Almario-Templonuevo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

A motion for reconsideration is not a prerequisite to filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 when the Ombudsman imposes a penalty of one-month suspension or less, which is deemed final, executory, and unappealable under Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07.

Petitioner served as Sangguniang Bayan Member of Caramoan, Catanduanes from 2007 to 2010. During her term, respondent Chito M. Oyardo filed an administrative complaint before the Ombudsman charging her with violation of RA 9287. While the case was pending, she was elected Municipal Vice Mayor in the May 2010 elections.

• Ombudsman (OMB-L-A-08-0097-B): Complainant Oyardo filed administrative charge for violation of Section 2, paragraph 1 of RA 9287
• January 6, 2010: Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon rendered Decision finding petitioner guilty of simple misconduct and imposing one-month suspension without pay
• CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 116229): Petitioner filed original petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 without filing an MR with the Ombudsman
• February 17, 2011: CA dismissed petition for failure to file a motion for reconsideration
• September 8, 2011: CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
• SC: Petitioner filed petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45

• Petitioner was elected Sangguniang Bayan Member of Caramoan, Catanduanes in the May 2007 elections, serving from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2010
• In the May 2010 elections, she was elected Municipal Vice Mayor of the same municipality
• Respondent Oyardo filed the administrative complaint before the Ombudsman during her SB term
• Petitioner received the Ombudsman Decision on September 27, 2010, at which time her SB term had expired and she was already serving as Vice Mayor
• The Ombudsman decision imposed a penalty of one-month suspension without pay pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of AO 07 (as amended by AO 17) in relation to RA 6770
• Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration with the Ombudsman and proceeded directly to the CA

• The CA erred in dismissing the petition for failure to file a motion for reconsideration because Section 7, Rule III of AO 7 makes Ombudsman decisions imposing one-month suspension final, executory, and unappealable; thus, an MR would be useless and falls under the exceptions to the MR requirement
• Cites Ombudsman v. Alano and Reyes, Jr. v. Belisario: where the penalty is one-month suspension or less, the complainant has no right to MR or appeal, and the respondent has no right to appeal; the decision is immediately final
• The condonation doctrine applies: her election as Vice Mayor of the same municipality in May 2010 condoned the misconduct committed during her previous term as SB Member; cites Pascual v. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija
• The Ombudsman decision is a patent nullity because the penalty can no longer be imposed after her election to a different position by the same constituents

• Office of the Ombudsman: Section 7, Rule III of AO 7 allows the filing of motions for reconsideration even for decisions imposing one-month suspension; the condonation doctrine applies only to re-election to the same position, not to different positions (SB Member vs. Vice Mayor)
• Office of the Solicitor General (supporting petitioner): AO 7 makes one-month suspension final and unappealable; no MR or appeal is available as a remedy; the condonation doctrine precludes the imposition of the penalty

• Procedural Issue: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration from the Ombudsman decision imposing one-month suspension
• Substantive Issue: Whether the CA erred in not applying the condonation doctrine to preclude the imposition of the one-month suspension after petitioner’s election as Vice Mayor of the same municipality

• Procedural: The CA erred. Under Section 7, Rule III of AO 7, an Ombudsman decision imposing a penalty of one-month suspension or less (or public censure, reprimand, or fine equivalent to one-month salary) is final, executory, and unappealable. Neither the complainant nor the respondent may file a motion for reconsideration or appeal to the courts. Consequently, an MR would be a useless remedy, which is a recognized exception to the rule that an MR must precede a certiorari petition under Rule 65.
• Substantive: The condonation doctrine applies. Although the SC abandoned the doctrine in Carpio-Morales v. CA and Binay (November 10, 2015), the abandonment was prospective only, thus the doctrine still governs this case. Under Giron v. Ochoa, the doctrine applies even when a public official is elected to a different position (here, from SB Member to Vice Mayor) provided the body politic is the same. The electorate for Vice Mayor wholly embraces those voting for Sangguniang Bayan members. Therefore, the sovereign will of the same constituents condoned the prior misconduct, rendering the penalty moot.

• Doctrine of Condonation — Re-election to office (which may be a different position) by the same body politic operates as a condonation of previous misconduct, cutting off the right to remove the official for acts committed during the previous term. Requisites: (1) election to office (position need not be identical); (2) same body politic or electorate.
• Finality of Ombudsman Decisions under AO 7 — Under Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, decisions are final and unappealable where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary. No motion for reconsideration or appeal lies.
• Exceptions to Motion for Reconsideration Requirement — An MR is not required before certiorari when: (a) the order is a patent nullity; (b) questions were already raised in the lower court; (c) urgent necessity exists; (d) the MR would be useless; (e) due process was denied; (f) urgent relief from arrest is needed; (g) proceedings were a nullity; (h) proceedings were ex parte; or (i) the issue is purely legal or involves public interest. The SC applied exception (d) (useless remedy) because the Ombudsman decision was already final and unappealable.

• "Left without any remedy in the ordinary course of law, Templonuevo was justified in resorting directly to the CA via a Rule 65 petition."
• "The underlying theory is that each term is separate from other terms... the condonation doctrine applies to a public official elected to another office... it is a given fact that the body politic, who elected him to another office, was the same."
• "The electorate for the Vice Mayor of a municipality embraces wholly those voting for a member of the Sangguniang Bayan."

• Ombudsman v. Alano (544 Phil. 709) — Controlling precedent establishing that Ombudsman decisions imposing penalties of one-month suspension or less are final and unappealable under AO 7.
• Reyes, Jr. v. Belisario (612 Phil. 937) — Followed for the rule that complainants have no right to MR or appeal where penalties are minor (one-month suspension or less), and respondents have no appeal right for such penalties.
• Pascual v. Hon. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija (106 Phil. 466) — Cited by petitioner as origin of the condonation doctrine.
• Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals and Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr. (G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015) — Distinguished; abandoned the condonation doctrine but held abandonment prospective only, allowing application to this case.
• Giron v. Ochoa (G.R. No. 218463, March 1, 2017) — Followed for the interpretation that the condonation doctrine applies to election to different positions provided the body politic is the same.

• Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 (as amended by Administrative Order No. 17) — Governs finality of Ombudsman decisions where penalties are one-month suspension or less; provides that such decisions are final, executory, and unappealable.
• Section 13(8), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution — Grants the Ombudsman constitutional authority to promulgate rules of procedure.
• Rule 65 of the Rules of Court — Governs certiorari petitions to the CA.
• Rule 45 of the Rules of Court — Mode of appeal to the SC.
• Republic Act No. 9287 — Statute allegedly violated by petitioner (Section 2, paragraph 1).
• Republic Act No. 6770 — The Ombudsman Act of 1989; cited regarding implementation of decisions.

• N/A (Peralta, Leonen, and Martires, JJ., concurred in the result; Carpio, J., on official leave)