AZUCENA B. DON, ET AL VS. RAMON H.

LACSA
G.R. No. 170810, August 7, 2007 (J. CARPIO MORALES)

FACST: The petitioners were public school teachers (Don, et al) at Bacolod, Juban, Sorsogon. The
respondent was the Punong Barangay (Lacsa). Don, et al charged Lacsa before the Sanggunian Bayan of
grave threats, oppression, grave misconduct, and abuse of authority. A Special Investigating Committee
(SIC) investigated and found Lacsa guilty. The Sangganuian issued a resolution putting Lacsa on
preventive suspension. SIC submitted its report to the Mayor of Lacsa case and the latter was removed
from office.

Thereafter, the mayor issued an executive order appointing another Punong Barangay in replacement
of Lacsa. On the same day, Lacsa received the executive order together with the barangay resolution.
Twenty-one (21) days later, Lacsa filed with thw Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon a petition for
certiorari with temporary restraining order and injunction against the Don, et al and the mayor. The
contention was that the resolution was approved hastily in order not to afford him with remedies under
appeal and that the mayor committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
The RTC ruled in favor of Lacsa. The lower court annulled the executive order, reinstated Lacsa as
Punong Barangay with all the emoluments/allowances from time of removal up to the time of
reinstatement, and ordered the Sanggunian to issue the resolution anew from which to recon the
appeal. The RTC explained that pursuant to Section 67 of R.A. 7160, Lacsa has thirty (30) days from
receipt of the said resolution to file an appeal. The municipal mayor gravely abused her discretion,
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing and executing Executive Order. The RTC denied the motion
for reconsideration.

Hence, the petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not the mayor committed grave abuse of discretion.

HELD: No.

While Section 61(c) of the Local Government Code provides that for a complaint against any elective
barangay official filed before the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan, decision shall be final
and executory,” and Sec. 67(b) which provides, decisions in administrative cases, within thirty (30) days
from receipt appealed with the Office of the President, in the case of decisions of the sangguniang
panlalawigan and the sangguniang panlungsod of highly urbanized cities and independent component
cities, the decisions shall be final and executory, may be contradicting.

In interpreting the foregoing provisions, the trial court did not consider Section 68 of the same code
which provides:

An appeal shall not prevent a decision from being final and executory. The respondent shall be
considered as having been placed under preventive suspension during the pendency of an appeal in the
event that he wins such appeal. In the event that the appeal results in exoneration, he shall be paid his
salary and other such emoluments during the pendency of the appeal.

Obviously, the said Code does not preclude the taking of an appeal. On the contrary, it specifically
allows a party to appeal to the Office of the President. The phrase "final and executory” in Sections 67
and 68, respectively, of the Local Government Code, are not, as erroneously ruled by the trial court,
indicative of the appropriate mode of relief from the decision of the Sanggunian concerned. These
phrases simply mean that the administrative appeals will not prevent the enforcement of the decisions.
The decision is immediately executory but the respondent may nevertheless appeal the adverse decision
to the Office of the President or to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, as the case may be.