GR 198583; (June, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 198583 , June 28, 2017
ARLYN ALMARIO-TEMPLONUEVO, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT and CHITO M. OYARDO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Arlyn Almario-Templonuevo was elected Sangguniang Bayan Member of Caramoan, Catanduanes, serving from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2010. Respondent Chito M. Oyardo filed an administrative complaint against her before the Office of the Ombudsman. In a Decision dated January 6, 2010, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found Templonuevo guilty of simple misconduct and imposed a penalty of one-month suspension without pay. Templonuevo received a copy of this decision on September 27, 2010, after her term as Sangguniang Bayan Member had expired. However, she had been elected as Municipal Vice-Mayor of the same municipality in the May 2010 elections.
Without filing a motion for reconsideration, Templonuevo directly filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). She argued the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion by ordering her suspension for an offense committed in a prior, expired term, now that she held a new elective office. The CA dismissed her petition outright due to her failure to file a motion for reconsideration, a condition precedent for a certiorari petition. Her motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Templonuevo’s petition for certiorari for failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the Ombudsman.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s resolutions. The legal logic proceeds in two parts. First, on the procedural issue, the Court clarified that a motion for reconsideration was not a mandatory precondition in this specific case. Under Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman’s Rules of Procedure (Administrative Order No. 07, as amended), a decision imposing a penalty of suspension for not more than one month is “final, executory and unappealable.” Citing Office of the Ombudsman v. Alano and Reyes, Jr. v. Belisario, the Court held that such a final and unappealable Ombudsman decision cannot be altered by a motion for reconsideration. Therefore, Templonuevo correctly resorted directly to a Rule 65 petition to question any grave abuse of discretion in its execution.
Second, on the substantive merit of her petition, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of condonation. Citing Aguinaldo v. Santos, the Court held that Templonuevo’s re-election as Vice-Mayor in the May 2010 elections operated as a condonation of her prior administrative offense committed during her immediately preceding term as Sangguniang Bayan Member. The electorate’s act of re-electing her is deemed a forgiveness of past misconduct, cutting off the right to remove her for that prior act. Consequently, the Ombudsman’s order for her suspension from her new office could no longer be implemented. The act was deemed condoned.