Gabornes v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants, members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Lawaan, Eastern Samar, filed criminal and administrative complaints against Municipal Mayor Candida E. Gabornes (Candida) and Municipal Accountant Pedro Gabornes (Pedro), among others. They alleged that Candida, with the complicity of Pedro and the Municipal Treasurer, caused the issuance of checks for P30,601.14 and P11,200.00 for the purchase of spare parts and tires for Candida's privately owned Mitsubishi Montero SUV. Petitioners admitted the transactions but claimed good faith, asserting the vehicle was used for official duties and that the municipality benefited from its use. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) issued a Joint Resolution finding petitioners guilty of Grave Misconduct and recommending their dismissal from service, and the filing of Informations for Malversation thru Falsification of Public Documents and Violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The OMB denied their motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the OMB's Joint Resolution and Order. The Petition: Petitioners sought review, arguing that the CA erred in affirming their administrative liability for Grave Misconduct, as the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant breach of duty were not manifest. They also argued that Candida's subsequent re-election in 2013 should have condoned any administrative liability, invoking the condonation doctrine which they claimed was applicable as the events preceded the Carpio Morales ruling.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners are guilty of Grave Misconduct. Whether the condonation doctrine is applicable in this case.
Ruling
The petition is partially granted. The Court affirmed the CA's decision and resolution with modification, dismissing the administrative complaint against petitioner Candida E. Gabornes based on the condonation doctrine.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Grave Misconduct: The Court held that administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule, and findings of fact by the OMB, when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive. The disbursement of public funds for the purchase of spare parts for Candida's private vehicle, despite irregularities in supporting documents, constituted Grave Misconduct. The Court defined misconduct as a transgression of established rules and grave misconduct requires additional elements like corruption or willful intent to violate the law. Petitioners, in their official capacities, unlawfully used their positions to facilitate the illegal release of public funds for personal use, which was prejudicial to the government and demonstrated willful intent to violate the law and disregard established rules. The penalty of dismissal from service is prescribed for Grave Misconduct under the 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. On the applicability of the Condonation Doctrine: The Court found that the condonation doctrine applies to Candida. The doctrine was abandoned in Ombudsman Carpio Morales v. CA on April 12, 2016, but it applies prospectively. It can still be invoked in pending administrative cases if the reelection occurred before the abandonment date. In this case, the subject checks were issued in March and April 2012, the complaints were filed in September 2012, and Candida was reelected in 2013. All these events transpired before April 12, 2016. Therefore, Candida's administrative liability for Grave Misconduct committed in 2012 was deemed condoned by her reelection in 2013.
Main Doctrine
The condonation doctrine, which provides that a public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term due to reelection operating as condonation, applies prospectively. It can still be invoked in pending administrative cases if the reelection occurred before April 12, 2016, the date the doctrine was abandoned in Carpio Morales v. CA.