CASES IN PUBLIC CORPORATION

CASE: AGUINALDO v SANTOS, 212 SCRA 768 (1992)

DOCTRINE: CONDONATION DOCTRINE

FACTS

Petitioner Rodolfo E. Aguinaldo was the duly elected Governor of the province of Cagayan,
having been elected to said position during local elections held on January 17, 1988, to serve a
term of four (4) years therefrom. After the December 1989 coup d’état was crushed, respondent
DILG Secretary Santos sent a telegram and a letter to petitioner requiring him to show cause why
he should not be suspended or remove from office for disloyalty to the Republic, within forty-
eight (48) hours from receipt. The sworn complaint for disloyalty to the Republic and culpable
violation of the Constitution was charged against the Petitioner.

Respondent Secretary considered petitioner’s reply to the complaint. On the basis thereof,
respondent Secretary suspended the petitioner from office for sixty (60) days from notice,
pending the outcome of the formal investigation.

During the hearing conducted on the charges against the petitioner, complaints presented
testimonial and documentary evidence to prove the charges. Petitioner neither presented
evidence nor cross-examined the complainant’s witnesses, choosing instead to move that
respondent Secretary inhibit himself from deciding the case. Respondent Secretary found the
petitioner guilty as charged and ordering his removal from office. Installed as Governor of
Cagayan in the process was respondent Melvin Vargas, who was then the Vice-Governor of
Cagayan.

While the case was pending before the Supreme Court, Petitioner filed his certificate of
candidacy for the position of Governor of Cagayan. Three petitions for disqualification were
filed against him on the ground that he had been removed from the office. The COMELEC
granted the petition, but later on reversed the decision as the decision of his removal to the office
has not yet attained finality. Petitioner Aguinaldo won in the elections and became the Governor
of Cagayan

ISSUES

____________________________

By: Louise Marie L. Pomida

 CASES IN PUBLIC CORPORATION

Whether or not (a) the petitioner should be disqualified in holding office as Governor of Cagayan
because of his removal, and (b)the quantum of proof needed is proof beyond reasonable doubt to
suspend or remove the petitioner from office.

RULING

(a) No, the petitioner should not be disqualified in holding the office as Govern of Cagayan.
The petitioner’s re-election to the position of Governor of Cagayan has rendered the
administrative case pending before the Supreme Court moot and academic. Applying the
condonation doctrine, the rule is that a public official cannot be removed for
administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election to office
operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off
the right to remove him. The rule, however, finds no application to criminal cases
pending against the petitioner for acts he may have committed during the failed coup.
(b) No, the quantum of proof needed is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner is
not being prosecuted criminally under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, but
administratively with the end in view of removing petitioner as the duly elected Governor
of Cagayan Province for acts of disloyalty to the Republic where the quantum of proof
required is only substantial evidence.

____________________________

By: Louise Marie L. Pomida