G.R. No. 229811 , April 28, 2021
Office of the Ombudsman, represented by the Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, in her capacity as the Ombudsman; OMB-Task Force PDAF; and OMB-Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office, Petitioners, vs. Oscar Gonzales Malapitan, Respondent.

FACTS

On February 16, 2015, the Office of the Ombudsman’s Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office filed a criminal complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against several public officials, including respondent Oscar Gonzales Malapitan, for the allegedly anomalous use of his PDAF worth P8,000,000.00 in 2009 when he was the Caloocan City First District Representative. The complaint also contained an administrative charge for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service against three other officials, but Malapitan was not initially impleaded in this administrative complaint. On January 22, 2016, the Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office filed a Motion to Admit Attached Amended Complaint to implead Malapitan in the administrative complaint, which the Ombudsman’s Task Force PDAF granted on February 22, 2016. Malapitan moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied. He then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted the Petition on August 31, 2016, ruling that the condonation doctrine applied to Malapitan’s case. The Court of Appeals held that Malapitan’s election as Mayor of Caloocan City in 2013, after his term as Congressman during which the alleged misconduct occurred, impliedly condoned the alleged administrative offense. It nullified the Ombudsman’s Orders and enjoined the administrative proceedings against Malapitan. The Office of the Ombudsman’s Motion for Reconsideration was dismissed, prompting this Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the condonation doctrine to nullify the Office of the Ombudsman’s Orders granting the amendment to implead respondent Oscar Gonzales Malapitan in the administrative complaint and to enjoin the administrative proceedings against him.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The condonation doctrine was abandoned in Carpio Morales v. Court of Appeals on April 12, 2016. The abandonment applies prospectively, meaning it does not apply to administrative cases that were pending as of that date, provided the public official’s reelection occurred before the abandonment. In this case, the administrative complaint against Malapitan was initiated only upon the filing of the amended complaint on January 22, 2016, and the grant of the motion to admit it on February 22, 2016. Since these events occurred after the finality of the abandonment of the condonation doctrine on April 12, 2016, the doctrine can no longer be invoked by Malapitan. Furthermore, the Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in granting the extraordinary writs of certiorari and prohibition, as the Ombudsman’s Orders were merely interlocutory and Malapitan had not exhausted administrative remedies, having actively participated in the proceedings by filing pleadings including a Counter-Affidavit and a Verified Position Paper. The Ombudsman’s authority to investigate and prosecute administrative cases is plenary and unencumbered by the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or claims of prescription under Section 20(5) of the Ombudsman Act, which is directory, not mandatory. The case was remanded to the Office of the Ombudsman for further proceedings.