Scribd
Upload
497 views

Lingating Vs Comelec

1) Petitioner filed a petition to disqualify Cesar Sulong from running for mayor due to a prior removal from office due to administrative charges. 2) The Comelec was initially unable to render a decision before the 1992 elections, in which Sulong was re-elected mayor. After the election, the Comelec declared Sulong disqualified. 3) However, the Comelec en banc reversed, ruling that Sulong's re-election constituted condonation of the prior charges and removal from office. It also cited respecting the will of the voters who elected Sulong.

Uploaded by

Raymond Roque
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
497 views

Lingating Vs Comelec

1) Petitioner filed a petition to disqualify Cesar Sulong from running for mayor due to a prior removal from office due to administrative charges. 2) The Comelec was initially unable to render a decision before the 1992 elections, in which Sulong was re-elected mayor. After the election, the Comelec declared Sulong disqualified. 3) However, the Comelec en banc reversed, ruling that Sulong's re-election constituted condonation of the prior charges and removal from office. It also cited respecting the will of the voters who elected Sulong.

Uploaded by

Raymond Roque
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Lingating vs Comelec

Date: November 13, 2002


Petitioner: Atty. Miguel Lingating
Respondents: Comelec and Cesar Sulong

Ponente: Mendoza

Facts: Petitioner filed a petition for the disqualification of Sulong, pursuant to §40(b)
of RA 7160 which disqualifies from running for any elective local position “those
removed from office as a result of an administrative case.” It appears that Sulong
had previously won as mayor of Lapuyan on January 18, 1988. In the May 11, 1992,
and again in the May 8, 1995 elections, he was reelected. In a petition for
disqualification, petitioner alleged that in 1991, during his first term as mayor of
Lapuyan, Sulong, along with a municipal councilor of Lapuyan and several other
individuals, was administratively charged with various offenses, and that, on
February 4, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zamboanga del Sur found him
guilty of the charges and ordered his removal from office. Petitioner claimed that
this decision had become final and executory, and consequently the then vice-
mayor of Lapuyan, Vicente Imbing, took his oath as mayor.
The comelec was unable to render judgment before the elections, Rulong was
voted for in the elections and he won as mayor. The comelec then rendered a
decision declaring Sulong disqualified as he was guilty of violating the Anti Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act. Sulong filed an MR contending that the decision has not
become final and executor as the final disposition thereof was overtaken by the
local elections of May 1992.
The comelec en banc, however, reversed. It ruled that while it is true that one
of the disqualifications from running in an elective position is removal from office as
a result of an administrative case, said provision no longer applies if the candidate
whose qualification is questioned got re-elected to another term. The re-election of
Sulong in the 1992 and 1995 elections would be tantamount to a condonation of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan decision which found him guilty of dishonesty,
malversation of public funds etc[.], granting said decision has become final and
executory.
Moreover, the people of LAPUYAN have already expressed their will when they cast
their votes in the recent elections as evidenced by the results which found
respondent Sulong to have won convincingly.

Issue: WON Sulong was entitled to occupy the office thus vacated

Held: Yes

Ratio: We stated in Reyes: Petitioner invokes the ruling in Aguinaldo v. COMELEC, in


which it was held that a public official could not be removed for misconduct
committed during a prior term and that his reelection operated as a condonation of
the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove
him therefor. But that was because in that case, before the petition questioning the
validity of the administrative decision removing petitioner could be decided, the
term of office during which the alleged misconduct was committed expired.
Removal cannot extend beyond the term during which the alleged misconduct was
committed. If a public official is not removed before his term of office expires, he
can no longer be removed if he is thereafter reelected [for] another term. This is the
rationale for the ruling in the two Aguinaldo cases.
The case at bar is the very opposite of those cases. Here, the decision in the
administrative case, was served on petitioner and it thereafter became final on April
3, 1995, because petitioner failed to appeal to the Office of the President. He was
thus validly removed from office and, pursuant to §40(b) of the Local Government
Code, he was disqualified from running for reelection.
It is noteworthy that at the time the Aguinaldo cases were decided there was
no provision similar to §40(b) which disqualifies any person from running for any
elective position on the ground that he has been removed as a result of an
administrative case. The Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160) could not
be given retroactive effect.
However, Reyes cannot be applied to this case because it appears that the
1992 decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, finding respondent Sulong guilty of
dishonesty, falsification and malversation of public funds, has not until now become
final. The records of this case show that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Zamboanga del Sur rendered judgment in AC No. 12-91 on February 4, 1992, a copy
of which was received by respondent Sulong on February 17, 1992; that on
February 18, 1992, he filed a “motion for reconsideration and/or notice of appeal;”
that on February 27, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, required Jim Lingating,
the complainant in AC No. 12-91, to comment; and that the complainant in AC No.
12-91 has not filed a comment nor has the Sangguniang Panlalawigan resolved
respondent’s motion. The filing of his motion for reconsideration prevented the
decision of Sangguniang Panlalawigan from becoming final.
While R.A. No. 7160 on disciplinary actions is silent on the filing of a motion
for reconsideration, the same cannot be interpreted as a prohibition against the
filing of a motion for reconsideration. Thus, it was held that a party in a disbarment
proceeding under Rule 139-B, §12(c) can move for a reconsideration of a resolution
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines although Rule 139-B does not so provide:
Although Rule 139-B, §12(c) makes no mention of a motion for reconsideration,
nothing in its text or history suggests that such motion is prohibited. It may
therefore be filed . . . . Indeed, the filing of such motion should be encouraged
before [an appeal is] resort[ed] to . . . as a matter of exhaustion of administrative
remedies, to afford the agency rendering the judgment [an] opportunity to correct
any error it may have committed through a misapprehension of facts or
misappreciation of evidence.
There is thus no decision finding respondent guilty to speak of. As Provincial
Secretary of Zamboanga del Sur Wilfredo Cimafranca attested, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan simply considered the matter as having become moot and academic
because it was “overtaken by the local elections of May [11,]1992.”
Neither can the succession of the then vice-mayor of Lapuyan, Vicente
Imbing, and the highest ranking municipal councilor of Lapuyan, Romeo Tan, to the
offices of mayor and vice-mayor, respectively, be considered proof that the decision
in AC No. 12-91 had become final because it appears to have been made pursuant
to §68 of the Local Government Code, which makes decisions in administrative
cases immediately executory.
Indeed, considering the failure of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to resolve
respondent’s motion, it is unfair to the electorate to be told after they have voted
for respondent Sulong that after all he is disqualified, especially since, at the time of
the elections on May 14, 2001, the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had
been rendered nearly ten years ago.

You might also like