CASE DIGEST

H. REMOVAL

THE SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY OF BARANGAY DON MARIANO MARCOS,

MUNICIPALITY OF BAYOMBONG PROVINCE OF NUEVA VISCAYA represented
by BARANGAY KAGAWAD JOSE CENEN SANTOS, MARIO BACUD, WALTER
FRANCISCO, ROSITA SEBASTIAN, LAURETA CABAUATAN, CECILIA ALINDAYU
and MELY SIMANGAN, Petitioners, v. PUNONG BARANGAY SEVERINO
MARTINEZ, Respondent.

Facts:

1. Petitioner Sangguniang Barangay is the legislative body of Barangay Don

Mariano Marcos, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, a local government unit created,
organized and existing as such under pertinent laws of the Republic of the
Philippines. Respondent Martinez is the incumbent Punong Barangay of the said
local government unit.
2. On 5 November 2004, Martinez was administratively charged with Dishonesty
and Graft and Corruption by petitioner through the filing of a verified complaint
before the Sangguniang Bayan as the disciplining authority over
elective barangay officials pursuant to Section 614 of Rep. Act No. 7160,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code. Petitioner filed with the
Sangguniang Bayan an Amended Administrative Complaint against Martinez on 6
December 2004 for Dishonesty, Misconduct in Office and Violation of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.5 Petitioner alleged that Martinez committed the
following acts:

1. Failure to submit and fully remit to the Barangay Treasurer the income of their solid waste
management project since 2001 particularly the sale of fertilizer derived from composting.

2. Failure to submit/remit to the barangay treasurer the sale of recyclable materials taken from
garbage collection.

3. Using the garbage truck for other purposes like hauling sand and gravel for private persons
without monetary benefit to the barangay because no income from this source appears in the
year end report even if payments were collected x x x.

4. Using/spending barangay funds for repair, gasoline, lubricants, wheels and other spare parts
of the garbage truck instead of using the money or income of said truck from the garbage fees
collected as income from its Sold Waste Management Project. x x x.

5. Unliquidated traveling expenses for Seminar/Lakbay-Aral in 2003 because although a cash

advance was made by the respondent for the said purpose, he, however, did not attend said
seminar because on the dates when he was supposed to be on seminar they saw him in the
barangay. x x x.
 6. That several attempts to discuss said problem during sessions were all in vain because
respondent declined to discuss it and would adjourn the session.x x x.

3. Upon his failure to file an Answer to the Amended Administrative Complaint

dated 6 December 2004, Martinez was declared by the Sangguniang Bayan as in
default. Pending the administrative proceedings, Martinez was placed under
preventive suspension for 60 days or until 8 August 2005.
4. On 28 July 2005, the Sangguniang Bayan rendered its Decision which imposed
upon Martinez the penalty of removal from office.
5. On 3 August 2005, Municipal Mayor Bagasao issued a Memorandum, wherein he
stated that the Sanggunaing Bayan is not empowered to order Martinez's
removal from service. However, the Decision remains valid until reversed and
must be executed by him. For the meantime, he ordered the indefinite
suspension of Martinez since the period of appeal had not yet lapsed.
6. On 26 August 2005, Martinez filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari with a
prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction before the
trial court against petitioner, the Sangguniang Bayan and Mayor Bagasao
questioning the validity of the Decision dated 28 July 2005 of the Sangguniang
Bayan. This case was docketed as Special Civil Action No. 6727, which was
initially heard by Branch 28, but later raffled to Branch 27 of the trial court.11
7. On 20 October 2005, the trial court issued an Order declaring the Decision of the
Sangguniang Bayan and the Memorandum of Mayor Bagasao void. It maintained
that the proper courts, and not the petitioner, are empowered to remove an
elective local official from office, in accordance with Section 60 of the Local
Government Code. Thus, the Order of the Sangguniang Bayan removing
Martinez from service is void. As a consequence, Mayor Bagasao cannot prevent
Martinez from assuming his office on the basis of a void order. The trial court
further ruled that Martinez properly availed himself of the remedy of Special Civil
Action, where the order assailed was a patent nullity.
8. On 10 November 2005, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration13 of the trial
court's Order dated 10 October 2005. The trial court denied the said motion in
another Order dated 30 November 2005
9. Hence, the present petition was filed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Sangguniang Bayan may remove Martinez, an elective
local official, from office.

RULING:

1. The pertinent legal provisions and cases decided by this Court firmly establish
that the Sanggunaing Bayan is not empowered to do so.

2. Section 60 of the Local Government Code conferred upon the courts the power to
remove elective local officials from office:
 Section 60. Grounds for Disciplinary Actions. An elective local official may be
disciplined, suspended, or removed from office on any of the following grounds:

x x x x.

(a) Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines;

(b) Culpable violation of the Constitution;
(c) Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office, gross negligence, or
dereliction of duty;
(d) Commission of any offense involving moral turpitude or an offense
punishable by at least prision mayor;
(e) Abuse of authority;
(f) Unauthorized absence for fifteen (15) consecutive working days,
except in the case of members of the sangguniang panlalawigan,
sangguniang panlungsod, sangguniang bayan, and sangguniang
barangay;
(g) Application for, or acquisition of, foreign citizenship or residence or
the status of an immigrant of another country; and  cralaw

(h) Such other grounds as may be provided in this Code and other
laws. An elective local official may be removed from office on the
grounds enumerated above by order of the proper court. cralaw

An elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated
above by order of the proper court. (Emphasis provided.)

3. In Salalima v. Guingona, Jr.,17 the Court en banc categorically ruled that the

Office of the President is without any power to remove elected officials, since the
power is exclusively vested in the proper courts as expressly provided for in the
last paragraph of Section 60 of the Local Government Code. It further invalidated
Article 125, Rule XIX of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local
Government Code of 1991, which provided that:

Article 125. Grounds for Disciplinary Actions. x x x.

x x x x.

(b) An elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds
enumerated in paragraph (a) of this Article by order of the proper court or the
disciplining authority whichever first acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of the
other.

The Court nullified the aforequoted rule since the Oversight Committee that
prepared the Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Code exceeded its
authority when it granted to the "disciplining authority" the power to remove
elective officials, a power which the law itself granted only to the proper courts.
Thus, it is clear that under the law, the Sangguniang Bayan is not vested with
the power to remove Martinez.
4. In Pablico v. Villapando,19 the court declared that:
5. It is beyond cavil, therefore, that the power to remove erring elective local officials from service
is lodged exclusively with the courts. Hence, Article 124 (sic 125) 20 (b), Rule XIX, of the Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code, insofar as it vests power on the
"disciplining authority" to remove from office erring elective local officials, is void for being
repugnant to the last paragraph of Section 60 of the Local Government Code of 1991. The law on
suspension or removal of elective public officials must be strictly construed and applied, and the
authority in whom such power of suspension or removal is vested must exercise it with utmost
good faith, for what is involved is not just an ordinary public official but one chosen by the people
through the exercise of their constitutional right of suffrage. Their will must not be put to naught
by the caprice or partisanship of the disciplining authority. Where the disciplining authority is
given only the power to suspend and not the power to remove, it should not be permitted to
manipulate the law by usurping the power to remove.
 
6. Moreover, such an arrangement clearly demotes the courts to nothing more than an
implementing arm of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, or Sangguniang Bayan. This would be an
unmistakable breach of the doctrine on separation of powers, thus placing the courts under the
orders of the legislative bodies of local governments. The courts would be stripped of their
power of review, and their discretion in imposing the extreme penalty of removal from office is
thus left to be exercised by political factions which stand to benefit from the removal from office
of the local elective official concerned, the very evil which Congress sought to avoid when it
enacted Section 60 of the Local Government Code.

7. Congress clearly meant that the removal of an elective local official be done only after a trial
before the appropriate court, where court rules of procedure and evidence can ensure
impartiality and fairness and protect against political maneuverings. Elevating the removal of an
elective local official from office from an administrative case to a court case may be justified by
the fact that such removal not only punishes the official concerned but also, in effect, deprives
the electorate of the services of the official for whom they voted.

8. As the law stands, Section 61 of the Local Government Code provides for the procedure for the
filing of an administrative case against an erring elective barangay official before the
Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan. However, the Sangguniang Panlungsod or
Sangguniang Bayan cannot order the removal of an erring elective  barangay official from
office, as the courts are exclusively vested with this power under Section 60 of the Local
Government Code. Thus, if the acts allegedly committed by the barangay official are of a grave
nature and, if found guilty, would merit the penalty of removal from office, the case should be
filed with the regional trial court. Once the court assumes jurisdiction, it retains jurisdiction
over the case even if it would be subsequently apparent during the trial that a penalty less
than removal from office is appropriate. On the other hand, the most extreme penalty that the
Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan may impose on the erring
elective barangay official is suspension; if it deems that the removal of the official from service
is warranted, then it can resolve that the proper charges be filed in court.
9. In this case, it is apparent that the Sangguniang Bayan acted beyond its
jurisdiction when it issued the assailed Order dated 28 July 2005 removing
Martinez from office. Such act was patently illegal and, therefore, Martinez was
no longer required to avail himself of an administrative appeal in order to annul
the said Order of the Sangguniang Bayan.24 Thus, his direct recourse to regular
courts of justice was justified.

10.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is DENIED and the assailed
Decision of the Bayombong RTC in Special Civil Action No. 6727 is AFFIRMED.