You're in Data Mode Go to Free

9+

Abogados

SC Case Digest: Carpio Morales v. CA and Binay, Jr. (G.R. No.

217126-27, 10 Nov 2015)
DECEMBER 14, 2015 PUBLIC

By Foggy

Greetings, Abogados!

This is a commentary (not really a digest) on the landmark case recently issued by the Supreme
Court En Banc, entitled Carpio Morales v. CA and Binay, Jr., G.R. No. 217126-27, 10 November
2015.

You must be familiar with this case. The media covered it really well in view of the personalities
involved (but we wont dwell with those people here the most youll get would be the title of
the case). More importantly, this case finally got rid of the pesky old condonation doctrine,
albeit in a scholarly fashion. The case tells us how the condonation doctrine came about,
unraveling the mystery behind it, and why it was subsequently upheld in several SC decisions.
Let me try to point out why you should read this case, even for leisure, to wit: (1) it has a TON of
citations on a wide range of legal topics; (2) it makes reference to foreign laws and doctrines; (3)
there is a clinical dissection of the case of Pascual v. Hon. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, 106
Phil. 466 (1959) (hereinafter referred to as Pascual) on the condonation doctrine; and (4) in
true SC fashion, the case is Solomonic innature.

Five (5) issues were discussed in this case, namely:

1. Whether the Petition filed before the SC, without resorting to the filing of a motion for
reconsideration, was the Ombudsmans plain, speedy, and adequate remedy;

2. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) has subject matter jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the petition;

3. Whether the CA has subject matter jurisdiction to issue a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) enjoining the implementation of
the preventive suspension issued by Ombudsman against Binay, Jr.;

4. Whether the CA acted in grave abuse of its discretion in issuing said TRO and WPI; and

5. Whether the CAs directive for the Ombudsman to comment on Binay, Jr.s petition for
contempt was improper or illegal.
 Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales (Photo credit: inquirer.net)

In dispensing the First Issue, the SC ruled that the Ombudsmans petition falls under the
exceptions that a prior motion for reconsideration must be filed, citing the case of Republic v.
Bayao, G.R. No. 179492, 5 June 2013, which held as follows: (a) where the order is a patent
nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the
certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the
same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent
necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice
the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the
action is perishable; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would
be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for
relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of
such relief by the trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a
nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the
petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of
law or where public interest is involved. (Emphasis supplied on the grounds relied on by
the SC in this case, in ruling that no motion for reconsideration was needed.)

(Score: Ombudsman- 1; Binay, Jr. - 0.)

As to the Second Issue, the discussion revolved around Sec. 14 of Republic Act No. 6770,
otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act (RA 6770), more particularly its 2nd Paragraph states:
Section 14. Restrictions. No writ of injunction shall be issued by any court to delay an
investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman under this Act, unless there is a prima facie evidence
that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the
Ombudsman.
No court shall hear any appeal orapplication for remedy against the decision or findings of the
Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure question of law.

Now the SC ruled that the 2nd Paragraph of Sec. 14, RA 6770, is vague, unconstitutional and
invalid. The SC relied on its ruling in the landmark case of Fabian v. Desierto, 356 Phil. 787
(1998), which, in turn, held that the 4th Paragraph of Sec. 27, RA 6770, is void, as it had the
effect of increasing theappellate jurisdiction of the SC without its advice and concurrence,
inviolation of Sec. 30, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution. This tells us that lawyers should always
be wary of reading RA 6770 since case law has affected itso much maybe its time to update it.

Senate President Salonga (Photo credit: senate.gov.ph)

Interestingly, the SC mentioned the Senate deliberations cited by the Ombudsman, in the
crafting of RA 6770. It quoted the exchanges between Senators Jovito Salonga, Edgardo Angara,
Teofisto Guingona, Jr., and Neptali Gonzales, which merely led the SC to be suspicious on
whether said Senators were talking about Sec. 14, RA 6670, or some other provision. In other
words, while the throwback was appreciatedby the SC, the discussions were not really useful in
this case.

Regardless, the SC still ruled thatthe remedy of Binay, Jr. the filing of petition for certiorari
pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to assail the Ombudsmans preventive suspension
order was valid, citing the cases of Office of the Ombudsman v. Capulong, G.R.No. 201643, 12
March 2014, and Dagan v.Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 184083, 19 November 2013. Its
just sad that the sorry end of Second Paragraph of Sec. 14, RA 6770 came as collateral damage in
this case. The SC justified its taking up this issue on its own motion, or ex mero motu, which it
canrightfully do, since it is, after all, the SC.

(Score: Ombudsman- 1; Binay, Jr. - 1. Bonus point goes to Sec. 30, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution)

The Third Issue is where it starts to become more interesting.Here, the Ombudsmans history
was discussed, citing heavily from the case of Gonzales III v. Office of the President, G.R. No.
196231 and 19232, 28 January 2014 (hereinafter referred to as Gonzales). You can imagine the
Ombudsman smiling from ear to ear while reading this portion, but this form of flattery should
lead one to be suspicious.

What can be picked up from the Gonzales case is that the Office of the Ombudsmans
independence covers thefollowing: (1) it is the creation of the Constitution; (2) it enjoys
fiscalautonomy; and (3) it is insulated from executive supervision and control. Onthis basis, the
SC held that the Ombudsman was meant to be protected frompolitical harassment and pressure,
to free it from the insidious tentacles of politics. (Oh, what imagery does this give.) Since the
SC is apolitical, then Gonzales should not be interpreted toshield the Ombudsman from the
judicial review power of the courts. After all, there is no politics in the judiciary, right?

After the Ombudsman, it is now the SCs turn to give an exhaustive recap of its own history.
Starting from the definition of Judicial Power, the SC went on the discuss its expanded scope
ofjudicial review enunciated in Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993, then the
evolution of itsrule-making authority in Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, 361 Phil. 73 (1999).
The SC pointed out that Congress, in relation to RA 6770, has no authority to repeal, alter, or
supplement rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure, and rules allowing the issuance
of an injunction form part of the courts inherent power, which (now, citing foreign case law)
enable the judiciary to accomplish itsconstitutionally mandated functions.

The SC ruled that Congress passing of the First Paragraph of Sec. 14, RA 6770, which prohibits
the issuance of an injunction, is an encroachment of the SCs rule-making authority. An
injunction, after all, is merely a provisional and auxiliary relief to preserve rights in esse.
However, the SC noted that it has not consented to this as it has not issued rules of procedure
through an administrative circular. Thus, pending deliberation, the SC declared the First
Paragraph of Sec. 14, RA 6770, as ineffective, until it is adopted as part of the rules of procedure
through an administrative circular duly issued therefor. Abangan ang susunod na
kabanata.

Sec. 14, RA 6770 is now beaten and badly bruised. To sum it up: The Second Paragraph was
declared unconstitutional, and the First Paragraph was now deemed ineffective. As such,the CA
was held to have correctly issued the injunctive relief in enjoining thepreventive suspension
against Binay, Jr.

(Score: Ombudsman- 1; Binay, Jr. - 2.)

The Fourth Issue is where the condonation doctrine was taken up. To go right at it, the SC
abandoned the condonation doctrine, but ruled that the CA did not act in excess of jurisdiction
in issuing the WPI, as it did so based on good case law, considering that the abandonment is
prospective in nature.

In abandoning the condonation doctrine, the SC emphasized that this was a jurisprudential
creation that originated in the 1959 Pascual case, which was decided under the 1935
Constitution. It is notable that there was no legal precedent on the issue at that time, and the SC
resorted to American authorities. The SC stated what appears the sole basis forthe condonation
doctrine in Pascual, to wit:

The weight of authorities x x x seems to incline toward the rule denying the right to remove one from
office because of misconduct during a prior term, to which we fully subscribe.

Much has happened since the 1935 Constitution. (Photo credit: en.wikipedia.org)
As can be read above, it is clear that no real justification was given for the condonation doctrine,
except that it seems to incline towards American authorities. On this regard, the SC made its
own investigation, and found that there was really no established weight ofauthorities in the
United States (US). In fact, 17 States in the US have already abandoned the condonation
doctrine, as pointed out by the Ombudsman. The SC went on to adopt the findings of the
Ombudsman in US jurisprudence, with the caveat that said cases are merely guides of
interpretation.

Perhaps the greatest victory in this case for the Ombudsman is that it was able to convince the
SC not to adhere to stare decisis, thereby enriching Philippine jurisprudence on this matter.
This is important, as its effects are far-reaching, since we now have additional basis to petition
the abandonment of old ineffective case laws. For this moment of glory, allow us to quote
directly from the case, viz:

Therefore, the ultimate analysis is on whether or not the condonation doctrine, as espoused in
Pascual,and carried over in numerous cases after, can be held up against prevailing legal norms. Note
that the doctrine of stare decisis does not preclude this Court from revisiting existing doctrine. As
adjudged in the case of Belgica, the stare decisis rule should not operate when there are powerful
countervailing considerations against its application. In other words, stare decisis becomes an
intractable rule only when circumstances exist to preclude reversal of standing precedent. As the
Ombudsman correctly points out, jurisprudence, after all, is not a rigid, atemporal abstraction; it is
an organic creature that develops and devolves along with the society within which it thrives. In the
words of a recent US Supreme Court Decision, [w]hat we can decide, we can undecide.'
In this case, the Court agrees with the Ombudsman that since the time Pascual was decided, the legal
landscape has radically shifted. Again, Pascual was a 1959 case decided under the 1935 Constitution,
which dated provisions do not reflect the experience of the Filipino People under the 1973 and 1987
Constitutions. Therefore, the plain difference in setting, including, of course, the sheer impact of
the condonation doctrine on public accountability, calls for Pascuals judicious re-examination.

The SC then proceeded to dissect Pascual, and went on to enumerate the notable cases that
applied Pascual, which included cases issued under the 1987 Constitution. Pascual was tested
under existing laws, to see if there exists legislation to support Pascual, e.g. 1987 Constitution,
Revised Administrative Code, Code of Conductand Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees, Local Government Code of 1991, and Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil
Service. The SC ruled:

"Reading the 1987 Constitution together with the above-cite legal provisions now leads this Court to
the conclusion that the doctrine of condonation is actually bereft of legal bases.
To begin with, the concept of public office is a public trust and the corollary requirement of
accountability to the people at all times, as mandated under the 1987 Constitution, is plainly
inconsistent with the idea that an elective local officials administrative liability for a misconduct
committed during a prior term can be wiped off by the fact that he was elected to a second term of
office, or even another elective post. Election is not a mode of condoning an administrative
offense,and there is simply no constitutional or statutory basis in our jurisdiction tosupport the
notion that an official elected for a different term is fully absolved of any administrative liability
arising from an offense done during a prior term. In this jurisdiction, liability arising from
administrative offenses may be condoned by the President in light of Section 19, Article VII of the
1987 Constitution which was interpreted in Llamas v. Orbos to apply to administrative offenses: xxx "

Office of the Ombudsman (Photo credit: philstar.com)

The SC made it clear that Pascual has no statutory basis at all. By abandoning the condonation
doctrine, the SC would remove this defense oft-times used by elected officials, of which the SC
was aware of, as it made mention of the databrought forward by the Ombudsman, to wit:

To provide a sample size, the Ombudsman has informed the Court that for the period of July 2013 to
December 2014 alone, 85 cases from the Luzon Office and 24 cases from the Central Office were
dismissed on the ground on condonation. Thus, in just one and a half years, over a hundred cases of
alleged misconduct involving infractions such as dishonesty, oppression, gross neglect of duty and
grave misconduct were placed beyond the reach of the Ombudsmans investigatory and prosecutorial
powers. Evidently, this fortifies the finding that the case is capable of repetition and must
therefore, not evade review.

(Score: Ombudsman 2; Binay, Jr. - 2. Bonus point goes to the research team of the Ombudsman, who
painstakingly went through American jurisprudence to support their position.)
The Fifth and Final Issue on whether the order to comment directed to the Ombudsman was
illegal, was refused to be resolved on the ground there are no contempt proceedings yet. It is the
claim of the Ombudsman that since she was an impeachable officer, she could be subjected to
contempt. However, no due course has been given to the contempt action, thus, the
Ombudsmans claim was premature.

(Score: Ombudsman 2; Binay,Jr. -2. No points in this round.)

Justice Perlas-Bernabe (Photo credit: sc.judiciary.gov.ph)

So there you have it! The case was Solomonic, in my opinion, as both parties walk away with
something. This review also does not do justice on how well this case was penned by Associate
Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe. So please go read the case on the SC website, or just click
here.

Some final thoughts:

Expect this case to be taken up in Constitutional law classes on judicial review, SCs rule-
making power, and the Ombudsman as a constitutional body.

It is interesting to wait for the SCs future rules with regard the matter on the issuance of
injunction under Section 14, RA6770. We hope that this actually comes into fruition.
 This case may be cited by practitioners who intend to file a petition at the SC without prior
motion for reconsiderationbefore the CA.

Lawyers with politician clients should really take note of this case, as it removes a vital
defense in administrative cases filed against them. Good thing that this is prospective in
nature.

Bar candidates must watch out for this, as it may come out in next years Bar Exam in the
subject of Political Law.

Please read, as well, the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Lucas P.
Bersamin, who concurred on the SCs ruling on the ineffectiveness and unconstitutionality of
the First Paragraph and Second Paragraph, respectively, of Sec. 14, RA 6770, but dissented
on the revisitation on the condonation doctrine. Justice Bersamin postulates that
condonation must apply only after the conduct of anadministrative investigation, not while
such officer is undergoing investigation. As such, the CA, according to Justice Bersamin,
wrongly applied the condonation doctrine, as such, said doctrine should not have warranted a
re-examination by the SC.

Cheers, Abogados!

Like Comment Share

52

40 Shares

Mary Belen Abadilla

MeLodz del Fierro HIHI
1 yr Like Reply More

MeLodz del Fie... replied 1 reply

Lurdz Pinero
Keirvin Anthony beb eto ba? Hahhahahha
See Translation
9 mos Like Reply More

Keirvin Anthony Beltran Viado

Yiiiz. Tandaan mo date. Hahaa
 See Translation
9 mos Like Reply More

Lurdz Pinero
Mwaaa love u
9 mos Like Reply More

Write a reply... Reply

Write a comment... Post