0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
92 vizualizări7 pagini
1) The Sangguniang Barangay filed a petition for certiorari challenging the trial court's ruling that the Sangguniang Bayan exceeded its jurisdiction in removing Martinez from his position as Punong Barangay.
2) The trial court ruled that only courts, not the Sangguniang Bayan, have the power to remove elected local officials from office according to the Local Government Code.
3) Although Martinez's term expired, the Supreme Court agreed to settle the legal question of whether the Sangguniang Bayan or courts have jurisdiction over removing elected local officials from office.
Descriere originală:
case full text
Titlu original
Sangguniang Barangay of Don Mariano Marcos vs Martinez
1) The Sangguniang Barangay filed a petition for certiorari challenging the trial court's ruling that the Sangguniang Bayan exceeded its jurisdiction in removing Martinez from his position as Punong Barangay.
2) The trial court ruled that only courts, not the Sangguniang Bayan, have the power to remove elected local officials from office according to the Local Government Code.
3) Although Martinez's term expired, the Supreme Court agreed to settle the legal question of whether the Sangguniang Bayan or courts have jurisdiction over removing elected local officials from office.
1) The Sangguniang Barangay filed a petition for certiorari challenging the trial court's ruling that the Sangguniang Bayan exceeded its jurisdiction in removing Martinez from his position as Punong Barangay.
2) The trial court ruled that only courts, not the Sangguniang Bayan, have the power to remove elected local officials from office according to the Local Government Code.
3) Although Martinez's term expired, the Supreme Court agreed to settle the legal question of whether the Sangguniang Bayan or courts have jurisdiction over removing elected local officials from office.
MARIANO MARCOS VS MARTINEZ repair, gasoline, lubricants, wheels and other spare parts of the garbage truck This is a Petition for Review on instead of using the money or income of Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of said truck from the garbage fees collected Court, assailing the Orders dated 20 as income from its Sold Waste October 2005i[1] and 30 November Management Project. x x x. 2005ii[2] of the Regional Trial Court (trial court), Branch 27, of Bayombong, Nueva 5. Unliquidated traveling expenses for Vizcaya, in Special Civil Action No. 6727. In Seminar/Lakbay-Aral in 2003 because its assailed Orders, the trial court ruled although a cash advance was made by the that the Sangguniang Bayan of respondent for the said purpose, he, Bayombong, Neuva Vizcaya (Sangguniang however, did not attend said seminar Bayan), exceeded its jurisdiction when it because on the dates when he was imposed upon respondent Severino supposed to be on seminar they saw him in Martinez the administrative penalty of the barangay. x x x. removal from office. 6. That several attempts to discuss said Petitioner Sangguniang Barangay is the problem during sessions were all in vain legislative body of Barangay Don Mariano because respondent declined to discuss it Marcos, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, a and would adjourn the session.x x x.vi[6] local government unit created, organized and existing as such under pertinent laws Upon his failure to file an Answer to the of the Republic of the Philippines. Amended Administrative Complaint dated Respondent Martinez is the incumbent 6 December 2004, Martinez was declared Punong Barangay of the said local by the Sangguniang Bayan as in default. government unit.iii[3] Pending the administrative proceedings, Martinez was placed under preventive On 5 November 2004, Martinez was suspension for 60 days or until 8 August administratively charged with Dishonesty 2005.vii[7] and Graft and Corruption by petitioner through the filing of a verified complaint On 28 July 2005, the Sangguniang Bayan before the Sangguniang Bayan as the rendered its Decision which imposed upon disciplining authority over elective Martinez the penalty of removal from barangay officials pursuant to Section office.viii[8] 61iv[4] of Rep. Act No. 7160, otherwise The Decision dated 28 July 2005 was known as the Local Government Code. conveyed to the Municipal Mayor of Petitioner filed with the Sangguniang Bayombong, Nueva Ecija, Severino Bayan an Amended Administrative Bagasao, for its implementation. On 3 Complaint against Martinez on 6 December August 2005, Municial Mayor Bagasao 2004 for Dishonesty, Misconduct in Office issued a Memorandum, wherein he stated and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt that the Sanggunaing Bayan is not Practices Act.v[5] Petitioner alleged that empowered to order Martinezs removal Martinez committed the following acts: from service. However, the Decision 1. Failure to submit and fully remit to the remains valid until reversed and must be Barangay Treasurer the income of their executed by him. For the meantime, he solid waste management project since ordered the indefinite suspension of 2001 particularly the sale of fertilizer Martinez since the period of appeal had not derived from composting. yet lapsed.ix[9] The dispositive portion of the said Memorandum states that:x[10] 2. Failure to submit/remit to the barangay treasurer the sale of recyclable materials The FOREGOING considered come AUGUST taken from garbage collection. 8, 2005, respondent SEVERINO D. MARTINEZ is hereby directed NOT to 3. Using the garbage truck for other ASSUME and DISCHARGE the functions of purposes like hauling sand and gravel for the Office of the Punong Barangay of private persons without monetary benefit Barangay Don Mariano Marcos, to the barangay because no income from Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya and for this source appears in the year end report complainant JOSE CENEN SANTOS to even if payments were collected x x x. CONTINUE assuming and discharging the functions of the said office in ACTING Section 60 of the Local Government Code CAPACITY pursuant to the provisions of conferred upon the courts the power to Sections 67 and 68 of Republic Act No. remove elective local officials from office: 7160. Section 60. Grounds for Disciplinary On 26 August 2005, Martinez filed a Actions.An elective local official may be Special Civil Action for Certiorari with a disciplined, suspended, or removed from prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and office on any of the following grounds: Preliminary Injunction before the trial court against petitioner, the Sangguniang Bayan x x x x. and Mayor Bagasao questioning the An elective local official may be removed validity of the Decision dated 28 July 2005 from office on the grounds enumerated of the Sangguniang Bayan. This case was above by order of the proper court. docketed as Special Civil Action No. 6727, (Emphasis provided.) which was initially heard by Branch 28, but later raffled to Branch 27 of the trial court.xi During the deliberations of the Senate on [11] the Local Government Code,xvi[16] the legislative intent to confine to the courts, On 20 October 2005, the trial court issued i.e., regional trial courts, the an Order declaring the Decision of the Sandiganbayan and the appellate courts, Sangguniang Bayan and the Memorandum jurisdiction over cases involving the of Mayor Bagasao void. It maintained that removal of elective local officials was the proper courts, and not the petitioner, evident: are empowered to remove an elective local official from office, in accordance with Senator Pimentel. This has been reserved, Section 60 of the Local Government Code. Mr. President, including the issue of Thus, the Order of the Sangguniang Bayan whether or not the Department Secretary removing Martinez from service is void. As or the Office of the President can suspend a consequence, Mayor Bagasao cannot or remove an elective official. prevent Martinez from assuming his office on the basis of a void order. The trial court Senator Saguisag. For as long as that is further ruled that Martinez properly availed open for some later disposition, may I just himself of the remedy of Special Civil add the following thought: It seems to me Action, where the order assailed was a that instead of identifying only the patent nullity.xii[12] proper regional trial court or the Sandiganbayan, and since we know On 10 November 2005, petitioner filed a that in the case of a regional trial Motion for Reconsiderationxiii[13] of the trial court, particularly, a case may be courts Order dated 10 October 2005. The appealed or may be the subject of an trial court denied the said motion in injunction, in the framing of this later another Order dated 30 November 2005.xiv on, I would like to suggest that we [14] consider replacing the phrase PROPER REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OR THE Hence, the present petition was filed. SANDIGANBAYAN simply by COURTS. Although Martinezs term as Punong Kasi po, maaaring sabihin nila na mali Baranggay expired upon the holding of the iyong regional trial court o ang 29 October 2007 Synchronized Barangay Sandiganbayan. and Sangguniang Kabataan elections and, Senator Pimentel. OR THE PROPER COURT. thus, rendering this petition moot and academic, the Court will nevertheless Senator Saguisag. OR THE PROPER COURT. settle a legal question that is capable of repetition yet evading review.xv[15] Senator Pimentel. Thank you. We are willing to accept that now, Mr. President. The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the Sangguniang Bayan may remove Senator Saguisag. It is to be incorporated Martinez, an elective local official, from in the phraseology that we will craft to office. The pertinent legal provisions and capture the other ideas that have been cases decided by this Court firmly establish elevated. (Emphasis provided.) that the Sanggunaing Bayan is not empowered to do so. In Salalima v. Guingona, Jr.,xvii[17] the Court courts. Hence, Article 124 (sic 125)xx[20] en banc categorically ruled that the Office (b), Rule XIX, of the Rules and Regulations of the President is without any power to Implementing the Local Government Code, remove elected officials, since the power is insofar as it vests power on the disciplining exclusively vested in the proper courts as authority to remove from office erring expressly provided for in the last elective local officials, is void for being paragraph of Section 60 of the Local repugnant to the last paragraph of Section Government Code. It further invalidated 60 of the Local Government Code of 1991. Article 125, Rule XIX of the Rules and The law on suspension or removal of Regulations Implementing the Local elective public officials must be strictly Government Code of 1991, which provided construed and applied, and the authority in that: whom such power of suspension or removal is vested must exercise it with Article 125. Grounds for Disciplinary utmost good faith, for what is involved is Actions. x x x. not just an ordinary public official but one chosen by the people through the exercise x x x x. of their constitutional right of suffrage. (b) An elective local official may be Their will must not be put to naught removed from office on the grounds by the caprice or partisanship of the enumerated in paragraph (a) of this Article disciplining authority. Where the by order of the proper court or the disciplining authority is given only the disciplining authority whichever first power to suspend and not the power to acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of the remove, it should not be permitted to other. manipulate the law by usurping the power to remove. (Emphasis supplied.) The Court nullified the aforequoted rule since the Oversight Committee that The rule which confers to the proper courts prepared the Rules and Regulations of the the power to remove an elective local Local Government Code exceeded its official from office is intended as a check authority when it granted to the against any capriciousness or partisan disciplining authority the power to remove activity by the disciplining authority. elective officials, a power which the law Vesting the local legislative body with the itself granted only to the proper courts. power to decide whether or not a local Thus, it is clear that under the law, the chief executive may be removed from Sangguniang Bayan is not vested with the office, and only relegating to the courts a power to remove Martinez. mandatory duty to implement the decision, would still not free the resolution of the Petitioner contends that administrative case from the capriciousness or cases involving elective barangay officials partisanship of the disciplining authority. may be filed with, heard and decided by Thus, the petitioners interpretation would the Sangguniang Panlungsod or defeat the clear intent of the law. Sangguniang Bayan concerned, which can, thereafter, impose a penalty of removal Moreover, such an arrangement clearly from office. It further claims that the courts demotes the courts to nothing more than are merely tasked with issuing the order of an implementing arm of the Sangguniang removal, after the Sangguniang Panlungsod, or Sangguniang Bayan. This Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan finds would be an unmistakable breach of the that a penalty of removal is warranted.xviii doctrine on separation of powers, thus [18] placing the courts under the orders of the legislative bodies of local governments. The aforementioned position put forward The courts would be stripped of their power by the petitioner would run counter to the of review, and their discretion in imposing rationale for making the removal of the extreme penalty of removal from office elective officials an exclusive judicial is thus left to be exercised by political prerogative. In Pablico v. Villapando,xix[19] factions which stand to benefit from the the court declared that: removal from office of the local elective official concerned, the very evil which It is beyond cavil, therefore, that the power Congress sought to avoid when it enacted to remove erring elective local officials Section 60 of the Local Government Code. from service is lodged exclusively with the Congress clearly meant that the Judicial power includes the duty of the removal of an elective local official be done courts of justice to settle actual only after a trial before the appropriate controversies involving rights which are court, where court rules of procedure and legally demandable and enforceable, and evidence can ensure impartiality and to determine whether or not there has fairness and protect against political been a grave abuse of discretion maneuverings. Elevating the removal of an amounting to lack or excess of elective local official from office from an jurisdiction on the part of any branch administrative case to a court case may be or instrumentality of the Government. justified by the fact that such removal not (Emphasis provided.) only punishes the official concerned but also, in effect, deprives the electorate of The doctrine of separation of powers is not the services of the official for whom they absolute in its application; rather, it should voted be applied in accordance with the principle of checks and balances. The removal from As the law stands, Section 61 of the office of elective officials must not be Local Government Code provides for the tainted with partisan politics and used to procedure for the filing of an administrative defeat the will of the voting public. case against an erring elective barangay Congress itself saw it fit to vest that power official before the Sangguniang Panlungsod in a more impartial tribunal, the court. or Sangguniang Bayan. However, the Furthermore, the local government units Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang are not deprived of the right to discipline Bayan cannot order the removal of an local elective officials; rather, they are erring elective barangay official from office, prevented from imposing the extreme as the courts are exclusively vested with penalty of dismissal. this power under Section 60 of the Local Government Code. Thus, if the acts Petitioner questions the Decision dated 20 allegedly committed by the barangay October 2005 of the trial court for allowing official are of a grave nature and, if found the petition filed before it as an exception guilty, would merit the penalty of removal to the doctrine of exhaustion of from office, the case should be filed with administrative remedies. If, indeed, the the regional trial court. Once the court Sangguniang Bayan had no power to assumes jurisdiction, it retains jurisdiction remove Martinez from office, then Martinez over the case even if it would be should have sought recourse from the subsequently apparent during the trial that Sangguniang Panlalawigan. This Court a penalty less than removal from office is upholds the ruling of the trial court. appropriate. On the other hand, the most The doctrine of exhaustion of extreme penalty that the Sangguniang administrative remedies calls for resort Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan may first to the appropriate administrative impose on the erring elective barangay authorities in the resolution of a official is suspension; if it deems that the controversy falling under their jurisdiction removal of the official from service is before the same may be elevated to the warranted, then it can resolve that the courts of justice for review. Non- proper charges be filed in court. observance of the doctrine results in lack Petitioner alleged that an interpretation of a cause of action, which is one of the which gives the judiciary the power to grounds allowed by the Rules of Court for remove local elective officials violates the the dismissal of the complaint.xxii[22] doctrine of separation of powers. This The doctrine of exhaustion of allegation runs contrary to the 1987 administrative remedies, which is based on Constitution itself, as well as jurisprudence. sound public policy and practical The 1987 Constitution is explicit in defining consideration, is not inflexible. There are the scope of judicial power. It establishes instances when it may be dispensed with the authority of the courts to determine in and judicial action may be validly resorted an appropriate action the validity of acts of to immediately. Among these exceptions the political departments. It speaks of are: 1) where there is estoppel on the part judicial prerogative in terms of duty.xxi[21] of the party invoking the doctrine; 2) Paragraph 2, Section 1, Article VIII of the where the challenged administrative 1987 Constitution, provides that: act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; 3) where there is [24] Thus, his direct recourse to regular unreasonable delay or official inaction that courts of justice was justified. will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; 4) where the amount involved is relatively In addition, this Court in Castro v. small as to make the rule impractical and Gloriaxxv[25] declared that where the case oppressive; 5) where the question involves only legal questions, the litigant raised is purely legal and will need not exhaust all administrative ultimately have to be decided by the remedies before such judicial relief can be courts of justice; 6) where judicial sought. The reason behind providing an intervention is urgent; 7) where its exception to the rule on exhaustion of application may cause great and administrative remedies is that issues of irreparable damage; 8) where the law cannot be resolved with finality by the controverted acts violate due process; 9) administrative officer. Appeal to the when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative officer would only be an administrative remedies has been rendered exercise in futility. A legal question is moot; 10) where there is no other plain, properly addressed to a regular court of speedy and adequate remedy; 11) when justice rather than to an administrative strong public interest is involved; and 13) body.xxvi[26] in quo warranto proceedings.xxiii[23] In the present case, Martinez raised before As a general rule, no recourse to courts can the trial court the sole issue of whether the be had until all administrative remedies Sangguniang Bayan has jurisdiction over a have been exhausted. However, this rule is case involving the removal of a local not applicable where the challenged elective official from office.xxvii[27] In administrative act is patently illegal, Martinezs petition before the trial court, amounting to lack of jurisdiction and where only a legal question was raised, one that the question or questions involved are will ultimately be resolved by the courts. essentially judicial. Hence, appeal to the administrative officer concerned would only be circuitous and, In this case, it is apparent that the therefore, should no longer be required Sangguniang Bayan acted beyond its before judicial relief can be sought. jurisdiction when it issued the assailed Order dated 28 July 2005 removing IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Martinez from office. Such act was patently instant Petition is DENIED and the assailed illegal and, therefore, Martinez was no Decision of the Bayombong RTC in Special longer required to avail himself of an Civil Action No. 6727 is AFFIRMED. administrative appeal in order to annul the SO ORDERED. said Order of the Sangguniang Bayan.xxiv i