, and that Sections 2189 and 2191 of the Administrative Code were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether the re-election of Mayor Lizares for a subsequent term renders the administrative case and the resulting suspension order for acts committed during his previous term moot and academic.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for having become moot. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the expiration of the petitioner's term of office and his subsequent re-election rendered the issue academic. Applying the doctrine established in Pascual v. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, the Court ruled that re-election to office operates as a condonation of the officer's previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove or suspend him for acts committed in a prior term. The Court emphasized that each term is separate and distinct, and the act of the people in re-electing an official implies a disregard or forgiveness of past faults. The Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would be to practically overrule the will of the people who elected the official with presumed knowledge of his character. Since the petitioner was re-elected and is no longer amenable to administrative sanctions for acts committed during his previous tenure, the determination of the validity of the Executive Secretary's suspension order serves only theoretical interest. Thus, the case was dismissed as moot and academic without reaching the constitutional questions raised.
Main Doctrine
Reelection to office operates as a condonation of the officer's previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor, rendering administrative sanctions for acts committed during a prior term moot and academic.