Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Public Officers (Cases)

Public Officers (Cases)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 233|Likes:
Published by Jaime Lao Jr.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Jaime Lao Jr. on Oct 08, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/23/2015

pdf

text

original

 
TEODULO M. PALMA, SR., petitioner,vs.HON. CARLOS O. FORTICH, as Governor of Bukidnon, and THE SANGGUNIANGPANLALAWIGAN OF BUKIDNON, respondents.G.R. No. L-59679January 29, 1987
This is a petition for certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for Preliminary Injunction seeking: (a)to prohibit the respondents from continuing with the hearing and investigation of AdministrativeCase No. 2 filed by respondent Governor of Bukidnon against petitioner Mayor Teodulo M. PalmaSr. of the Municipality of Don Carlos, Province of Bukidnon and (b) to nullify Resolution No. 82-87 passed by respondent Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bukidnon, suspending him from office.
FACTS:
On March 30, 1981, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal Vivencio P. Estrada of Bukidnon, at theinstance of the offended parties Nelia Arandel Clerk-typist and Susan Palamine, Clerical Aide, both of the Office of the Mayor of the Municipality of Don Carlos, Province of Bukidnon, filedwith the Court of First Instance of the same province, Criminal Cases Nos. 2795, 2796 and 2797against petitioner Teodulo M. Palma, Sr., the duly elected and qualified Mayor of saidMunicipality. By virtue of the aforesaid three (3) separate cases, said offended parties in a sworn joint letter complaint requested respondent Provincial Governor for an immediate administrativeinvestigation for the purpose of suspending Mayor Palma from office pending final determinationof these cases. (Rollo, p. 6). Attached to said letter are: three (3) copies of the Information for Actsof Lasciviousness against the Mayor (Annexes "B", "C" and "D"; Petition, Rollo, pp. 7-9); thestatements of the offended parties. The Mayor accepted his preventive suspension from office asshown in his Office Order dated February 15, 1982.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE FILING AND PENDENCY OF THE AFORESAID THREE (3)SEPARATE INFORMATION FOR "ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS" AGAINST AN ELECTIVELOCAL OFFICIAL WOULD CONSTITUTE "MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE" WITHIN THEMEANING OF SECTION 5 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5185 WHICH MAY WARRANT THEFILING OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM AND/OR HISSUSPENSION FROM OFFICE.
 
HELD:
There appears to be no controversy as to the filing of the criminal cases against the petitioner. The principal issue centers on the filing of the administrative case and consequent preventivesuspension of petitioner based solely on the filing of the above-mentioned criminal cases.Petitioner contends that "Acts of Lasciviousness" although how numerous, do not fall within thecategory of "malfeasance and misfeasance" or "conduct in the office" contemplated in Section 5 of R.A. No. 5185, and therefore cannot be the basis of the filing of a separate administrative caseagainst an elective official and the preventive suspension of the latter. Respondents, allegingotherwise, maintain that the lascivious acts of the petitioner constitute misconduct under ArticleXIII, Section 1 of the 1973 Constitution, re: "Accountability of Public Officers."As a general rule, dismissal of an administrative case does not necessarily follow the dismissal of acriminal case, the former requiring as it does, only preponderance of evidence while the latter requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.Misconduct has been defined as "such as affects his performance of his duties as an officer and notonly as affects his character as a private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all times, it isnecessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the officer. " (Lacson v.Roque, et al., 92 Phil. 456). Now, as to whether or not, such misconduct of petitioner affects his performance of his duties asan officer and not only his character as a private individual, has been laid to rest by the ruling of the Supreme Court in an analogous case where it was held that while "it is true that the charges of rape and concubinage may involve moral turpitude of which a municipal official may be proceededagainst . . . but before the provincial governor and board may act and proceed against themunicipal official, a conviction by final judgment must precede the filing by the provincialgovernor of the charges and trial by the provincial board."The replacement of petitioner Mayor by the Officer-in-Charge Fabian Gardones has rendered theissues of removal and suspension from office, moot and academic.
Digested by: Aurea Antonette T. Lucas
 
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant,vs.JUDGE JESUS V. MATAS, RTC, Branch 2, Tagum, Davao del Norte (acting PresidingJudge, RTC Branch 18, Digos Davao del Sur) and EDUARDO C. TORRES, JR., OIC, Clerk of Court, RTC, Tagum, Davao del Norte, respondents.A.M. No. RTJ-92-836August 2, 1995FACTS:
In his Memorandum dated 26 February 1992, then Deputy Court Administrator, now CourtAdministrator, Ernani Cruz Paño informed the Court of a letter he received from Atty. Ma DoloresL. Balajadia, Deputy Clerk of Court, Third Division of the Sandiganbayan, notifying his office thatJudge Jesus V. Matas and Eduardo C. Torres, Jr. were accused in Criminal Case No. 17378 of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended. He then recommended that the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) be authorized to file the proper administrative charges againstJudge Matas and Torres, provided that, pending the outcome of Criminal Case No. 17378, proceedings in the administrative case be suspended after the filing by the respondents of their comment. On 17 December 1992, the OCA received respondent Torres's motion to dismiss thecomplaint as against him on the ground of mootness because he had ceased to be employed in the judiciary and had been cleared of all his accountability with the Supreme Court as of 13 April1992. The Court referred this motion on 26 January 1993 to Justice Imperial for inclusion in hisinvestigation, report, and recommendation. It turned out, however, that the said motion had beenfiled with the Court of Appeals as early as 14 November 1992 and had already been denied byJustice Imperial in his resolution of 6 January 1993 in the light of this Court's ruling inAdministrative Case No. 223-J (Perez vs. Abiera, 11 June 1975).The complainants then submitted to this Court an amended complaint adding the followinggrounds for administrative discipline, viz.:(a)gross inexcusable negligence, and(b)gross ignorance of law.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of Miscellaneous Case No. 1626.

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->