G.R. No. L-59679 January 29, 1987
TEODULO M. PALMA, SR., petitioner, vs. HON. CARLOS O. FORTICH, as Governor of Bukidnon, and THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF BUKIDNON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Teodulo M. Palma, Sr., the elected Mayor of Don Carlos, Bukidnon, faced three criminal cases for Acts of Lasciviousness filed by two municipal employees. Based on these criminal Informations, the complainants requested respondent Governor Carlos O. Fortich for an administrative investigation to suspend Mayor Palma. The Governor formally charged the Mayor with Misconduct in Office and forwarded the case to the respondent Sangguniang Panlalawigan, which, after a hearing, issued Resolution No. 82-87 ordering the Mayor’s preventive suspension. Mayor Palma complied with the suspension but filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify the resolution and halt the administrative proceedings.
Subsequently, the three criminal cases against Mayor Palma were dismissed by the Regional Trial Court for insufficiency of evidence. Petitioner thus manifested that the administrative case had lost its legal basis. Meanwhile, following the promulgation of the 1986 Freedom Constitution, petitioner was replaced by an Officer-in-Charge, Fabian Gardones, as Mayor of Don Carlos.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the filing of criminal cases for Acts of Lasciviousness against an elective local official constitutes “Misconduct in Office” under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5185, warranting the filing of an administrative complaint and preventive suspension based solely on those criminal charges, absent a final conviction.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, dismissing the administrative case. The legal logic hinges on the distinction between misconduct linked to official duties and misconduct involving moral turpitude unconnected to official functions. For an act to constitute administrative “Misconduct in Office,” it must affect the performance of official duties, not merely the officer’s private character. Crimes involving moral turpitude, such as Acts of Lasciviousness, when not shown to be connected with the discharge of official functions (e.g., neglect of duty, oppression, or corruption), cannot be the sole basis for administrative action unless there is a prior conviction by final judgment. The Court cited the precedent in Mindano v. Silvosa, which required a final conviction for crimes like rape or concubinage before provincial authorities could act administratively. This doctrine applies by analogy to Acts of Lasciviousness.
In this case, not only was there no final conviction, but the criminal cases were dismissed. Thus, the administrative complaint lacked a valid basis. However, the Court noted that the petitioner’s replacement by an Officer-in-Charge under the Freedom Constitution had rendered the issues of suspension and removal moot and academic. Consequently, the Court dismissed the administrative case for lack of basis and declared the petition moot.