G.R. No. 226935 , 228238, 228325 February 09, 2021
June Vincent Manuel S. Gaudan, Petitioner, vs. Roel R. Degamo, Respondent. / Office of the Ombudsman, represented by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, et al., Petitioners, vs. Roel R. Degamo, Respondent. / June Vincent Manuel S. Gaudan, Petitioner, vs. Roel R. Degamo, Respondent.

FACTS

Roel R. Degamo, initially a Provincial Board Member of Negros Oriental, assumed office as Governor by succession in 2011. As Governor, he requested calamity funds for 2012. The DBM released P480,775,000.00 but subsequently withdrew the Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) for non-compliance with DPWH guidelines, demanding the return of the funds. Degamo refused and, through Negotiated Procurement in Emergency Cases, awarded eleven infrastructure contracts and disbursed P143,268,441.59 as advance payments. The Commission on Audit disallowed these disbursements for lack of available funds. Degamo was reelected as Governor in the May 2013 elections. In October 2013, June Vincent Manuel S. Gaudan filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against Degamo for Malversation through Falsification, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and administrative charges for Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Abuse of Authority. In a Joint Resolution dated January 12, 2016, the Ombudsman found probable cause for criminal charges and administratively found Degamo guilty of Grave Misconduct. Initially, the Ombudsman applied the condonation doctrine due to his 2013 reelection. However, upon Gaudan’s motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Order dated May 16, 2016, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service, abandoning the condonation doctrine in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Carpio Morales v. CA. Degamo filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Ombudsman’s order. The CA, in a Decision dated August 30, 2016, reversed the Ombudsman’s administrative finding, holding Degamo liable only for Simple Misconduct and ruling that the penalty could no longer be imposed due to the condonation doctrine. The CA denied subsequent motions for reconsideration. The consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court assail the CA’s Resolutions issuing the TRO and its Decision applying the condonation doctrine.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the condonation doctrine applies to absolve Governor Roel R. Degamo of administrative liability for acts committed prior to his reelection in 2013.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petitions, reversed and set aside the assailed CA Decision and Resolutions, and reinstated the Ombudsman’s Joint Order dated May 16, 2016. The Court held that the condonation doctrine is abandoned and has no retroactive application. The doctrine was definitively abandoned in the 2015 case of Ombudsman Carpio Morales v. Court of Appeals (Carpio Morales), which was reiterated as final and executory on April 12, 2016. The Court ruled that the abandonment applies to all pending cases, regardless of when the infraction was committed or when the public official was reelected. Since Degamo’s administrative case was still pending before the Ombudsman when the Carpio Morales doctrine became final, the condonation doctrine could not be invoked. The Court further found that the CA gravely abused its discretion in issuing the TRO, as the Ombudsman’s decision was immediately executory under Section 7, Rule III of Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 07, and the appeal did not stay its execution. The Court also modified the administrative liability, finding Degamo guilty of Grave Misconduct, not Simple Misconduct, due to his evident bad faith in proceeding with the procurement and disbursement of funds despite knowledge of the DBM’s withdrawal order and the COA’s disallowance. The penalty of dismissal from service was reinstated.