Malinao vs. Reyes

A decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in an administrative case must be in writing, state facts and reasons distinctly, and be signed by the requisite majority of members to be valid; a committee chair's draft signed alone is merely a recommendation, not a final decision.

Petitioner Virginia Malinao was removed from her post as Human Resource Manager III of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque by respondent Mayor Wilfredo Red without due process. Mayor Red simultaneously filed a case against her in the Ombudsman and appointed a replacement, prompting Malinao to file an administrative case for abuse of authority against the Mayor before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

• Original Filing: Administrative Case No. 93-03 before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Marinduque
• Lower Court Decision: September 5, 1994 "Decision" (signed only by Blue Ribbon Committee Chair finding Mayor guilty); October 21, 1994 Decision (signed by voting members acquitting Mayor)
• Appeal: N/A
• SC Action: Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus filed directly to the SC to annul the October 21, 1994 decision and enforce the September 5, 1994 "Decision"

• The Administrative Case: Petitioner filed Administrative Case No. 93-03 against Mayor Red for abuse of authority and denial of due process after he removed her without due process and appointed a replacement while a case against her was pending in the Ombudsman.
• The August 12 Voting: The Sanggunian took up the case in executive session. Vice Governor Lecaroz inhibited herself (her husband was petitioner's counsel), making Rodrigo V. Sotto the presiding officer as the most senior member. The Sanggunian voted 5-3 finding the Mayor guilty and imposing a 1-month suspension.
• The September 5 "Decision": Sotto prepared a document titled "Decision" signed only by himself as "Presiding Chairman, Blue Ribbon Committee." No spaces for other members' signatures were provided. Copies were served on the Mayor and Governor.
• Challenge to the "Decision": Mayor Red questioned the September 5 document, arguing it was merely a committee recommendation since Sotto signed it alone. The DILG Secretary agreed, opining that under the Local Government Code, the Blue Ribbon Committee's duty is purely recommendatory and the whole Sanggunian must approve and sign the decision. The Governor refused to implement the suspension based on the DILG opinion.
• The October 21 Decision: The Sanggunian convened again and voted 7-2 to dismiss the case and acquit Mayor Red (three members who previously voted guilty changed their votes). This decision was in writing, stated facts and law, and was signed by all participating members.

• The September 5, 1994 "Decision" had become final and executory because Mayor Red failed to appeal it.
• The Sanggunian had no power to render another decision on October 21, 1994 that reversed the first decision.
• Petitioner demanded the Governor implement the suspension order without further delay.

• Mayor Red argued the September 5 document was merely a recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Committee because it was signed only by Sotto in his capacity as committee chair.
• The DILG Secretary and Governor argued the "Decision" did not comply with Sections 61 and 66 of the Local Government Code because it was not adopted or signed by the Sanggunian as a collegial body.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether a petition for certiorari and mandamus is the proper remedy when an appeal to the Office of the President is available under the Local Government Code.
  • Whether the Sanggunian was required to give notice to the petitioner before its October 21 deliberation.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the September 5, 1994 "Decision" signed only by the Blue Ribbon Committee Chair constitutes a valid, final, and executory decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
  • Whether the administrative case is rendered moot by the expiration of the Mayor's term and his subsequent reelection.

• Procedural:
  • Certiorari is not the proper remedy because a prime specification of the writ is that there is no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available. Petitioner could have appealed the Sanggunian's decision to the Office of the President under Section 67(b) of the Local Government Code.
  • No notice of the October 21 session was required to be given to petitioner because the Sanggunian's deliberation was an internal matter.
• Substantive:
  • The September 5 document is not a valid decision. Section 66(a) of the Local Government Code requires the Sanggunian's decision to be "in writing stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the reasons for such decision." The August 12 voting was merely a vote, not a decision. The September 5 document lacked the signatures of the requisite majority; Sotto himself admitted other members were reluctant to sign. Like SC procedure, voting does not constitute a decision until embodied in an opinion concurred in by the majority and promulgated. Until signed, members are free to change their votes (which they did on October 21). The September 5 document was merely a committee recommendation.
  • The case is moot and academic. Under Section 66(b) of the Code, suspension cannot exceed the unexpired term. Furthermore, Mayor Red's reelection on May 8, 1995 condoned the misconduct and abated the administrative proceeding.

• Condonation Doctrine — The reelection of an elective local official condones whatever administrative misconduct they might have committed during their previous term, thereby abating any pending administrative disciplinary proceeding against them. Applied to bar further proceedings against Mayor Red after his May 8, 1995 reelection.
• Form of Decisions by Sangguniang Panlalawigan — To render a valid decision in administrative cases involving elective local officials, the decision must be in writing, state facts and reasons distinctly, and be signed by the requisite majority of the Sanggunian. A vote taken in session is not the decision itself; a draft signed only by a committee chair is merely a recommendatory report.

• Section 66(a), Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) — Requires the Sanggunian to render a decision in writing stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the reasons for such decision, with copies furnished to the respondent and interested parties. Applied to invalidate the September 5 "Decision" which lacked the requisite signatures and distinct factual/legal findings of the collegial body.
• Section 66(b), Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) — Limits the penalty of suspension to the unexpired term of the respondent or a maximum of six months. Applied to show the penalty sought was already moot due to the expiration of the term.
• Section 67(b), Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) — Provides that decisions of the Sanggunian in administrative cases may be appealed to the Office of the President. Applied to demonstrate that petitioner had an adequate remedy available, making certiorari improper.