G.R. No. 117618 March 29, 1996
VIRGINIA MALINAO, petitioner, vs. HON. LUISITO REYES, in his capacity as Governor of the Province of Marinduque, SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF MARINDUQUE and WILFREDO RED, in his capacity as Mayor of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Virginia Malinao, Human Resource Manager III of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, filed an administrative case for abuse of authority and denial of due process against respondent Mayor Wilfredo Red before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP). This was after the Mayor appointed her replacement while a separate Ombudsman case against her was pending. On August 12, 1994, the SP, in an executive session, voted 5-3 finding the Mayor guilty and imposing a one-month suspension. This vote was later embodied in a document dated September 5, 1994, but it was signed only by SP member Rodrigo Sotto in his capacity as “Presiding Chairman, Blue Ribbon Committee.”
Respondent Mayor questioned the validity of this September 5 document, arguing it was merely a committee recommendation. The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary opined that the document was invalid as it was not a decision of the SP acting as a collegial body as required by the Local Government Code. Subsequently, on October 21, 1994, the SP, voting 7-2, rendered a new Decision acquitting respondent Mayor of all charges. Petitioner Malinao filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus, arguing the September 5 “Decision” had become final and executory and could not be reversed by the October 21 Decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Sangguniang Panlalawigan acted with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its October 21, 1994 Decision acquitting respondent Mayor, thereby allegedly reversing a prior final and executory decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The September 5, 1994 document was not a valid and final decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Under Sections 61 and 66 of the Local Government Code, the SP exercises administrative disciplinary jurisdiction as a collegial body. The document, signed only by the committee chairman and not by the SP members who voted, did not constitute the official act of the SP. It was, at best, a mere committee report or recommendation requiring formal adoption by the entire Sanggunian. Consequently, no valid and executory decision existed prior to October 21, 1994. The SP’s subsequent Decision, rendered collegially and signed by the voting members, was its first and only valid decision on the case. Furthermore, the Court noted the case was mooted by the respondent Mayor’s reelection in May 1995, which resulted in a condonation of any administrative offense from his prior term. The petition for certiorari was also improper as petitioner had the plain remedy of an appeal to the Office of the President under the Local Government Code.