Malinao v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Virginia Malinao, Human Resource Manager III of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, was removed from her post by respondent Mayor Wilfredo Red. While the Mayor filed a case against Malinao for gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, and incompetence before the Office of the Ombudsman, he also appointed a replacement for Malinao. Subsequently, Malinao filed an administrative case against Mayor Red before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Marinduque, charging him with abuse of authority and denial of due process. Procedural History: On August 12, 1994, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, in executive session, voted 5 to 3 to find Mayor Red guilty and impose a one-month suspension. This result was embodied in a 'Decision' dated September 5, 1994, signed only by Rodrigo V. Sotto as 'Presiding Chairman, Blue Ribbon Committee, Sangguniang Panlalawigan.' Mayor Red questioned this 'Decision,' arguing it was merely a recommendation. The Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) opined that the 'decision' was not in accordance with law as it should have been adopted by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan as a collegial body. Petitioner demanded implementation of the suspension, but the Governor agreed with the DILG opinion and refused. On October 21, 1994, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, voting 7 to 2, acquitted Mayor Red, with the decision signed by all members who voted in favor. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to annul the October 21, 1994 decision, arguing that the September 5, 1994 decision had become final and executory, and thus the Sangguniang Panlalawigan could not render another decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the 'Decision' dated September 5, 1994, signed only by the Presiding Chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee, constituted a final and executory decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Whether the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had the power to render another decision on October 21, 1994, reversing its supposed prior decision. Whether the petition for certiorari and mandamus was the proper remedy given the availability of an appeal. Whether the case had become moot and academic due to the expiration of the respondent's term and his subsequent reelection.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Supreme Court ruled that the September 5, 1994 document was not a valid decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, and that the October 21, 1994 decision acquitting the Mayor was the valid one. The Court also found the petition improper and the case moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the September 5, 1994 'Decision': The Court held that the document signed only by Rodrigo V. Sotto, as Presiding Chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee, was not a valid decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Section 66(a) of the Local Government Code of 1991 requires that the decision be in writing, clearly stating the facts and reasons, and be rendered by the sanggunian as a collegial body. The minutes of the August 12, 1994 session only showed that a vote was taken, not that a decision was rendered. The 'decision' signed by Sotto was merely a recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Committee, not an act of the entire Sanggunian. The DILG Secretary's opinion correctly pointed out that the committee's duty is purely recommendatory, and for the Sanggunian to adopt its recommendation, it should have been submitted to, approved, and adopted by the Sanggunian as a collegial body, with members affixing their signatures. The fact that Sotto signed in his capacity as committee chairman and that the draft did not provide spaces for other signatures further supported this conclusion. The Court reiterated that until an opinion is concurred in by the majority and signed, members are free to change their votes, and a draft decision signed by only one member does not constitute the decision of the body. On the power of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to render another decision: The Court found that since the September 5, 1994 document was not a valid decision, it could not have become final and executory. Therefore, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan retained the power to render a valid decision. On October 21, 1994, the Sanggunian, voting 7 to 2, did render a decision in writing, stating the facts and law, and signed by the members who participated. This was the valid decision of the Sanggunian, which acquitted the respondent Mayor. The petitioner's claim that the September 5, 1994 document was final and executory was therefore without merit. On the propriety of the petition for certiorari and mandamus: The Court noted that a prerequisite for a writ of certiorari is the absence of any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the petitioner could have appealed the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to the Office of the President, as provided in Section 67(b) of the Local Government Code. Since an adequate remedy was available, the petition for certiorari was not the proper recourse. On the case being moot and academic: The Court held that the case had become moot and academic for two reasons. Firstly, the term of office of the respondent Mayor, during which the alleged act was committed, had expired. Secondly, the respondent Mayor was reelected on May 8, 1995. Pursuant to Section 66(b) of the Local Government Code, the penalty of suspension cannot exceed the unexpired term. More importantly, any administrative disciplinary proceeding against an elective local official is abated upon his reelection, as his reelection results in the condonation of any misconduct committed during his previous term. This principle of condonation through reelection renders further proceedings against the respondent Mayor unnecessary and moot.
Main Doctrine
A decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in an administrative case must be in writing, clearly stating the facts and reasons, and must be adopted by the body as a collegial act, not merely a recommendation of a committee or the act of a single member. Furthermore, administrative disciplinary proceedings against an elective local official are abated upon his reelection, which results in the condonation of any misconduct during the previous term.