Templonuevo v. Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Arlyn Almario-Templonuevo (Templonuevo) was elected as Sangguniang Bayan Member of Caramoan, Catanduanes, from July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2010. Chito M. Oyardo (Oyardo) filed an administrative complaint against Templonuevo before the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of Sec. 2, par. I of Republic Act No. 9287. In a Decision dated January 6, 2010, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found Templonuevo guilty of simple misconduct and imposed a penalty of one month suspension without pay. Procedural History: Templonuevo received the Ombudsman's decision on September 27, 2010, after her term as Sangguniang Bayan Member had expired. She had been elected as Municipal Vice Mayor in the May 2010 elections. Without filing a motion for reconsideration, Templonuevo filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering her suspension when her term had expired and she had been elected to a new position. The CA dismissed her petition for failure to file a motion for reconsideration. The CA denied her motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Templonuevo filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, asserting that the CA erred in dismissing her petition for failure to file a motion for reconsideration, as the Ombudsman's decision was final and unappealable. She also argued that her election as Vice Mayor constituted condonation of her previous administrative liability. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) sided with Templonuevo, arguing that the Ombudsman's decision was final and unappealable and that the condonation doctrine applied. The Ombudsman contended that a motion for reconsideration was allowed and that the condonation doctrine only applied to re-election to the same position.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA committed an error in dismissing outright the petition filed by Templonuevo on the ground of failure to file a motion for reconsideration from the decision of the Ombudsman finding her administratively liable and imposing upon her a penalty of one month suspension. Whether the CA committed an error in not treating the election of Templonuevo as Vice Mayor of the same municipality as an event that precludes the imposition of the one month suspension penalty following the doctrine of condonation.
Ruling
The Court grants the petition. The February 17, 2011 and September 8, 2011 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 116229 are reversed and set aside. The act committed by petitioner Arlyn Almario-Templonuevo is deemed condoned.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (Motion for Reconsideration): The Court held that a motion for reconsideration is not a prerequisite for filing a petition for certiorari when the Ombudsman's decision imposes a penalty of one month suspension. This is because Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, as amended, explicitly states that decisions imposing public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month's salary are final, executory, and unappealable. Consequently, such decisions are beyond the reach of a motion for reconsideration or an appeal. The Court cited Ombudsman v. Alano and Reyes v. Belisario to support the interpretation that these specific penalties render the Ombudsman's decision immediately final and unappealable. Therefore, Templonuevo was justified in resorting directly to a Rule 65 petition before the CA, as there was no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The purpose of a motion for reconsideration, which is to allow the court to correct errors, is rendered moot when the decision is already beyond reconsideration. On the second issue (Condonation Doctrine): The Court ruled that the condonation doctrine applies to Templonuevo's case, despite the subsequent abandonment of the doctrine in Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals. The abandonment was made prospective, and thus, the doctrine remained applicable to cases prior to its abandonment. The Court clarified that the condonation doctrine applies not only to re-election to the same position but also to election to a different position, provided that the electorate is the same. In this instance, the electorate that elected Templonuevo as Sangguniang Bayan Member and later as Vice Mayor of the same municipality was essentially the same. The Court reasoned that each term of office is separate and distinct, and re-election by the same electorate serves as a condonation of previous misconduct, precluding removal from office. Therefore, Templonuevo's election as Vice Mayor effectively condoned her administrative liability for acts committed during her term as Sangguniang Bayan Member, rendering the imposition of the one-month suspension penalty moot and academic.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration is not required before filing a petition for certiorari when the Ombudsman's decision imposing a penalty of one month suspension is final and unappealable under Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, as amended. The condonation doctrine, which applies to re-election to the same or a similar position by the same electorate, may still be invoked even if the doctrine itself has been prospectively abandoned.