18 Palma Vs Fortich PDF

SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-59679. January 29, 1987.]
TEODULO M. PALMA, SR. , petitioner, vs. HON. CARLOS O. FORTICH,

as Governor of Bukidnon, and THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN
OF BUKIDNON , respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; COMPLAINTS; DISMISSAL OF, DOES NOT NECESSARILY

FOLLOW DISMISSAL OF CRIMINAL CASE. — As a general rule, dismissal of an
administrative case does not necessarily follow the dismissal of a criminal case, the
former requiring as it does, only preponderance of evidence while the latter requires proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
2. ID.; ID.; GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. — In administrative
actions against municipal officers, the Supreme Court in Festijo v. Crisologo, et al. (17
SCRA 868, 869 [1966]), classified the grounds for suspension under two categories,
namely: (1) those related to the discharge of the functions of the officer concerned
(neglect of duty, oppression, corruption or other forms of maladministration of office) and
(2) those not so connected with said functions. Under the second category, when the
crime involving moral turpitude is not linked with the performance of official duties,
conviction by final judgment is required as a condition precedent to administrative action.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; MISCONDUCT; DEFINITION. — Misconduct has been defined as "such as
affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not only as affects his character as
a private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to separate
the character of the man from the character of the officer." (Lacson v. Roque, et al., 92 Phil.
456)
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONVICTION BY FINAL JUDGMENT, A REQUISITE BEFORE CHARGES
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE MAY BE FILED. — As to whether or not, such misconduct
of petitioner affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not only his character
as a private individual, has been laid to rest by the ruling of the Supreme Court in an
analogous case where it was held that while "it is true that the charges of rape and
concubinage may involve moral turpitude of which a municipal official may be proceeded
against . . . but before the provincial governor and board may act and proceed against the
municipal official, a conviction by final judgment must precede the filing by the provincial
governor of the charges and trial by the provincial board."
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE MUST BE DISMISSED UPON FAILURE TO SHOW THAT ACTS
ARE LINKED WITH PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES; CASE AT BAR. — In the instant
case, not only is a final judgment lacking, but the criminal cases filed against the petitioner
were all dismissed by the trial court, for insufficiency of evidence, on the basis of its
findings that the attendant circumstances logically point to the existence of consent on
the part of the offended parties. (Order, Crim. Cases Nos. 2795, 2796 and 2797, RTC, Br. X,
Malaybalay, Bukidnon, Rollo, pp. 77-79). Under the circumstances, there being no showing
that the acts of petitioner Mayor are linked with the performance of official duties such as
"neglect of duty, oppression, corruption, or other form of maladministration of office"
(Festijo v. Crisologo, et al., supra, pp. 872-873), there appears to be no question that the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
pending administrative case against him should be dismissed for lack of basis and the
restraining order issued by the court should be made permanent.
DECISION
PARAS , J : p
This is a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for Preliminary Injunction
seeking: (a) to prohibit the respondents from continuing with the hearing and investigation
of Administrative Case No. 2 filed by respondent Governor of Bukidnon against petitioner
Mayor Teodulo M. Palma, Sr. of the Municipality of Don Carlos, Province of Bukidnon and
(b) to nullify Resolution No. 82-87 passed by respondent Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Bukidnon, suspending him from office. prcd
The undisputed facts of this case are:

On March 30, 1981, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal Vivencio P. Estrada of Bukidnon, at the
instance of the offended parties Nelia Arandel, Clerk-typist and Susan Palamine, Clerical
Aide, both of the Office of the Mayor of the Municipality of Don Carlos, Province of
Bukidnon, filed with the Court of First Instance of the same province, Criminal Cases Nos.
2795, 2796 and 2797 against petitioner Teodulo M. Palma, Sr., the duly elected and
qualified Mayor of said Municipality.
By virtue of the aforesaid three (3) separate cases, said offended parties in a sworn joint
letter complaint requested respondent Provincial Governor for an immediate
administrative investigation for the purpose of suspending Mayor Palma from office
pending final determination of these cases. (Rollo, p. 6). Attached to said letter are: three
(3) copies of the Information for Acts of Lasciviousness against the Mayor (Annexes "B",
"C" and "D"; Petition, Rollo, pp. 7-9); the statements of the offended parties (Annexes "1-A"
and "2"; Comment, Rollo, pp. 30-34; Respondent's Brief, p. 3, Rollo, p. 60). Treating the
same as a formal letter complaint, respondent Governor formally informed the Mayor of
the administrative charge against him for Misconduct in Office (Annex "E", Petitioner; Rollo,
p. 10). Forthwith, the record of the administrative case against the Mayor was forwarded
to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province of Bukidnon. Said body, after receipt
thereof, set the case for hearing on April 13, 1981 (Annex "F", Petition, Rollo, p. 11). After
the hearing where complainants were required to testify and then cross-examined by
petitioner's counsel, the former petitioned for the preventive suspension of the Mayor
which was granted by respondent Sangguniang Panlalawigan in its Resolution No. 82-87
(Annex "G", Petition, Rollo, p. 42).
The Mayor accepted his preventive suspension from office as shown in his Office Order
dated February 15, 1982 (Annex "3", Comment of Respondent; Rollo, p. 35). Nonetheless,
he filed this petition. cdrep
In the resolution of April 24, 1982 of the First Division of this Court (Rollo, p. 14),
respondents were required to comment on the petition. The same was filed on May 3,
1982 (Rollo, pp. 25-35) while on June 14, 1982 petitioner filed an urgent motion for
immediate issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (Rollo, pp. 37-39). In the resolution of
June 16, 1982 (Rollo, p. 40) the motion of petitioner to file therein a reply (Rollo, pp. 19-23)
to respondents' comment was granted; the petition was given due course and a temporary
restraining order was issued enjoining the respondents from continuing with the hearing
and/or investigation of the administrative case and from enforcing the order of
suspension against petitioner. Petitioner's brief was filed on September 9, 1982 (Rollo, p.
57) while respondents' brief was filed on September 27, 1982 (Rollo, p. 60). On October 1,
1982, the offended parties moved (Rollo, pp. 62-64) for intervention and for admission of
their attached brief (Rollo, p. 66) which was granted and the aforesaid brief noted in the
resolution of October 20, 1982 (Rollo, p. 68). Thereafter, the case was calendared for
decision. (Rollo, p. 67)
The only issue raised in Petitioner's Brief is as follows:
WHETHER OR NOT THE FILING AND PENDENCY OF THE AFORESAID THREE (3)
SEPARATE INFORMATION FOR "ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS" AGAINST AN
ELECTIVE LOCAL OFFICIAL WOULD CONSTITUTE "MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 5 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5185 WHICH MAY
WARRANT THE FILING OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM
AND/OR HIS SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE.
There appears to be no controversy as to the filing of the criminal cases against the
petitioner. The principal issue centers on the filing of the administrative case and
consequent preventive suspension of petitioner based solely on the filing of the above-
mentioned criminal cases. LLpr
Petitioner contends that "Acts of Lasciviousness" although how numerous, do not fall
within the category of "malfeasance and misfeasance" or "misconduct in the office"
contemplated in Section 5 of R.A. No. 5185, and therefore cannot be the basis of the filing
of a separate administrative case against an elective official and the preventive
suspension of the latter.
Respondents, alleging otherwise, maintain that the lascivious acts of the petitioner
constitute misconduct under Article XIII, Section 1 of the 1973 Constitution, re:
"Accountability of Public Officers."
However, on September 1, 1983, petitioner filed a Manifestation and Prayer (Rollo, pp. 69-
71) informing this Court that the three criminal cases filed against him were all dismissed
by the Regional Trial Court of Bukidnon, Branch X in an Order dated February 24, 1983.
(Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 72-79). Thus, on the premise that the administrative case in question
as well as the resulting preventive suspension is now bereft of any legal basis, petitioner
now prays that judgment be rendered in accordance with his prayer in the petition.
But, before the instant petition could be decided by the Supreme Court, the Provisional
Constitution also known as the Freedom Constitution was promulgated in Proclamation
No. 3, dated March 25, 1986, by President Corazon C. Aquino.
Article III, Section 2 thereof, reads:
"All elective and appointive officials and employees under the 1973 Constitution
shall continue in office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive
order or upon the designation or appointment and qualification of their
successors, if such is made within a period of one year from February 25, 1986."
Under the above quoted provision of the Freedom Constitution, an incumbent Mayor,
elected under the 1973 Constitution may be replaced by an "Officer-in-Charge a specie of
successor considered as within the ambit of the provision." (G.R. No. 73770, Topacio, Jr. v.
Pimentel; G.R. No. 73811, Velasco v. Pimentel; G.R. No. 73823, Governors of the Phil. v.
Pimentel; G.R. No. 73940, The Municipal Mayors League of the Phil., et al. v. Pimentel; and
G.R. No. 73970, Solis v. Pimentel, et al., RESOLUTION; Court En Banc dated April 10, 1986)
Coming back to the case at bar, it appears from the records of the Ministry of Local
Government that petitioner who was obviously elected under the 1973 Constitution, has
been replaced by OIC Fabian Gardones as Mayor of Don Carlos, Cagayan.
Thus, the question now confronting the Court, is whether or not, under the succeeding
developments, the issue in the case at bar has become moot and academic. LibLex
As a general rule, dismissal of an administrative case does not necessarily follow the
dismissal of a criminal case, the former requiring as it does, only preponderance of
evidence while the latter requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
However, In administrative actions against municipal officers, the Supreme Court in Festijo
v. Crisologo, et al. (17 SCRA 868, 869 [1966]), classified the grounds for suspension under
two categories, namely: (1) those related to the discharge of the functions of the officer
concerned (neglect of duty, oppression, corruption or other forms of maladministration of
office) and (2) those not so connected with said functions. Under the second category,
when the crime involving moral turpitude is not linked with the performance of official
duties, conviction by final judgment is required as a condition precedent to administrative
action.
The ground for filling of the administrative action in the case at bar and the suspension of
petitioner Mayor is misconduct allegedly committed in the form of lascivious acts of the
latter.
Misconduct has been defined as "such as affects his performance of his duties as an
officer and not only as affects his character as a private individual. In such cases, it has
been said at all times, it is necessary to separate the character of the man from the
character of the officer." (Lacson v. Roque, et al., 92 Phil. 456)
Now, As to whether or not, such misconduct of petitioner affects his performance of his
duties as an officer and not only his character as a private individual, has been laid to rest
by the ruling of the Supreme Court in an analogous case where it was held that while "it is
true that the charges of rape and concubinage may involve moral turpitude of which a
municipal official may be proceeded against . . . but before the provincial governor and
board may act and proceed against the municipal official, a conviction by final judgment
must precede the filing by the provincial governor of the charges and trial by the provincial
board." (Mindano v. Silvosa, et al., 97 Phil. 144-145 [1955]).
Indeed, there is merit in petitioner's contention that the same ruling applies to acts of
lasciviousness which falls under the same classification as crimes against chastity. In the
instant case, not only is a final judgment lacking, but the criminal cases filed against the
petitioner were all dismissed by the trial court, for insufficiency of evidence, on the basis of
its findings that the attendant circumstances logically point to the existence of consent on
the part of the offended parties. (Order, Crim. Cases Nos. 2795, 2796 and 2797, RTC, Br. X,
Malaybalay, Bukidnon, Rollo, pp. 77-79). Under the circumstances, there being no showing
that the acts of petitioner Mayor are linked with the performance of official duties such as
"neglect of duty, oppression, corruption, or other form of maladministration of office"
(Festijo v. Crisologo, et al., supra, pp. 872-873), there appears to be no question that the
pending administrative case against him should be dismissed for lack of basis and the
restraining order issued by the court should be made permanent.
Nonetheless, the replacement of petitioner Mayor by the Officer-in-Charge Fabian
Gardones has rendered the issues of removal and suspension from office, moot and
academic. cdll
PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING: (a) the administrative

case filed against the petitioner for lack of basis and (b) subject petition for having
become moot and academic.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr., Padilla and Bidin, JJ ., concur.

18 Palma Vs Fortich PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

18 Palma Vs Fortich PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-59679. January 29, 1987.]

TEODULO M. PALMA, SR. , petitioner, vs. HON. CARLOS O. FORTICH,

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; COMPLAINTS; DISMISSAL OF, DOES NOT NECESSARILY

The undisputed facts of this case are:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING: (a) the administrative

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like