The fresh case of Salumbides v. Office of the Ombudsman, GR 180917, April 23, 2010, as summarized in a recent news item released by the press center of the Supreme Court speaks of the limitation in the application of the doctrine of condonation in administrative cases of "appointive" public officers and employees.
SC: Doctrine of Condonation Does Not Extend to Appointive Officials
By Gleo Sp. Guerra
The Court declined to extend the settled doctrine of condonation to cover appointive officials who were administratively charged along with the reelected official/appointing authority with infractions allegedly committed during their preceding term.
In a 15-page decision penned by Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, the Court En Banc affirmed the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, finding petitioners Atty. Vicente E. Salumbides, Jr. and Glenda Araña, Municipal Legal Officer Administrator and Municipal Budget Officer, respectively, of Tagkawayan, Quezon, guilty of simple neglect of duty. The Court, however, modified their penalty from suspension from office from six to three months only.
First applied in the 1959 case of Pascual v. Hon. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, the doctrine of condonation prohibits the disciplining of elective officials for a wrongful act committed during their immediately preceding term of office on the theory that reelection to office operates as a condonation of the previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove them therefor.
The Court ruled that the doctrine of condonation cannot to be extended to reappointed coterminous employees like petitioners as in their case, there is neither subversion of the sovereign will nor disenfranchisement of the electorate. “Moreover, the unwarranted expansion of the Pascual doctrine would set a dangerous precedent as it would, as respondents posit, provide civil servants, particularly local government, with blanket immunity from administrative liability that would spawn and breed abuse of the bureaucracy,” added the Court.
(GR No. 180917, Salumbides v. Office of the Ombudsman, April 23, 2010)
see:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/publications/benchmark/2010/05/051005.php
