Malinao vs. Reyes

For a decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in administrative cases against elective local officials to be valid under Section 66(a) of the Local Government Code of 1991, it must be rendered in writing, state clearly and distinctly the facts and reasons for the decision, and be signed by the majority of the members constituting the collegial body; a document signed solely by a committee chairman acting in that capacity constitutes merely a committee recommendation and not a decision of the Sanggunian.

The case arose from a dispute between a municipal human resource manager and the municipal mayor regarding the procedural validity of administrative disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The controversy centered on the distinction between a mere committee recommendation and a formal decision of the Sanggunian as a collegial body, and the proper remedy available to aggrieved parties under the Local Government Code of 1991.

• Petitioner Virginia Malinao was the Human Resource Manager III of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque.
• Respondent Mayor Wilfredo Red filed a case against petitioner in the Office of the Ombudsman for gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, and incompetence; while this case was pending, he appointed a replacement for petitioner.
• On February 24, 1994, petitioner filed Administrative Case No. 93-03 against respondent Mayor in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Marinduque, charging him with abuse of authority and denial of due process for removing her from her post without due process.
• On August 12, 1994, the Sanggunian conducted an executive session where Vice Governor Rosa E. Lecaroz inhibited herself; Rodrigo V. Sotto presided as the most senior member.
• During the August 12, 1994 session, five members (Muhi, Raza, Pinaroc, Lagran, and De Luna) voted "Guilty," while three members (Rejano, Zoleta, and Lim) voted "Not Guilty"; the five who voted guilty subsequently voted to impose a one-month suspension.
• On September 5, 1994, a document entitled "Decision" was signed only by Rodrigo V. Sotto as "Presiding Chairman, Blue Ribbon Committee, Sangguniang Panlalawigan," and copies were served on respondent Mayor and Governor Luisito Reyes on September 12, 1994.
• On September 14, 1994, respondent Mayor filed a manifestation before the Sanggunian questioning the validity of the September 5 document on the ground that it was signed by only one member acting as committee chairman and therefore constituted merely a committee recommendation.
• On September 14, 1994, DILG Secretary Rafael M. Alunan III issued an opinion stating that the purported decision did not comply with Section 66 of the Local Government Code because it should have been submitted to and approved by the Sanggunian as a collegial body, and that the Blue Ribbon Committee's function was purely recommendatory.
• On October 14, 1994, petitioner sent a letter to Governor Reyes demanding implementation of the September 5 document; on October 20, 1994, the Governor informed the Sanggunian that he agreed with the DILG opinion and could not implement the document.
• On October 21, 1994, the Sanggunian voted 7-2 to acquit respondent Mayor, with members Rejano, Zoleta, Ricohermoso, Lim, Pinaroc, Raza, and Lagran voting to dismiss; members Muhi and De Luna dissented; member Sotto did not vote; the decision was signed by all members who participated in the voting.
• Respondent Mayor was reelected on May 8, 1995, during the pendency of the proceedings.

• The September 5, 1994 document became final and executory due to respondent Mayor's failure to appeal, and was therefore beyond the power of the Sanggunian to reverse or modify.
• The voting conducted during the August 12, 1994 executive session constituted a valid decision of the Sanggunian finding respondent Mayor guilty of abuse of authority.
• The Sanggunian lacked authority to render a subsequent decision on October 21, 1994 that effectively reversed the earlier determination.
• No notice of the October 21, 1994 session was given to petitioner, violating her right to due process.

• The September 5, 1994 document was not a valid decision of the Sanggunian because it was signed only by one member acting as Presiding Chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee, and lacked the signatures of the requisite majority of the collegial body.
• The DILG Secretary's opinion confirmed that the document was merely a recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Committee and did not comply with Section 66 of the Local Government Code.
• The August 12, 1994 voting was merely a deliberative act and did not constitute a formal decision as required by law.
• The October 21, 1994 decision was the valid decision of the Sanggunian because it was in writing, stated the facts and reasons, and was signed by the majority of members who participated.
• The deliberation of the Sanggunian on October 21, 1994 was an internal matter that did not require notice to petitioner.
• Certiorari was not the proper remedy because petitioner could have appealed to the Office of the President under Section 67(b) of the Local Government Code.
• The case had become moot and academic due to respondent Mayor's reelection on May 8, 1995, which condoned any misconduct during the previous term.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the petition for certiorari and mandamus was the proper remedy when an appeal to the Office of the President was available under Section 67(b) of the Local Government Code of 1991.
  • Whether the case had become moot and academic due to the reelection of respondent Mayor on May 8, 1995.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the September 5, 1994 document constituted a valid final decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
  • Whether the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had the authority to render a subsequent decision on October 21, 1994 reversing the earlier determination.

• Procedural:
  • The Court held that certiorari was improper because Section 67(b) of the Local Government Code provided a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, specifically an appeal to the Office of the President from decisions of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in administrative cases.
  • The Court ruled that the case was moot and academic because respondent Mayor was reelected on May 8, 1995, and pursuant to the condonation doctrine, his reelection resulted in a condonation of whatever misconduct he might have committed during his previous term, thereby abating any pending administrative disciplinary proceedings.
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that the September 5, 1994 document was not a valid decision because it was signed only by one member acting as Presiding Chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee, lacked the signatures of the requisite majority, and did not comply with Section 66(a) of the Local Government Code which requires decisions to be in writing stating clearly and distinctly the facts and reasons.
  • The Court held that the August 12, 1994 voting was merely a deliberative act and not a formal decision, as the voting did not necessarily constitute a decision unless embodied in an opinion prepared by one member and concurred in by others composing the majority.
  • The Court determined that the October 21, 1994 decision, which was in writing, stated the facts and reasons, and was signed by the members who voted, constituted the valid decision of the Sanggunian.
  • The Court ruled that no notice of the October 21, 1994 session was required to be given to petitioner because the deliberation of the Sanggunian was an internal matter.

• Condonation Doctrine — The principle that the reelection of a public official to the same office condones any administrative misconduct committed during the previous term, thereby abating any pending administrative disciplinary proceedings against him; applied to bar further proceedings against respondent Mayor who was reelected on May 8, 1995.
• Requirements for Valid Administrative Decision — Under Section 66(a) of the Local Government Code of 1991, decisions in administrative cases involving elective local officials must be rendered in writing, state clearly and distinctly the facts and reasons for the decision, and be signed by the majority of the collegial body; mere voting without a written signed decision does not satisfy this requirement.
• Committee vs. Collegial Body Authority — The Blue Ribbon Committee of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan has merely recommendatory functions and cannot decide on the merits or impose penalties; only the Sanggunian acting as a collegial body has the administrative jurisdiction to take cognizance of cases and render decisions in conformity with Sections 61 and 66 of the Local Government Code.

• "In order to render a decision in administrative cases involving elective local officials, the decision of the Sanggunian must thus be 'in writing stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the reasons for such decision.'"
• "Like the procedure in the Supreme Court, the voting following the deliberation of the members of the Sanggunian did not necessarily constitute their decision unless this was embodied in an opinion prepared by one of them and concurred in by the others, in the same way that the voting following the deliberation on a case in the Supreme Court becomes its decision only after the opinion prepared by a Justice is concurred in by others composing the majority."
• "Any administrative disciplinary proceeding against respondent is abated if in the meantime he is reelected, because his reelection results in a condonation of whatever misconduct he might have committed during his previous term."

• Aguinaldo v. COMELEC — Cited for the condonation doctrine establishing that reelection bars further administrative proceedings for misconduct committed during the previous term.
• Aguinaldo v. Santos — Cited in support of the condonation doctrine and its application to administrative cases against elective officials.
• Reyes v. COMELEC — Cited in relation to the condonation doctrine.
• Garcia v. COMELEC — Cited in relation to the condonation doctrine.
• Misolas v. Panga — Cited to illustrate that voting following deliberation becomes a decision only after the opinion is prepared and concurred in by the majority, similar to Supreme Court procedure.

• Section 66(a), Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160) — Mandates that decisions in administrative cases must be in writing, state clearly and distinctly the facts and reasons, and copies furnished to the respondent and interested parties; cited to establish the formal requirements for a valid decision.
• Section 66(b), Local Government Code of 1991 — Provides that the penalty of suspension cannot exceed the unexpired term of the respondent or a period of six months for every administrative offense.
• Section 67(b), Local Government Code of 1991 — Provides for appeal to the Office of the President as the remedy from decisions of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in administrative cases; cited to establish that certiorari was improper.
• Section 61, Local Government Code of 1991 — Referenced regarding the administrative jurisdiction of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to take cognizance of administrative cases against elective local officials.