Monday, September 24, 2007 Court says 2 dismissed local officials may continue works
THE Court of Appeals (CA) has ruled that the respective administrative liabilities of two elected officials in Metro Manila, who were both dismissed from service by the Office of the Ombudsman, have been effectively obliterated with their reelection to office.
In separate decisions, the CA gave Pasay City Vice Mayor Antonino Calixto and Manila Councilor Abelardo Viceo the go-signal to proceed with their duties and functions. Both officials were earlier dismissed from service for grave misconduct and graft charges.
The CA Sixth Division through Associate Justice Ramon Bato considered moot and academic the petition filed by Calixto seeking the nullification of the Ombudsman’s January 12, 2007 resolution dismissing him along with Pasay City Mayor Wenceslao Trinidad and several city councilors from the service.
The appellate court said Calixto’s reelection as vice mayor of Pasay last May has rendered the case moot and academic and that a ruling on the case would be of no practical use or value.
“Under the moot and academic doctrine, Courts will abstain from expressing its opinion or resolving the case on the merits. Hence, taking into account that the 13th Division of this Court dismissed on June 28, 2007 for being moot and academic because petitioner was reelected on 14 May 2007, thereby obliterating his administrative liability, we unanimously voted to dismiss the instant petition assailing the immediate implementation of the Ombudsman decision dated January 12, 2007 for being moot and academic,” the CA stated in its ruling.
Calixto’s dismissal stemmed from the graft charges filed before the Office of the Ombudsman by barangay chairman Juanito Delmendo, who accused petitioner and other Pasay city officials of conspiring in entering into contracts amounting to P232.3 million for garbage collection and disposal for a period of almost two years from February 2004 to December 2005 without public bidding.
The acts constitute violation of Republic Act (RA) 3019 or the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act.
The CA, likewise, granted Calixto’s motion to release the P200,000 cash bond he earlier posted.
In another ruling penned by Associate Justice Andres Reyes, the CA Former Eighth Division ordered the dismissal of the administrative complaint against Viceo on account of his reelection as councilor of Manila’s second district.
The court granted Viceo’s motion for reconsideration of its June 5, 2007 decision which affirmed the ruling of the Ombudsman dismissing him from his post and permanently banning him from seeking reemployment in the government service for violation of the anti-graft law.
“Current judicial doctrine peculiar to administrative cases such as the one at bar holds that a reelected local official may not be held administratively accountable for misconduct committed during his prior term of office. The rationale for this holding is that when the electorate put him back into office, it is presumed that it did so with full knowledge of his life and character, including his past misconduct,” the CA said.
“If, armed with such knowledge, it still reelects him, then such reelection is considered condonation of his past misdeeds,” the CA said.
Viceo, who has been reelected for another three-year term, was found guilty of grave misconduct by the Ombudsman for demanding P1.2 million from trader Cleotilde Flavier, president of the Abucay Market Corporation (AMC), in exchange for a favorable action on the renewal of the franchise of the subject market.
Based on the findings, Viceo as vice chairman of the City Council committee on utility and franchise tried to freeze the application for franchise by the complainant by requiring an extensive research before taking an action on matter.
The move, according to the investigators, was intended to harass Flavier into giving in to the demand of the councilor.
The CA, however, noted that the dismissal of the administrative complaint is without prejudice to the filing or continuation of any civil or criminal action against Viceo in connection with the issue. (ECV/Sunnex)
