Herrera vs. Mago

An elective official reelected after April 12, 2016 cannot invoke the condonation doctrine to extinguish administrative liability for misconduct committed during a prior term, the doctrine having been prospectively abandoned as of that date. Additionally, a local official who facilitates the disbursement of public funds without the certifications required by Section 344 of the Local Government Code and in defiance of the explicit objections of the responsible fiscal officers commits grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The Department of Budget and Management issued Local Budget Circular No. 103 on May 15, 2013, granting an increase in RATA to local chief executives, vice-chief executives, sanggunian members, and other officials, retroactive to January 1, 2013, chargeable to the LGUs and subject to the 45%‑55% limitation on personal services expenditure under Section 325(a) of Republic Act No. 7160. The Sangguniang Bayan of Vinzons, Camarines Norte, passed Supplemental Budget No. 21-2013 and Appropriation Ordinance No. 02-2013 to cover the RATA differential for its members from January to June 2013. The mayor vetoed the appropriation in part for exceeding the 45% limit, but the Sanggunian overrode the veto. Former councilors thereafter sought payment of the differentials from petitioner, then the Vice-Mayor. The municipal accountant, budget officer, and treasurer unanimously opined that the former councilors were not entitled to the differential and refused to sign the disbursement documents. Petitioner, as sole signatory, nonetheless approved the voucher and caused the release of P76,800.00. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan later declared the supplemental budget inoperative, and the Commission on Audit disallowed the expenditure.

• The RATA Increase and Budget Override: On May 15, 2013, the Department of Budget and Management issued Local Budget Circular No. 103 granting a RATA increase to local officials, retroactive to January 1, 2013, chargeable to LGUs and subject to the 45% personal services expenditure ceiling under Section 325(a) of Republic Act No. 7160. The Sangguniang Bayan of Vinzons passed Supplemental Budget No. 21-2013 and Appropriation Ordinance No. 02-2013 appropriating P4,136,512.83 for the RATA differential of its members from January to June 2013. Mayor Agnes Diezno-Ang vetoed the appropriation insofar as it exceeded the 45% limit, allowing only P443,520.00. On October 14, 2013, the Sangguniang Bayan unanimously overrode the veto by Resolution No. 34-2013.

• Request, Objections, and Release: On December 25, 2013, former councilor Enrique Palacio, Jr. wrote petitioner Vice-Mayor Radames Herrera requesting his RATA differential. Petitioner instructed Municipal Accountant Leonilo Pajarin to prepare the payroll for the differentials of four former councilors: Palacio, Victor Ingatan, Gilberto Adorino, and Nestor Pajarillo. Pajarin expressed reservations, opining that under Section 106 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 and Section 454 of Republic Act No. 7160, officials no longer in active service were not entitled. Despite this, Obligation Request No. 713-12-13-2722 for P76,800.00 was released; Pajarin later said petitioner told him, “Ipaparelease ko yan at ako na ang may sagot kung idis-allow yan ng COA.” Municipal Budget Officer Raul Rigodon refused to sign the obligation request and annotated his objection. Disbursement Voucher No. 1002014030061 for P76,800.00 was prepared and referred to Municipal Treasurer Cynthia Jimenez, who also refused to sign, writing, “I invoke Section 344 of RA 7160 and Section 40 of NGA’s and the right not to be liable/accountable from any liability that may arise in this transaction.” Petitioner alone signed the voucher as agency head, and the amount was released to the four former councilors.

• Subsequent Disallowance and Complaint: The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Camarines Norte later declared the supplemental budget and appropriation ordinance inoperative for exceeding the 45% limit. On October 14, 2014, the Commission on Audit issued a Notice of Disallowance for the P76,800.00, directing petitioner and the former councilors to return the amount; they complied. On January 9, 2015, respondents Noel Mago, Simeon Villacrusis, and Jose Asis, Jr., all residents of Vinzons, filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman charging petitioner with grave abuse of authority, gross ignorance of law, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of rules on the disbursement of public funds. They alleged petitioner caused the illegal release despite the municipal officers’ unanimous objections. Petitioner denied wrongdoing, claiming the complaint was politically motivated by supporters of the mayor, and that he acted in good faith, believing the former councilors were entitled; he asserted that the officers voluntarily signed with reservations and that funds were available, and the disallowed amount was eventually returned.

• Condonation Doctrine: Petitioner argued that he was reelected as Vice-Mayor in the 2016 elections and, under the Aguinaldo doctrine, his reelection condoned any administrative misconduct committed during his prior term. He contended that the prospective abandonment of the doctrine in Carpio-Morales should not apply because his acts occurred in 2013‑2014 and the complaint was filed on January 9, 2015, before the November 10, 2015 ruling.
• Good Faith / Absence of Grave Misconduct: Petitioner maintained he acted in good faith, believing the former councilors were entitled to the RATA differentials. He denied compelling the municipal officers and asserted he was not impelled by malice, ill motive, or corruption, negating the element of willful intent required for grave misconduct.
• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service: Petitioner claimed the disbursement was an internal matter that did not involve the general public, and thus his action did not prejudice the best interest of the service.

• Respondents did not file a comment before the Supreme Court. In their Manifestation dated September 6, 2017, they stated their former counsel was abroad and no other lawyer would accept the case, effectively offering no opposing argument at this stage.

• Condonation Doctrine: Whether petitioner’s reelection in May 2016 extinguished his administrative liability for acts committed during a prior term, given the prospective abandonment of the condonation doctrine in Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals.
• Grave Misconduct: Whether petitioner’s act of facilitating the release of RATA differentials to former councilors without the certifications required by Section 344 of the Local Government Code and despite the express objections of the municipal accountant, budget officer, and treasurer constitutes grave misconduct.
• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: Whether petitioner’s unauthorized disbursement tainted the image and integrity of his office, rendering him liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty of dismissal with accessory penalties was properly imposed in light of the multiple charges and the absence of mitigating circumstances.

• Condonation Doctrine: The condonation doctrine was abandoned in Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals, with prospective application. The reckoning point for the end of the doctrine’s applicability is April 12, 2016, the date when the Court denied with finality the motion for clarification/reconsideration in that case, as clarified in Crebello v. Ombudsman. Petitioner was reelected on May 9, 2016, after the April 12, 2016 cutoff. Consequently, the condonation doctrine could not extinguish his administrative liability, regardless of when the underlying acts were committed or when the complaint was filed. The operative event for condonation is the reelection itself, and here it occurred after the doctrine had ceased to be good law.

• Grave Misconduct: Grave misconduct was established by substantial evidence. The offense requires a transgression of an established and definite rule of action, coupled with corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of established rules. Petitioner knowingly violated Section 344 of the Local Government Code, which mandates that no money shall be disbursed unless the local budget officer certifies to the existence of appropriation, the local accountant obligates the appropriation, and the local treasurer certifies the availability of funds. He was repeatedly informed of the municipal officers’ unanimous legal opinion that the former councilors were not entitled and their refusal to sign the necessary documents. Despite this, he alone approved the disbursement voucher and caused the release of P76,800.00. His statement to the municipal accountant—“Ipaparelease ko yan at ako na ang may sagot kung idis-allow yan ng COA”—demonstrated a willful intent to disregard the law. A claim of good faith was untenable under these circumstances.

• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: The unauthorized release of funds in defiance of the accountable officers’ objections tainted the image and integrity of petitioner’s office as Vice-Mayor, damaging public trust and the service itself. The act was not a mere internal matter; it involved a violation of fiscal safeguards and reflected adversely on the public interest.

• Penalty: Under Sections 49 and 50 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, when a respondent is found guilty of two or more charges, the penalty for the most serious offense is imposed and the other charges are considered as aggravating circumstances; where only aggravating and no mitigating circumstances exist, the maximum penalty is applied. Grave misconduct is a grave offense punishable by dismissal even for first-time offenders, while conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is punishable by suspension for the first offense. The more serious charge being grave misconduct, and with no mitigating circumstances, the penalty of dismissal with the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits), perpetual disqualification to hold public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations was correctly imposed.

• Abandonment of the Condonation Doctrine — The condonation doctrine, which originated in Pascual v. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija (1959) and held that an elective official’s reelection condones prior administrative misconduct, was abandoned in Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (2015) for lack of statutory or constitutional basis. The abandonment operates prospectively. The decisive date for the doctrine’s inapplicability is April 12, 2016, the finality date of the Carpio-Morales decision, as clarified in Crebello v. Ombudsman. An elective official reelected after April 12, 2016 cannot invoke condonation.

• Elements of Grave Misconduct — Grave misconduct consists of: (1) a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer; and (2) the act is accompanied by corruption, a willful intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules. The willful element is satisfied where the official facilitates a disbursement without the certifications required by Section 344 of the Local Government Code and against the express objections of the responsible fiscal officers.

• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service — This offense is committed when a public official’s act tarnishes the image and integrity of public office, whether or not the general public is directly affected. An act that undermines internal fiscal control mechanisms and erodes public trust falls within its ambit.

• Penalty for Multiple Offenses — Under Sections 49(c) and 50 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, where a respondent is found guilty of two or more charges, the penalty corresponding to the most serious charge is imposed, and the other charges are treated as aggravating circumstances. The maximum of the imposable penalty is applied when aggravating circumstances are present and no mitigating circumstances exist.

• “Verily, we hold that petitioner can no longer avail of the condonation doctrine because although the complaint below was instituted on January 9, 2015, he got reelected only on May 9, 2016, well within the prospective application of Carpio-Morales.” — This passage clarifies the operative date for the condonation doctrine’s inapplicability and applies it to the petitioner’s situation.

• “Petitioner's hand in the questioned transaction is unassailable. He admitted that he had requested Municipal Accountant Leonilo Pajarin to prepare the payroll for the RATA differential despite the fact that they were no longer connected with the Sangguniang Bayan. He also went to the Office of the Municipal Accountant to follow up his request for the release of the RATA differentials of the four former Councilors. Moreover, despite knowledge of the Municipal Officers' unanimous opinion that the former Councilors were not entitled to RATA differentials for the period of January to June 2013 and their refusal to sign the necessary documents therefor, petitioner still approved for payment the Disbursement Voucher No. 1002014030061. He was, in fact, the sole signatory approving the release of the amount of P76,800.00 representing the total salary differentials of the four former Councilors.” — This summation by the Court of Appeals, adopted by the Supreme Court, details the factual foundation for grave misconduct.

• Pascual v. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, 106 Phil. 466 (1959) — Origin of the condonation doctrine in Philippine law; overruled by Carpio-Morales.
• Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals, 772 Phil. 672 (2015) — Abandoned the condonation doctrine prospectively; the basis for denying petitioner’s invocation of condonation.
• Office of the Ombudsman v. Vergara, G.R. No. 216871, December 6, 2017, 848 SCRA 151 — Recognized that cases instituted before Carpio-Morales may still be covered by condonation, but distinguished here because petitioner’s reelection occurred after the doctrine’s abandonment took effect.
• Crebello v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 232325, April 10, 2019 — Clarified that the prospective application of Carpio-Morales is reckoned from April 12, 2016, the date of finality of the decision.
• Fajardo v. Corral, 813 Phil. 149 (2017) — Defined grave misconduct as a transgression of an established rule of action coupled with corruption or willful intent to violate the law.
• Sabio v. Field Investigation Office, G.R. No. 229882, February 13, 2018, 855 SCRA 293 — Confirmed that grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal even for first-time offenders.
• Miranda v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 213502, February 18, 2019 — Classified conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as a grave offense with a penalty of suspension for the first offense and dismissal for the second.

• Section 344, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) — Requires that no money be disbursed unless the local budget officer certifies to the existence of appropriation, the local accountant obligates the appropriation, and the local treasurer certifies the availability of funds. Petitioner violated this provision by approving the disbursement without these certifications.
• Section 325(a), Republic Act No. 7160 — Imposes the 45%‑55% limitation on personal services expenditures. The supplemental budget was later declared inoperative for exceeding this ceiling, further confirming the illegality of the disbursement.
• Section 10, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 07 as amended by Administrative Order No. 17 (Ombudsman Rules of Procedure) — Enumerates the accessory penalties of dismissal: cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leaves), perpetual disqualification to hold public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations.
• Sections 49 and 50, Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Govern the imposition of penalties for multiple charges: the penalty for the most serious offense is imposed, with other charges as aggravating; the maximum penalty is applied when only aggravating and no mitigating circumstances are present.

Chief Justice Peralta (Chairperson), and Associate Justices Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Lopez concurred.