8/19/2019 Conchita Carpio Morales vs.

CA Digest

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE

OMBUDSMAN Petitioner  v. COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTH DIVISION) AND JEJOMAR ERWIN
, ,  

S. BINAY, JR. Respondents , .

Facts:
• A complaint/afdavit was led by Atty. Renato L. Bondal and
Nicolas "Ching" Enciso ! beo#e the $fce o the $mb%dsman
against Binay& '#. and othe# p%blic ofce#s and employees o the
City (ove#nment o )a*ati +Binay& '#.& et al,& acc%sing them o
-l%nde# and violation o Rep%blic Act No. +RA, 01& 2 othe#wise
*nown as "3he Anti4(#at and Co##%pt -#actices Act&" in
connection with the ve +5, phases o the p#oc%#ement and
const#%ction o the )a*ati City 6all -a#*ing B%ilding +)a*ati
-a#*ing B%ilding,.
•  3he $mb%dsman constit%ted a 7pecial -anel o !nvestigato#s8 to
cond%ct a act4nding investigation& s%bmit an investigation
#epo#t& and le the necessa#y complaint& i wa##anted +st 7pecial
-anel,. the st 7pecial -anel led a complaint 9 +$)B Complaint,
against Binay& '#.& et al& cha#ging them with si: +9, administ#ative
cases; o# (#ave )iscond%ct& 7e#io%s <ishonesty& and Cond%ct
-#e=%dicial to the Best !nte#est o the 7e#vice& and si: +9, c#iminal
cases> o# violation o 7ection  +e, o RA 01& )alve#sation o
-%blic ?%nds& and ?alsication o -%blic <oc%ments +$)B Cases,.
• Binay@s ?i#st 3e#m
o Binay& '#. iss%ed the Notice o Awa#d 2 o# Phase III, IV and
V o the )a*ati -a#*ing B%ilding p#o=ect to 6ilma#cs
Const#%ction Co#po#ation +6ilma#cs,& and conse%ently&
 

e:ec%ted
p%blicationthe co##esponding
and cont#act witho%t
the lac* o a#chitect%#al the
design&28 #e%i#ed
 and
app#oved the #elease o %nds the#eo#.
• Binay@s 7econd 3e#m
o Binay& '#. app#oved the #elease o %nds o# the #emaining
balance o cont#act with 6ilma#cs o# -hase  o the )a*ati
-a#*ing B%ilding p#o=ectD and
o App#oved the #elease o %nds o# the #emaining balance o
the cont#act8> with )ANA A#chitect%#e  !nte#io# <esign Co.
+)ANA, o# the design and a#chitect%#al se#vices cove#ing
the )a*ati -a#*ing B%ilding.
•
Beo#e Binay& '#.& et al.'s ling o thei# co%nte#4afdavits& the
$mb%dsman& the s%b=ect p#eventive s%spension o#de#& placing
Binay& '#.& et al. %nde# p#eventive s%spension o# not mo#e than
si: +9, months witho%t pay& d%#ing the pendency o the $)B
Cases.5 3he $mb%dsman #%led that the #e%isites o# the
p#eventive s%spension o a p%blic ofce# a#e p#esent&58 nding
that

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conchita-carpio-morales-vs-ca-digest 1/12
8/19/2019 Conchita Carpio Morales vs. CA Digest

o +a, the evidence o Binay& '#.& et al.s g%ilt was st#ong given
that
+, the losing bidde#s and membe#s o the Bids and
Awa#ds Committee o )a*ati City had attested to the
i##eg%la#ities attending the )a*ati -a#*ing B%ilding
p#o=ectD
+2, the doc%ments on #eco#d negated the p%blication


o bidsD and
+, the disb%#sement vo%che#s& chec*s& and ofcial


#eceipts showed the #elease o %ndsD and

o +b, +, Binay& '#.& et al. we#e administ#atively cha#ged with
(#ave )iscond%ct& 7e#io%s <ishonesty& and Cond%ct
-#e=%dicial to the Best !nte#est o the 7e#viceD
o +2, said cha#ges& i p#oven to be t#%e& wa##ant #emoval #om
p%blic se#vice %nde# the Revised R%les on Administ#ative
Cases in the Civil 7e#vice +RRACC7,& and
o +, Binay& '#.& et al.s #espective positions give them access
to p%blic #eco#ds and allow them to inF%ence possible
witnessesD hence& thei# contin%ed stay in ofce may
p#e=%dice the investigation #elative to the $)B Cases led
against them.
• Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals:
o Binay contends that he could not be held
administratively liable o# any anomalo%s activity
attending any o the ve +5, phases o the )a*ati -a#*ing
B%ilding p#o=ect since +a, -hases ! and !! we#e %nde#ta*en
beo#e he was elected )ayo# o )a*ati in 200D and +b,
-hases !!! to  t#anspi#ed d%#ing his #st te#m and that his
re-election as City ayor of a!ati for a second
term e"ectively condoned his administrative liability
therefor& i any& th%s #ende#ing the administ#ative cases
against him moot and academic.9In any event, Binay, #r$
claimed that the %mbudsman&s preventive
suspension order failed to sho' that the evidence of 
guilt presented against him is strong & maintaining that
he did not pa#ticipate in any o the p%#po#ted
i##eg%la#ities. 92 !n s%ppo#t o his p#aye# o# in=%nctive #elie&

Binay&
to hold'#. a#g%ed
p%blic thathaving
ofce& he haswon
a clea# and %nmista*able
by landslide #ight
vote in the
200 and 20 elections& and that& in view o the
condonation doct#ine& as well as the lac* o evidence to
s%stain the cha#ges against him& his s%spension #om ofce
wo%ld %ndese#vedly dep#ive the electo#ate o the se#vices
o the pe#son they have conscientio%sly chosen and voted
into ofce.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conchita-carpio-morales-vs-ca-digest 2/12
8/19/2019 Conchita Carpio Morales vs. CA Digest

• At noon o the same day& the CA iss%ed a Resol%tion95 +dated

)a#ch 9& 205,& g#anting Binay& '#.s p#aye# o# a
 3R$&99 notwithstanding -ena& '#.s ass%mption o d%ties as Acting
)ayo# ea#lie# that day.
;
o  3he $)B maniested  that the 3R$ did not state what act

was being #est#ained and that since the p#eventive

s%spension o#de# had al#eady been se#ved and
implemented& the#e was no longe# any act to #est#ain
• Proceedings before the (C:
o !n view o the CAs s%pe#vening iss%ance o a G-! p%#s%ant
to its Ap#il 9& 205 Resol%tion& the $mb%dsman led a
s%pplemental petition11 beo#e this Co%#t& a#g%ing that the
condonation doct#ine is i##elevant to the dete#mination o
whethe# the evidence o g%ilt is st#ong o# p%#poses o
iss%ing p#eventive s%spension o#de#s. 3he $mb%dsman
also maintained that a #eliance on the condonation
doct#ine is a matte# o deense& which sho%ld have been
#aised by Binay& '#. beo#e it d%#ing the administ#ative
p#oceedings& and that& at any #ate& the#e is no condonation
beca%se Binay& '#. committed acts s%b=ect o the $)B
Complaint ate# his #e4election in 20.

Issues:
. )hether or not the CA has sub*ect matter *urisdiction to
issue a +% andor )PI en*oining the implementation of a
preventive suspension order issued by the %mbudsman.
2. )hether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in
issuing the +% and eventually, the )PI in CA-/$$ (P 0o$
123452 en*oining the implementation of the preventive
suspension order against Binay, #r$ based on the
condonation doctrine

6eld:
1$ 78(
o $)B contends that the CA has no =%#isdiction to iss%e any
p#ovisional in=%nctive w#it against he# ofce to en=oin its
p#eventive s%spension o#de#s. As basis& she invo*es the 9rst
paragraph of (ection 14, A ;;< in con=%nction with he#
ofces independence %nde# the 1>; Constit%tion. 7he
advances the idea that "HiIn o#de# to %#the# ens%#e Hhe# ofcesI
independence& HRA 9;;0I li*ewise ins%lated it #om =%dicial
inte#vention&"5;pa#tic%la#ly& "#om in=%nctive #elies t#aditionally
obtainable #om the co%#ts&" 5> claiming that said w#its may wo#*
"=%st as eJectively as di#ect ha#assment o# political p#ess%#e
wo%ld."

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conchita-carpio-morales-vs-ca-digest 3/12
8/19/2019 Conchita Carpio Morales vs. CA Digest

A$ +he concept of %mbudsman independence$

• 7ection 5& A#ticle K! o the 1>; Constit%tion g%a#antees the

independence o the $fce o the $mb%dsman

o7ection 5. 3he#e is he#eby c#eated the independent $fce

o the $mb%dsman& composed o the $mb%dsman to be
*nown as 3anodbayan& one ove#all <ep%ty and at least one
<ep%ty each o# L%on& isayasH&I and )indanao. A
sepa#ate <ep%ty o# the milita#y establishment may
li*ewise be appointed.
• Gonzales III v. Ofce o the President  is the #st case which
g#appled with the meaning o the $mb%dsmans independence
vis4a4vis the independence o the othe# constit%tional bodies. the
concept o $mb%dsmans independence cove#s th#ee +, things

First: creation by the Constitution& which means that the

ofce cannot be abolished& no# its constit%tionally specied
%nctions and p#ivileges& be #emoved& alte#ed& o# modied by
law& %nless the Constit%tion itsel allows& o# an amendment
the#eto is madeDc#alawlawlib#a#y

(econd: 9scal autonomy& which means that the ofce "may

not be obst#%cted #om HitsI #eedom to %se o# dispose o HitsI
%nds o# p%#poses ge#mane to HitsI %nctionsD 9>hence& its b%dget
cannot be st#ategically dec#eased by ofcials o the political
b#anches o gove#nment so as to impai# said %nctionsD and

+hird: insulation from e=ecutive supervision and control &

which means that those within the #an*s o the ofce can only be
disciplined by an inte#nal a%tho#ity.

Evidently& all th#ee aspects o independence intend to p#otect the

$fce o the $mb%dsman #ompolitical harassment and
pressure, so as to #ee it #om the "insidio%s tentacles o
politics."

• +hat being the case, the concept of %mbudsman

independence cannot be invo!ed as basis to insulate the
%mbudsman from *udicial po'er constitutionally vested
unto the courts$ Courts are apolitical bodies, 'hich are
ordained to act as impartial tribunals and apply even
 *ustice to all$ 6ence, the %mbudsman&s notion that it can

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conchita-carpio-morales-vs-ca-digest 4/12
8/19/2019 Conchita Carpio Morales vs. CA Digest

be e=empt from an incident of *udicial po'er - that is, a

provisional 'rit of in*unction against a preventive
suspension order - clearly strays from the concept&s
rationale of insulating the o>ce from political
harassment or pressure$

B$ +he 9rst paragraph of (ection 14, A

;;< in light of the po'ers of Congress and the
Court under the 13?; Constitution$

•  3he #st pa#ag#aph o 7ection 8& RA 9;;0 te:t%ally p#ohibits

co%#ts #om e:tending p#ovisional in=%nctive #elie to delay any
investigation cond%cted by he# ofce. <espite the %sage o the
gene#al ph#ase "HnIo w#it o in=%nction shall be iss%ed by any
co%#t&" the $mb%dsman he#sel concedes that the p#ohibition
does not cove# the 7%p#eme Co%#t.

• <espite the ostensible b#each o the sepa#ation o powe#s

p#inciple& the Co%#t is not oblivio%s to the policy conside#ations
behind the #st pa#ag#aph o 7ection 8& RA 9;;0& as well as
othe# stat%to#y p#ovisions o simila# impo#t. 3h%s& pending
delibe#ation on whethe# o# not to adopt the same& the Co%#t&
%nde# its sole p#e#ogative and a%tho#ity ove# all matte#s o
p#oced%#e& deems it p#ope# to decla#e as ineJective the
p#ohibition against co%#ts othe# than the 7%p#eme Co%#t #om
iss%ing p#ovisional in=%nctive w#its to en=oin investigations
cond%cted by the $fce o the $mb%dsman& %ntil it is adopted as
pa#t o the #%les o p#oced%#e th#o%gh an administ#ative ci#c%la#
d%ly iss%ed the#eo#.

6ence& with Cong#ess inte#e#ing with matte#s o p#oced%#e

+th#o%gh passing the #st pa#ag#aph o 7ection 8& RA 9;;0,
witho%t the Co%#ts consent the#eto& it #emains that the CA had
the a%tho#ity to iss%e the %estioned in=%nctive w#its en=oining
the implementation o the p#eventive s%spension o#de# against
Binay& '#. At the #is* o belabo#ing the point& these iss%ances we#e
me#ely ancilla#y to the e:e#cise o the CAs certiorari =%#isdiction
cone##ed to it %nde# 7ection 1 +,& Chapte# ! o B- 21& as
amended& and which it had al#eady ac%i#ed ove# the main CA4
(.R. 7- No. 185 case.

@$

A$ (ub*ect matter of the CA&s iniunctive 'rits is the preventive

suspension order$

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conchita-carpio-morales-vs-ca-digest 5/12
8/19/2019 Conchita Carpio Morales vs. CA Digest

• By nat%#e& a p#eventive s%spension o#de# is not a penalty b%t

only a p#eventive meas%#e. !ts p%#pose is to p#event the ofcial
to be s%spended #om %sing his position and the powe#s and
p#e#ogatives o his ofce to inF%ence potential witnesses o#
tampe# with #eco#ds which may be vital in the p#osec%tion o the
case against him
•  3he law sets o#th two +2, conditions that m%st be satised to
 =%stiy the iss%ance o an o#de# o p#eventive s%spension pending
an investigation& namely

+, 3he evidence o g%ilt is st#ongD and

+2, Eithe# o the ollowing ci#c%mstances co4e:ist with the #st

#e%i#ement
+a, 3he cha#ge involves dishonesty& opp#ession o# g#ave
miscond%ct o# neglect in the pe#o#mance o
d%tyDc#alawlawlib#a#y

+b, 3he cha#ge wo%ld wa##ant #emoval #om the se#viceD o#

+c, 3he #espondents contin%ed stay in ofce may p#e=%dice

the case led against him.

B$ +he basis of the CA&s in*unctive 'rits is the condonation

doctrine$

E:amining the CAs Resol%tions in CA4(.R. 7- No. 185 wo%ld&

howeve#& show that the $mb%dsmans non4compliance with the
#e%isites p#ovided in 7ection 28& RA 9;;0 was not the basis o# the
iss%ance o the assailed in=%nctive w#its.

 3he $mb%dsman contends that it was inapp#op#iate o# the CA to have

conside#ed the condonation doct#ine since it was a matte# o deense
which sho%ld have been #aised and passed %pon by he# ofce d%#ing
the administ#ative disciplina#y p#oceedings.28 6oweve#& the Co%#t
ag#ees with the CA that it was not p#ecl%ded #om conside#ing the
same given that it was mate#ial to the p#op#iety o acco#ding
p#ovisional in=%nctive #elie in cono#mity with the #%ling in Governor
Garcia, Jr.& which was the s%bsisting =%#isp#%dence at that time. 3h%s&
since condonation was d%ly #aised by Binay& '#. in his petition in CA4(.R.
7- No. 185&288 the CA did not e## in passing %pon the same. Note
that altho%gh Binay& '#. seconda#ily a#g%ed that the evidence o g%ilt
against him was not st#ong in his petition in CA4(.R. 7- No.
185&285 it appea#s that the CA o%nd that the application o the

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conchita-carpio-morales-vs-ca-digest 6/12
8/19/2019 Conchita Carpio Morales vs. CA Digest

condonation doct#ine was al#eady s%fcient to en=oin the

implementation o the p#eventive s%spension o#de#. Again& the#e is
nothing abe##ant with this since& as #ema#*ed in the same case
o Governor Garcia, Jr .& i it was established that the acts s%b=ect o the
administ#ative complaint we#e indeed committed d%#ing Binay& '#.s
p#io# te#m& then& ollowing
be administ#atively the!ncondonation
cha#ged. othe# wo#ds&doct#ine& he can nohaving
with condonation longe#
been invo*ed by Binay& '#. as an e:c%lpato#y af#mative deense at the
onset& the CA deemed it %nnecessa#y to dete#mine i the evidence o
g%ilt against him was st#ong& at least o# the p%#pose o iss%ing the
s%b=ect in=%nctive w#its.

Gith the p#elimina#y ob=ection #esolved and the basis o the assailed
w#its he#ein laid down& the Co%#t now p#oceeds to dete#mine i the CA
g#avely ab%sed its disc#etion in applying the condonation doct#ine.

$ +esting the Condonation octrine$

Pascual's ratio decidendi may be dissected into th#ee +, pa#ts

First &the penalty o #emoval may not be e:tended beyond the te#m in

which the p%blic ofce# was elected o# each te#m is sepa#ate and
distinct

%"enses committed, or acts done, during previous term are

generally held not to furnish cause for removal and this is
especially t#%e whe#e the constit%tion p#ovides that the penalty in
p#oceedings o# #emoval shall not e=tend beyond the removal from
o>ce, and disuali9cation from holding o>ce for the term for
'hich the o>cer 'as elected or appointed.
 3he %nde#lying theo#y is that each term is separate from other
terms : : :.2;2

Second & an elective ofcials #e4election se#ves as a condonation o

p#evio%s miscond%ct& the#eby c%tting the #ight to #emove him the#eo#D
and

H3Ihat the reelection to ofce operates as a condonation o the

ofcer's previous misconduct to the extent o cutting o the right to
remove him thereor .

Third &
co%#ts may not dep#ive the electo#ate& who a#e ass%med to
have *nown the lie and cha#acte# o candidates& o thei# #ight to elect
ofce#s

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conchita-carpio-morales-vs-ca-digest 7/12
8/19/2019 Conchita Carpio Morales vs. CA Digest

As held in !onant vs. Grogan 

 3he Co%#t sho%ld neve# #emove a p%blic ofce# o# acts done p#io# to
his p#esent te#m o ofce. 3o do othe#wise wo%ld be to dep#ive the
people
electedoathei#
man#ight to elect
to o>ce, itthei#
must ofce#s. )hen the
be assumed thatpeople
they didhave
this
'ith !no'ledge of his life and character, and that they
disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had been
guilty of any. !t is not o# the co%#t& by #eason o s%ch a%lts o#
miscond%ct to p#actically ove##%le the will o the people. 2;8 

+he doctrine of condonation is actually bereft of legal bases$

 3o begin with& the concept o public o>ce is a public trust and the
corollary reuirement of accountability to the people at all
times& as mandated %nde# the 1>; Constit%tion& is plainly
inconsistent with the idea that an elective local ofcials
administ#ative liability o# a miscond%ct committed d%#ing a p#io# te#m
can be wiped oJ by the act that he was elected to a second te#m o
ofce& o# even anothe# elective post. 8lection is not a mode of
condoning an administrative o"ense& and the#e is simply no
constit%tional o# stat%to#y basis in o%# =%#isdiction to s%ppo#t the notion
that an ofcial elected o# a diJe#ent te#m is %lly absolved o any
administ#ative liability a#ising #om an oJense done d%#ing a p#io#
te#m. !n this =%#isdiction& liability arising from administrative
o"enses may be condoned bv the President  in light o 7ection 1&
A#ticle21
!! o the 1>; Constit%tion which was inte#p#eted in "lamas v.
Orbos  to apply to administ#ative oJenses

Also& it cannot be ine##ed #om 7ection 90 o the L(C that the g#o%nds
o# discipline en%me#ated the#ein cannot anymo#e be invo*ed against
an elective local ofcial to hold him administ#atively liable once he is
#e4elected to ofce. !n act& 7ection 80 +b, o the L(C p#ecl%des
condonation since in the #st place& an elective local ofcial who is
meted with the penalty o #emoval co%ld not be #e4elected to an
elective local position d%e to a di#ect dis%alication #om #%nning o#
s%ch post. !n simila# #ega#d& 7ection 52 +a, o the RRACC7 imposes a
penalty o pe#pet%al dis%alication #om holding p%blic ofce as an
accesso#y to the penalty o dismissal #om se#vice.

 3o compa#e& some o the cases adopted in Pascual we#e decided by M7

7tate =%#isdictions whe#ein the doct#ine o condonation o
administ#ative liability was s%ppo#ted by eithe# a constit%tional o#
stat%to#y p#ovision stating& in eJect& that an ofce# cannot
be removed by a miscond%ct committed d%#ing a p#evio%s te#m& 218 o#

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conchita-carpio-morales-vs-ca-digest 8/12
8/19/2019 Conchita Carpio Morales vs. CA Digest

that the disuali9cation to hold the o>ce does not e=tend

beyond the term in 'hich the o>cial&s delinuency
occurred$215 !n one case&219 the absence o a p#ovision against the #e4
election o an ofce# #emoved 4 %nli*e 7ection 80 +b, o the L(C4was
the =%stication behind condonation. !n anothe# case&21; it was deemed
that condonation
constitution th#o%gh
 4 which #e4election
adoption in thiswas a policy#%ns
=%#isdiction under theirto o%#
co%nte#
p#esent Constit%tions #e%i#ements on p%blic acco%ntability. 3he#e was
even one case whe#e the doct#ine o condonation was not ad=%dicated
%pon b%t only invo*ed by a pa#ty as a g#o%ndD21> while in anothe# case&
which was not #epo#ted in %ll in the ofcial se#ies& the c#%: o the
disposition was that the evidence o a p#io# i##eg%la#ity in no way
pe#tained to the cha#ge at iss%e and the#eo#e& was deemed to be
incompetent.2116ence& owing to eithe# thei# va#iance o# inapplicability&
none o these cases can be %sed as basis o# the contin%ed adoption o 
the condonation doct#ine %nde# o%# e=isting la's$ At best& 7ection 99
+b, o the L(C p#ohibits the eno#cement o the penalty o
s%spension beyond the %ne:pi#ed po#tion o the elective local ofcials
p#io# te#m& and li*ewise allows said ofcial to still #%n o# #e4election.

E%ally in#m is Pascual's p#oposition that the electo#ate& when #e4

electing a local ofcial& a#e ass%med to have done so with *nowledge
o his lie and cha#acte#& and that they dis#ega#ded o# o#gave his a%lts
o# miscond%ct& i he had been g%ilty o any. 7%fce it to state that no
s%ch p#es%mption e:ists in any stat%te o# p#oced%#al #%le. 02 Besides& it
is cont#a#y to h%man e:pe#ience that the electo#ate wo%ld have %ll
*nowledge o a p%blic ofcials misdeeds. 3he $mb%dsman co##ectly
points o%t the #eality that most co##%pt acts by p%blic ofce#s a#e
sh#o%ded in sec#ecy& and concealed #om the p%blic.)iscond%ct
committed by an elective ofcial is easily cove#ed %p& and is almost
always %n*nown to the electo#ate when they cast thei# votes.0 At a
concept%al level& condonation p#es%pposes that the condone# has
act%al *nowledge o what is to be condoned. 3h%s& the#e co%ld be no
condonation o an act that is %n*nown.

!t sho%ld& howeve#& be cla#ied that this Co%#ts abandonment o the

condonation doct#ine sho%ld be prospective in application o# the
#eason that =%dicial decisions applying o# inte#p#eting the laws o# the
Constit%tion& %ntil #eve#sed& shall o#m pa#t o the legal system o the
-hilippines.05 Mnto this Co%#t devolves the sole a%tho#ity to inte#p#et
what the Constit%tion means& and all pe#sons a#e bo%nd to ollow its
inte#p#etation. 6ence& while the %t%#e may %ltimately %ncove# a
doct#ines e##o#& it sho%ld be& as a general rule& #ecognied as "good
law" p#io# to its abandonment. Conse%ently& the peoples #eliance
the#e%pon sho%ld be #espected.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conchita-carpio-morales-vs-ca-digest 9/12
8/19/2019 Conchita Carpio Morales vs. CA Digest

8$ Conseuence of ruling$

As o# this section o the <ecision& the iss%e to be #esolved is 'hether

or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lac! or e=cess of *urisdiction in issuing the assailed
in*unctive 'rits$
!t is well4settled that an act o a co%#t o# t#ib%nal can only be
conside#ed as with g#ave ab%se o disc#etion 'hen such act is done
in a capricious or 'himsical e=ercise of *udgment as is
euivalent to lac! of *urisdiction$ 3he ab%se o disc#etion m%st be
so patent and g#oss as to amo%nt to an evasion o a positive d%ty o# to
a vi#t%al #e%sal to pe#o#m a d%ty en=oined by law& o# to act at all in
contemplation o law& as whe#e the powe# is e:e#cised in an a#bit#a#y
and despotic manne# by #eason o passion and hostility.  !t has also
been held that grave abuse of discretion arises 'hen a lo'er
court or tribunal patently violates the Constitution, the la' or
e=isting *urisprudence."2

As ea#lie# established& #eco#ds disclose that the CAs #esol%tions

di#ecting the iss%ance o the assailed in=%nctive w#its we#e all hinged
on cases en%nciating the condonation doct#ine. 3o #eco%nt& the )a#ch
9& 205 Resol%tion di#ecting the iss%ance o the s%b=ect 3R$ was
based on the case o Governor Garcia, Jr .& while the Ap#il 9& 205
Resol%tion di#ecting the iss%ance o the s%b=ect G-! was based on the
cases o #guinaldo, $alalima, %a&or Garcia, and again& Governor
Garcia, Jr. 3h%s& by me#ely ollowing settled p#ecedents on the
condonation doct#ine& which at that time& %nwittingly #emained "good
law&" it cannot be concl%ded that the CA committed a g#ave ab%se o
disc#etion based on its legal att#ib%tion above. Acco#dingly& the G-!
against the $mb%dsmans p#eventive s%spension o#de# was co##ectly
iss%ed.

Gith this& the ens%ing co%#se o action sho%ld have been o# the CA to
#esolve the main petition o#certiorari in CA-/$$ (P 0o$ 123452 on
the me#its. 6oweve#& conside#ing that the $mb%dsman& on $ctobe# 1&
205& had al#eady o%nd Binay& '#. administ#atively liable and imposed
%pon him the penalty o dismissal& which ca##ies the accesso#y penalty
o pe#pet%al dis%alication #om holding p%blic ofce& o# the p#esent
administ#ative cha#ges against him& the said CA petition appea#s to
have been mooted. As initially intimated& the p#eventive s%spension
o#de# is only an ancilla#y iss%ance that& at its co#e& se#ves the p%#pose
o assisting the $fce o the $mb%dsman in its investigation. !t
the#eo#e has no mo#e p%#pose 4 and pe#o#ce& dissolves 4 %pon the
te#mination o the ofces p#ocess o investigation in the instant
administ#ative case.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conchita-carpio-morales-vs-ca-digest 10/12
8/19/2019 Conchita Carpio Morales vs. CA Digest

F$ 8=ceptions to the mootness principle$

 3his notwithstanding& this Co%#t deems it apt to cla#iy that the

mootness o the iss%e #ega#ding the validity o the p#eventive
s%spension o#de# s%b=ect o
o#egoing dete#minations& this case does
pa#tic%la#ly& not p#ecl%de any
its abandonment o its
o the
condonation doct#ine. As e:plained in Belgica& "the moot and
academic p#inciple is not a magical o#m%la that can a%tomatically
diss%ade the Co%#t in #esolving a case. 3he Co%#t will decide cases&
othe#wise moot& i 9rst& the#e is a g#ave violation o the
Constit%tionD second & the e:ceptional cha#acte# o the sit%ation and
the pa#amo%nt p%blic inte#est is involvedD third& when the
constit%tional iss%e #aised #e%i#es o#m%lation o cont#olling p#inciples
to g%ide the bench& the ba#& and the p%blicD and fourth& the case is
capable o #epetition yet evading #eview." 8 All o these scena#ios
obtain in this case
First& it wo%ld be a violation o the Co%#ts own d%ty to %phold and
deend the Constit%tion i it we#e not to abandon the condonation
doct#ine now that its in#mities have become appa#ent. As e:tensively
disc%ssed& the contin%ed application o the condonation doct#ine is
simply impe#missible %nde# the a%spices o the p#esent Constit%tion
which e:plicitly mandates that p%blic ofce is a p%blic t#%st and that
p%blic ofcials shall be acco%ntable to the people at all times.

(econd& the condonation doct#ine is a pec%lia# =%#isp#%dential c#eation

that has pe#sisted as a deense o elective ofcials to escape
administ#ative liability. !t is the #st time that the legal int#icacies o
this doct#ine have been b#o%ght to lightD th%s& this is a sit%ation o
e:ceptional cha#acte# which this Co%#t m%st %ltimately #esolve.
?%#the#& since the doct#ine has se#ved as a pe#ennial obstacle against
e:acting p%blic acco%ntability #om the m%ltit%de o elective local
ofcials th#o%gho%t the yea#s& it is ind%bitable that pa#amo%nt p%blic
inte#est is involved.

+hird& the iss%e on the validity o the condonation doct#ine clea#ly

#e%i#es the o#m%lation o cont#olling p#inciples to g%ide the bench&
the ba#& and the p%blic. 3he iss%e does not only involve an in4depth
e:egesis o administ#ative law p#inciples& b%t also p%ts to the o#e#ont
o legal disco%#se the potency o the acco%ntability p#ovisions o the
1>; Constit%tion. 3he Co%#t owes it to the bench& the ba#& and the
p%blic to e:plain how this cont#ove#sial doct#ine came abo%t& and now&
its #easons o# abandoning the same in view o its #elevance on the
pa#amete#s o p%blic ofce.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conchita-carpio-morales-vs-ca-digest 11/12
8/19/2019 Conchita Carpio Morales vs. CA Digest

And fourth& the deense o condonation has been consistently invo*ed

by elective local ofcials against the administ#ative cha#ges led
against them. 3o p#ovide a sample sie& the $mb%dsman has ino#med
the Co%#t that "o# the pe#iod o '%ly 20 to <ecembe# 208 alone& >5
cases #om the L%on $fce and 28 cases #om the Cent#al $fce we#e
dismissed
yea#s& ove#on the g#o%nd
a h%nd#ed o condonation.
cases 3h%s& in =%st
o alleged miscond%ct one and a hal
4 involving
in#actions s%ch as dishonesty& opp#ession& g#oss neglect o d%ty and
g#ave miscond%ct 4 we#e placed beyond the #each o the $mb%dsmans
investigato#y and p#osec%to#ial powe#s." 5 Evidently& this o#ties the
nding that the case is capable o #epetition and m%st the#eo#e& not
evade #eview.

!n any event& the abandonment o a doct#ine is wholly within the

p#e#ogative o the Co%#t. As mentioned& it is its own =%#isp#%dential
c#eation and may the#eo#e& p%#s%ant to its mandate to %phold and
deend the Constit%tion& #evo*e it notwithstanding s%pe#vening events
that #ende# the s%b=ect o disc%ssion moot.chan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conchita-carpio-morales-vs-ca-digest 12/12