G.R. No. 203471, September 14, 2020
Virgilio A. Bote, Petitioner, vs. San Pedro Cineplex Properties, Inc., Respondent.

FACTS

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Resolution which modified the Ombudsman’s ruling. The administrative complaint was filed by San Pedro Cineplex Properties, Inc. (SPCPI) against Virgilio A. Bote, then incumbent mayor of General Tinio, Nueva Ecija, for violation of Section 444(b)(2)(iv) of R.A. 7160 (Local Government Code), abuse of authority, and culpable violation of the Constitution. The dispute arose from a conflict over a real property in San Pedro, Laguna, claimed by the heirs of Manuel Humada Enano, whom Bote represented. SPCPI alleged that on September 12, 2009, Bote, with armed men, went to the disputed property, destroyed a fence, and fired at SPCPI’s security guards, leading to attempted murder charges (later dismissed). SPCPI also claimed Bote abused his authority by using his position as mayor in a letter to a police official to secure quick police action. Bote denied the accusations, claiming he was not present, had no firearm, and that his security guards were fired upon by SPCPI’s agents. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of substantial evidence but did not rule on the culpable violation charge, later noting it was moot due to Bote’s re-election. The CA modified this, finding Bote guilty of culpable violation of the Constitution, ruling his acts were in his private capacity and not condoned by re-election.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the Ombudsman Decision and in holding Bote guilty of culpable violation of the Constitution.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the Petition, annulled and set aside the CA Decision and Resolution, and dismissed the administrative complaint against Bote. The Court held that the doctrine of condonation applies. All charges against Bote—violation of the Local Government Code, abuse of authority, and culpable violation of the Constitution—are grounds for disciplinary action under Section 60 of R.A. 7160 and are deemed misconduct in office. Following the doctrine in Aguinaldo v. Santos, re-election to office condones prior misconduct, as the electorate is presumed to have absolved the official of any administrative offenses committed during the previous term. The Court found that Bote’s re-election as municipal mayor in the 2010 elections condoned all the alleged administrative infractions, which were committed before his re-election. Thus, the administrative liability was extinguished.