Source: http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/51951
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:59:54+00:00

Document:
RAMIR R. PABLICO, PETITIONER,VS. ALEJANDRO A. VILLAPANDO, RESPONDENT.
May local legislative bodies and/or the Office of the President, on appeal, validly impose the penalty of dismissal from service on erring elective local officials?
This purely legal issue was posed in connection with a dispute over the mayoralty seat of San Vicente, Palawan. Considering that the term of the contested office expired on June 30, 2001, the present case may be dismissed for having become moot and academic. Nonetheless, we resolved to pass upon the above-stated issue concerning the application of certain provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991.
On August 5, 1999, Solomon B. Maagad, and Renato M. Fernandez, both members of the Sangguniang Bayan of San Vicente, Palawan, filed with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan an administrative complaint against respondent Alejandro A. Villapando, then Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan, for abuse of authority and culpable violation of the Constitution. Complainants alleged that respondent, on behalf of the municipality, entered into a consultancy agreement with Orlando M. Tiape, a defeated mayoralty candidate in the May 1998 elections. They argue that the consultancy agreement amounted to an appointment to a government position within the prohibited one-year period under Article IX-B, Section 6, of the 1987 Constitution.
In his answer, respondent countered that he did not appoint Tiape, rather, he merely hired him. He invoked Opinion No. 106, s. 1992, of the Department of Justice dated August 21, 1992, stating that the appointment of a defeated candidate within one year from the election as a consultant does not constitute an appointment to a government office or position as prohibited by the Constitution.
On February 1, 2000, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan found respondent guilty of the administrative charge and imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from service. Respondent appealed to the Office of the President which, on May 29, 2000, affirmed the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan.
Pending respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Office of the President, or on June 16, 2000, petitioner Ramir R. Pablico, then Vice-mayor of San Vicente, Palawan, took his oath of office as Municipal Mayor. Consequently, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Palawan a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction and prayer for a temporary restraining order, docketed as SPL Proc. No. 3462. The petition, seeks to annul, inter alia, the oath administered to petitioner. The Executive Judge granted a Temporary Restraining Order effective for 72 hours, as a result of which petitioner ceased from discharging the functions of mayor. Meanwhile, the case was raffled to Branch 95 which, on June 23, 2000, denied respondent’s motion for extension of the 72-hour temporary restraining order. Hence, petitioner resumed his assumption of the functions of Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan.
On July 4, 2000, respondent instituted a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals seeking to annul: (1) the May 29, 2000 decision of the Office of the President; (2) the February 1, 2000, decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan; and (3) the June 23, 2000 order of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan, Branch 95.
On March 16, 2001, the Court of Appeals declared void the assailed decisions of the Office of the President and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan, and ordered petitioner to vacate the Office of Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan. A motion for reconsideration was denied on April 23, 2001. Hence, the instant petition for review.
An elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated above by order of the proper court.
Article 124 (b), Rule XIX of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code, however, adds that – “(b) An elective local offi cial may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated in paragraph (a) of this Article [The grounds enumerated in Section 60, Local Government Code of 1991] by order of the proper court or the disciplining authority whichever first acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other.” The disciplining authority referred to pertains to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan/Panlungsod/Bayan and the Office of the President.
As held in Salalima, this grant to the “disciplining authority” of the power to remove elective local officials is clearly beyond the authority of the Oversight Committee that prepared the Rules and Regulations. No rule or regulation may alter, amend, or contravene a provision of law, such as the Local Government Code. Implementing rules should conform, not clash, with the law that they implement, for a regulation which operates to create a rule out of harmony with the statute is a nullity. Even Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., the principal author of the Local Government Code of 1991, expressed doubt as to the validity of Article 124 (b), Rule XIX of the implementing rules.
Senator Pimentel. This has been reserved, Mr. President, including the issue of whether or not the Department Secretary or the Office of the President can suspend or remove an elective official.
Senator Saguisag. For as long as that is open for some later disposition, may I just add the following thought: It seems to me that instead of identifying only the proper regional trial court or the Sandiganbayan, and since we know that in the case of a regional trial court, particularly, a case may be appealed or may be the subject of an injunction, in the framing of this later on, I would like to suggest that we consider replacing the phrase “PROPER REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OR THE SANDIGANBAYAN” simply by “COURTS”. Kasi po, maaaring sabihin nila na mali iyong regional trial court o ang Sandiganbayan.
Senator Pimentel. Thank you. We are willing to accept that now, Mr. President.
Senator Saguisag. It is to be incorporated in the phraseology that will craft to capture the other ideas that have been elevated.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition for review is DENIED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, and Corona, JJ., concur.
 Malaluan v. Commission on Elections, et al., 254 SCRA 397, 403-404 ,citing Atienza v. Commission on Elections, 239 SCRA 298 ; Abeja v. Tañada, 236 SCRA 60 ; Yorac v. Magalona, 3 SCRA 76 .
Third Division, composed of Associate Justices Hilarion L. Aquino (ponente); Jose L. Sabio, Jr. (member); and Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (chairman).
257 SCRA 55, 100 .
A complaint against any elective barangay official shall be filed before the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned whose decision shall be final and executory.
 Supra, citing Regidor v. Chiongbian, 173 SCRA 507 ; Teoxon v. Members of the Board of Administrators, PVA, 33 SCRA 585 ; Manuel v. General Auditing Office, 42 SCRA 660 .
Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., The Local Government Code of 1991, The Key to National Development, 171 [1993 ed.].
Deliberations of the Senate on the Local Government Code of 1991, August 1, 1990, pp. 39-40.
92 Phil. 456, 464 .

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.