G.R. Nos. 247689-90, April 26, 2021
Romeo H. Valeriano, Substituted by his daughter, Maria Karina V. Climaco, Petitioner, vs. Helen C. De Castro, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Romeo H. Valeriano, a member of the Sorsogon Crusade for Good Government, Inc., requested an audit on two projects of the Municipality of Bulan, Sorsogon, and later filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) charging Municipal Mayor Helen C. De Castro and other officials with Grave Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The alleged irregularities pertained to the Bulan Integrated Bus Terminal and Municipal Slaughterhouse projects, including overpayment, excess contract costs, failure to deduct liquidated damages, and procurement violations, leading to COA Notices of Disallowance. On February 12, 2015, the OMB found De Castro and Toby C. Gonzales, Jr. guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposed the penalty of dismissal. De Castro filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing the condonation doctrine, and also filed a premature Petition for Certiorari and Injunction with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed for being the wrong mode of appeal and for being filed out of time. The OMB denied her Motion for Reconsideration in a Consolidated Order dated February 28, 2017, refusing to apply the condonation doctrine per Ombudsman Circular No. 17. De Castro then filed a Petition for Review with the CA. In a Decision dated December 11, 2018, the CA affirmed the OMB ruling with modification, dismissing the administrative complaint against De Castro based on the condonation doctrine, while finding Gonzales liable for Simple Misconduct. Valeriano filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing the OMB decision had attained finality and that the condonation doctrine should not apply.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the condonation doctrine to dismiss the administrative complaint against respondent Helen C. De Castro.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the condonation doctrine applies to the case. The administrative complaint was filed on December 17, 2012, for acts allegedly committed in 2007-2008 during De Castro’s second term ending in 2010. She was re-elected in 2010 for a third term by the same electorate. Following the Court’s ruling in Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals, the abandonment of the condonation doctrine applies prospectively. Since the administrative case was pending before the Ombudsman when the Carpio-Morales decision became final on April 12, 2016, and the alleged misconduct and re-election occurred prior to this date, the condonation doctrine remains applicable. De Castro’s re-election in 2010 operated as a condonation of her prior misconduct, exonerating her from administrative liability. The Court further clarified that the finality of the OMB decision does not bar the application of the doctrine, as the doctrine extinguishes administrative liability as a matter of law.