Re-election Does Not Condon Prior Misconduct When Removal is Already Final

G.R. No. 120905, March 07, 1996; G.R. No. 120940, March 07, 1996

Imagine a scenario where a local official, facing administrative charges for alleged corruption, wins re-election. Does this victory erase their past misdeeds? This case clarifies that re-election does not automatically condone prior misconduct, especially if the removal from office was already final before the election.

This case revolves around Renato U. Reyes, the former mayor of Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro, who faced disqualification due to a prior administrative case that ordered his removal. The Supreme Court tackled whether his re-election absolved him of the administrative charges and whether a candidate with the second-highest votes could be proclaimed the winner in his stead.

Understanding Disqualification in Philippine Elections

Philippine election laws have specific provisions that disqualify individuals from running for office. The Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160) is particularly relevant. Section 40 outlines various disqualifications, including:

§ 40. Disqualification. – The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position:

…………………….

(b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case.

This provision means that if a person is removed from office due to an administrative case, they are barred from seeking any elective local position. The key here is the removal must be a result of due process and a final decision.

To illustrate, consider a barangay captain found guilty of misusing public funds and subsequently removed from office. According to Section 40(b), that individual cannot run for mayor, governor, or any other local elective post in the next election cycle.

The Omnibus Election Code also plays a crucial role. Section 78 allows for petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it contains false statements or if the candidate is not eligible. This provision ensures that only qualified individuals can hold public office.

The Case of Renato U. Reyes: A Timeline

The story of Renato Reyes is a complex one, involving administrative complaints, court petitions, and election victories. Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

• October 26, 1994: An administrative complaint is filed against Mayor Renato U. Reyes by Dr. Ernesto Manalo, alleging corruption and misuse of funds.
• February 6, 1995: The Sangguniang Panlalawigan finds Reyes guilty and orders his removal from office.
• February 7, 1995: Reyes files a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to halt the proceedings, obtaining a temporary restraining order (TRO).
• March 3, 1995: After the TRO expires, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan attempts to serve the decision, but Reyes refuses to accept it.
• March 20, 1995: Reyes files his certificate of candidacy for mayor.
• March 24, 1995: Rogelio de Castro, a registered voter, seeks Reyes’ disqualification based on his prior removal from office.
• May 8, 1995: Elections are held, and Reyes is voted into office.
• May 9, 1995: The COMELEC Second Division disqualifies Reyes and cancels his certificate of candidacy.
• May 10, 1995: Despite the COMELEC decision, Reyes is proclaimed the duly-elected mayor.
• July 3, 1995: The COMELEC en banc denies Reyes’ motion for reconsideration and denies Julius Garcia’s petition to be proclaimed mayor.

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the COMELEC, emphasizing that Reyes’ removal from office was final and executory before the election. The court noted that Reyes and his counsel deliberately avoided receiving the decision, which constituted a waiver of his right to appeal. As the court stated:

If a judgment or decision is not delivered to a party for reasons attributable to him, service is deemed completed and the judgment or decision will be considered validly served as long as it can be shown that the attempt to deliver it to him would be valid were it not for his or his counsel’s refusal to receive it.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that Reyes’ re-election condoned his prior misconduct. Citing the Local Government Code, the Court stated that:

[A]t 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.

Practical Implications for Public Officials and Voters

This case has significant implications for public officials and voters alike. It reinforces the principle that administrative accountability cannot be circumvented through re-election. Public officials must understand that prior misconduct can lead to disqualification, regardless of subsequent electoral success.

Moreover, the ruling clarifies that a candidate with the second-highest number of votes cannot automatically be proclaimed the winner when the winning candidate is disqualified. The votes cast for the disqualified candidate are not considered stray votes but rather votes cast under the belief that the candidate was qualified.

Key Lessons

• Accountability Matters: Re-election does not erase prior administrative liabilities.
• Final Decisions Stand: A final and executory removal order disqualifies a candidate, even if they are subsequently elected.
• Second Placer Doesn’t Win: The candidate with the second-highest votes is not automatically entitled to the position if the winner is disqualified.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Does re-election always condone past misconduct?

A: No. Re-election does not condone past misconduct if a final removal order was already in place before the election.

Q: What happens if a winning candidate is disqualified after the election?

A: The candidate with the second-highest number of votes does not automatically assume the position. A special election may be called, or other legal remedies may be pursued.

Q: What is the effect of a temporary restraining order (TRO) on an administrative decision?

A: A TRO only temporarily suspends the implementation of a decision. If a preliminary injunction is not issued, the decision can become final and executory upon the TRO’s expiration.

Q: Can a candidate be disqualified even after being proclaimed the winner?

A: Yes. The COMELEC can continue disqualification proceedings even after the election and order the suspension of the proclamation if the evidence of guilt is strong.

Q: What should a public official do if facing administrative charges?

A: Public officials should fully cooperate with the investigation, present their defense, and exhaust all available administrative and legal remedies to challenge the charges.

Q: What is the relevance of Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code?

A: Section 40(b) disqualifies individuals removed from office as a result of an administrative case from running for any elective local position.

Q: Are votes cast for a disqualified candidate considered stray votes?

A: No, votes cast for a disqualified candidate are presumed to have been cast in the belief that the candidate was qualified and are not considered stray, void, or meaningless.

Q: What happens if a public official refuses to accept a decision against them?

A: Refusal to accept a decision does not prevent it from becoming final and executory. Service is deemed completed if the refusal is attributable to the party or their counsel.

ASG Law specializes in election law and administrative cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.