G.R. No. 237646, April 28, 2021
LORETO S. ANDALING, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO B. JUMAWAK, MARINA M. TINONGA, NESTOR I. EPO, CORNELIO R. TABAD, SAMUEL L. EMIA, ARFEL D. DAAN, OMAR G. BAYRON, LUZVINA M. SUMITON, AND WILLIE JAMES A. WONG, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondents filed a Joint Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioner Loreto S. Andaling, then an incumbent municipal councilor of Katipunan, Zamboanga del Norte, and several others. The complaint alleged that petitioner obtained substantial cash advances totaling P80,229.55 from the Municipal Government in the years 2002, 2005 to 2009, and 2011, and failed to liquidate them within the period required by law and the Commission on Audit (COA). Petitioner asserted he had fully liquidated his cash advances by July 27, 2012, and the delay was inadvertent. The Ombudsman initially dismissed the complaint without prejudice for incomplete evidence and endorsed it to COA for a special audit. Based on COA’s Final Evaluation Report, which found petitioner’s total cash advances had accumulated to P127,414.00 from 2002 to 2011 before full liquidation in 2012, the Ombudsman redocketed the case and found petitioner administratively liable for Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, imposing the penalty of dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s ruling. Petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that his reelection operated as a condonation of his previous misconduct under the doctrine of Aguinaldo v. Santos, and that the penalty was harsh. During the pendency of the case, petitioner died on April 14, 2019.

ISSUE

1. Whether the doctrine of condonation applies to petitioner.
2. Whether petitioner is administratively liable.
3. Whether the penalty imposed is harsh, cruel, and unreasonable.
4. Whether petitioner’s death warrants the dismissal of the administrative case.

RULING

1. The doctrine of condonation does NOT apply to petitioner. The Supreme Court, citing Madreo v. Bayron and Gaudan v. Degamo, clarified that the abandonment of the condonation doctrine in Carpio Morales v. CA is applied prospectively. The doctrine no longer applies to public officials reelected on or after April 12, 2016. Petitioner was reelected as a Member of the Sangguniang Bayan in the May 2016 elections, which occurred after the finality of Carpio Morales. Furthermore, there was no conclusive proof on record that he was successfully elected to a different position (Provincial Board Member) in the 2013 elections. Therefore, his 2016 reelection cannot be deemed a condonation of misconduct committed in prior terms.
2. Petitioner is administratively liable. He admitted his failure to liquidate his cash advances within the period set by COA. His actions constituted Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The Court found no merit in his claim that the delay lacked corrupt intent, as the failure to abide by clear COA rules for an extended period constituted willful disregard.
3. The penalty of dismissal is appropriate. Given the nature of the offenses and the admission of the violation, the penalty imposed by the Ombudsman and affirmed by the CA is not excessive.
4. Petitioner’s death does NOT warrant the dismissal of the administrative case. The Court ruled that the administrative liability incurred by petitioner survived his death. The purpose of administrative proceedings is to protect public service, and the penalty, including its accessory penalties (cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from public office, and bar from civil service examinations), can still be imposed. The Court cited Crebello v. Office of the Ombudsman and Dela Rama v. Salumbides, which held that the death of a respondent does not preclude a finding of administrative liability, and the imposed penalties may still be given effect.