LABUGUEN, Eduardo
Re: Legal Opinion; Clarification on the
Effect of the Accessory Penalty of
Non-Reemployment in the Government
Service; Elected Official
x-------------------------------------------------------x
Rogelio D. Mercado, Director II, Civil Service Commission-Abra Field Office, Bangued, Abra, requests an opinion (embodied in a letter dated July 12, 2000) on the effect of the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service on an elected official who was found guilty of Dishonesty for acts committed while not yet elected to office.
The letter-request of Mercado reads, as follows:
“This is to seek clarification from your office regarding two (2) conflicting definitions of the term ‘public office.’ In answer to the possible issues to be raised during the visit of Chairman Corazon Alma G. De Leon to Abra, the legal division of CSC-CAR described the term ‘public office’ as generic. It said the term ‘pertains to both elective and appointive office.’ Meanwhile, during the Director II conference at Subic, the panelists, during the Problem Solving Session with the Commission, chorused that the term ‘does not include elective officials.’
“This issue has again surfaced in view of the present situation of Mr.
Eduardo P. Labuguen, Sangguniang Bayan Member of La Paz, Abra.
“It will be recalled that Mr. Labuguen was employed as Sangguniang
Bayan Secretary of La Paz by using spurious school credentials. For this, he was formally charged with
dishonesty through falsification of official documents. He resigned on December 31, 1997 and ran and
won as Sangguniang Bayan Member of La Paz, Abra during the 1998 elections.
“It was only on March 10, 2000 that the CSC issued Resolution No.
000679 finding him guilty as charged.
The decision reads: ‘Considering that Labuguen is out of the service,
the principal penalty of dismissal from the service is deemed implemented. The accessory penalties of perpetual
disqualification to hold any public office, forfeiture of retirement
benefits
and cancellation of Career Service Sub-Professional and Professional
Eligibilities are hereby imposed.’
“Now comes Mr. Labuguen requesting a written position of the CSC on the
matter in view of the action taken by the local chief executive who believes
that he should be ousted by virtue of the said CSC Resolution. Mr. Labuguen even claims that his salary was
withheld by the mayor in the absence of a written position of the CSC.
“Before I visited La Paz last May 15, 2000 to conduct the LEF and PES
orientation, I referred the Labuguen case to the legal division since I knew
that the issue would be raised during the forum. The legal division replied that the decision of the Supreme Court
in the Aguinaldo case would apply in Labuguen’s situation. I was even provided
with a copy of the Supreme Court ruling.
I then made use of the information I gathered from the legal division in
answering the queries relative to the Labuguen case during the La Paz
forum. The mayor even got the copy of
the Supreme Court ruling purportedly for xeroxing but it was never returned.
“In the briefing paper, however, prepared by the legal division for the
Chairman during her visit to Abra, it said: `The Aguinaldo case (decided by the
Supreme Court) pertains to an elected official. Aguinaldo was dismissed from
the service by the DILG (he was then an elected official). He, thereafter, ran for public office and
won. Thus, the SC said, `the rule is that a public official cannot be removed
for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his
re-election to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous
misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor.’
“Would this mean that the Aguinaldo ruling does not apply in Labuguen’s
case since his offense was committed as
an appointive official before he was elected as a Sangguniang Bayan Member? If so, this would again run counter to the
position of the Office for Legal Affairs in the Central Office, which Mr.
Labuguen claims to have personally visited, that the Aguinaldo
ruling would apply in his case.
“To resolve the issue, once and for all, we hope your office could
cause the issuance of a position on the matter in question, which we would
present to the Mayor of La Paz and to Mr. Labuguen himself.”
In a letter, dated June 14, 2000, Mayor Marc Ysrael B. Bernos of the Municipality of La Paz, Abra, made the same request, as follows:
“May we request for your OFFICIAL POSITION as to the EFFECT of the
Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 000679 dated March 10, 2000
`LABUGUEN
EDUARDO P.
Re: Dishonesty,
Falsification of Public Documents
“This office received a copy of this resolution, however we are lost as
to its implementation. More so with the clause in the resolution (pp.4) which
specifically states that.
`… the fact that
Labuguen was formally charged when he was already out of the service will not
preclude the Commission from proceeding with the case against him and imposing
the penalty of dismissal from the
service and accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding
any public office,’
and paragraph 2 of pp.4:
`… the accessory penalties of perpetual disqualification
to hold any public office, forfeiture of
retirement benefits and cancellation of the Career Service
Sub-Professional and Professional Eligibilities are hereby imposed.’
“Mr. Eduardo P.
Labuguen was elected as Sangguniang Bayan Member in May 1998 Elections. With this, the Municipal Council endorsed
this CSC Resolution (No. 00679) to the Department of Interior and Local
Government, but to this date, no action has been taken yet, so this
CLARIFICATORY letter.”
Records show that Labuguen, who was then the Sangguniang Bayan Secretary of the Municipality of La Paz, Abra, was charged on January 7, 1998, by the Civil Service Commission – Cordillera Administrative Region (CSC-CAR), for Dishonesty and Falsification of Public Document. Subsequently, a formal investigation was conducted by the said office. However, on January 26, 1998 Vice-Mayor Severo G. Casel, same Municipality (La Paz) informed the Regional Office that effective December 31, 1997, Labuguen already resigned.
Thereafter, Labuguen ran and won as Sangguniang Bayan Member in the 1998 elections. On March 10, 2000, while Labuguen was performing the duties of the said office, this Commission issued CSC Resolution No. 00-0679, finding him guilty of Dishonesty through Falsification of Public Document and imposing upon him, among other things, the penalty of perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service.
Upon receipt of the resolution of the Commission, Mayor Bernos hinted that Labuguen should be ousted from his office and his salary withheld until the latter presents a ruling of this Commission on the matter. On July 12, 2000 Labuguen requested Director Mercado to render an opinion on the matter.
Hence, this request.
Relevant to the instant request is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aguinaldo vs. Santos, 212 SCRA 768 dated August 21, 1992, which reads, in part, as follows:
“Clearly then, the rule is that a public
official can not be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a
prior term, since his re-election to office operates as a condonation of the
officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove
him therefor. The foregoing rule,
however, finds no application to criminal cases pending against petitioner for
acts he may have committed during the failed coup.”
From the foregoing, it is clear that a previous administrative misconduct committed by a public official (like the one under consideration) is removed by his re-election or election to office. And this is true whether he was previously holding an appointive or elective position. Hence, the Supreme Court stated with approval the ruling in cases of 6C.J.S. p. 248, citing Rice v. State, 161 S.W. 2nd v. Thompson, 130 P. 2nd 237; Board of Com’rs Kingfisher County v. Shutler, 281 P. 222; State v. Blake, 280 P. 388; In re Fedula, 147 A 67, which states as follows:
“Offenses committed, or acts done, during a previous term are generally held not to furnish cause for removal and this is especially true where the Constitution provides that the penalty in proceeding for removal shall not extend beyond the removal from office, and disqualification from holding office for a term for which the officer was elected or appointed. (Underlining ours).
Moreover, the reason for the removal of the effects of the said administrative misconduct is enunciated in case of Lizares vs. Hechanova, et al., 17 SCRA 58, dated May 17, 1996 in the following manner to wit:
“The
Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present
term of office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the
people of their right to elect their officers.
When the people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that
they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and that they
disregarded or forgave his fault or misconduct, if he had been guilty of
any. It is not for the court, by reason
of such fault or misconduct, to practically overrule the will of the people.”
In sum, the resolution of this Commission finding Labuguen guilty of Dishonesty through Falsification of Public Document and imposing on him among other things, the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold any public office shall not operate to remove him from the position he is currently holding as Sangguniang Bayan Member of the Municipality of La Paz. However, since the precedents refer to an election of an official or officer, the same ruling may not apply in cases of reemployment to an appointive office.
WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby rules that the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold any public office shall not operate to remove Eduardo P. Labuguen, Sangguniang Bayan Member of the Municipality of La Paz from his position.
Quezon City, February 2, 2001
(SIGNED)
JOSE F. ERESTAIN, JR.
Commissioner
(SIGNED)
Chairman
(SIGNED)
Commissioner
Attested by:
(SIGNED)
Director III
JJC/FPG/MVM/X3/Y11/esd1
mercado
0-0387-00