Department of the Interior and Local Government

Regional Office No. 5

Rizal St., Legazpi City 4500

Opinion No. 2010-06

27 August 2010

To : Hon. JOSE SG. VILLANUEVA JR.

Vice Mayor, Iriga City
New Government Center, Sta. Cruz Sur, Iriga City

Thru : PD ARNEL RENATO L. MADRIDEO

DILG – Camarines Sur
BRBDP Bldg., San Jose, Pili, Camarines Sur

Facts:

A Decision of the Sangguniang Panlungsod in Administrative Case No. 2008-02 (Pb Cenon N.
was appealed to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
Vargas, et. al., vs Brgy. Kgd. Nestor A. Millete, et. al.)
(Adm. Case No. 09-2009).

On 09 February 2010, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan rendered a “decision” in said appealed

Decision, the dispositive portion of which states:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Iriga,

dated October 26, 2009, is hereby reversed and a new one entered DISMISSING the above case
for failure of the Appellees-Complainants to present evidence to substantiate their cause of
action; and AFFIRMING the dismissal of the countercharge. All the benefits, therefore, that the
appellants are entitled during the period of their suspension should be accorded to them as
provided for by law.

SO ORDERED.”

In a certification issued on 20 July 2010 by the Provincial Secretary of the Sangguniang

Panlalawigan, it stated that the appellants and appellees received the “decision” on 20 May
2010. Further, it stated that no Motion for Reconsideration/Appeal on the “decision” was filed
in that office.

Subsequently, the counsel for Respondents (appellants) filed before the Sangguniang
Panlungsod a Motion for Execution of Judgment citing that the “decision” of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan had become final and executory.

Issues:

1. Which office should carry out the “decision” of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan?

2. If it is the Office of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, how should it be carried out?

Opinion:

On issue number 1, it is the Office of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.

In the absence of a relevant provision in the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) and the
internal rules of the sangguniang panlungsod or panlalawigan, the ordinary rules (Rules of
Court) followed by our regular courts in disposing of the same matters may suppletorily be
applied by the Sangguniang Panlungsod:

RULE 39
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS
SECTION 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders.— Execution shall issue as a matter of right,
on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the
period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected. (1a)
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be applied for
in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of
the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with
notice to the adverse party.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct
the court of origin to issue the writ of execution. (Emphasis supplied)

Since the Office of the Sangguniang Panlungsod can be considered by analogy as the “court of
origin” of the administrative case, it must therefore be the proper office which should issue the
appropriate order to carry out a final and executory “decision” of the reviewing sangguniang
panlalawigan (“appellate court”).

On issue number 2, please consider the following points:

1. The hearing of the Motion for Execution filed by the counsel for Respondents
(appellants) should be conducted with prior notice to all parties. In this hearing
impartially conducted, the Sangguniang Panlungsod could ascertain the validity of
the claim of the movant that indeed the “decision” of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
had become “final and executory” and the status of the respondents if they are still
suspended. Thereafter, the sangguniang panlungsod could weigh on how it would
proceed with the Motion, like if there is still a need for an order to reinstate the
respondents and an order to pay their honoraria or benefits during the period they
were under suspension.

2. However, by this time, if the suspension of the respondents was implemented last
October 2009 (The penalty of suspension for every administrative offense under RA 7160 should not
be more than six months. The Decision of the Sangguniang Panlungsod dated 26 October 2009 is
immediately executory under Mendoza et.al. vs Laxina Sr., GRN 146875, 14 July 2003), we assume
(for lack of factual basis) that the respondents should have already returned to office by
formally informing the concerned officials of such re-assumption either on the
following grounds: (a) that the period of suspension already expired or (b) that the
“decision” of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan dismissing the administrative case
against them has now become final and executory;

3. Once the period of suspension expires, the suspended official automatically regains
his entitlement to his previous position and thus has to do a positive act to formally
re-assume that position and by showing proof that indeed his temporary incapacity
no longer exists. He must assert on this right, otherwise, his neglect could mean he is
not interested to the position anymore. If he is prevented from reassuming his
position by any other person or official, the latter must present his legal basis or
authority to do so and the former could challenge the same in the proper forum.
 4. The entitlement to salary (honoraria) of the respondents may be one of the
contentious issues in the execution of the “decision. “An honorarium is defined as
something given not as a matter of obligation but in appreciation for services
rendered, a voluntary donation in consideration of services which admit of no
compensation in money (TEODORO J. SANTIAGO, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, and the
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, respondents, G.R. No. 92284, 12 July 1991). Thus, in order for
barangay officials to be entitled to honoraria, there must be services rendered to be
appreciated or considered. Otherwise stated, if there are no services rendered by a
barangay official concerned, he is not entitled to the honorarium. An exception,
however, is provided under Sections 64 and 68 of the Local Government Code of
1991 (RA 7160):

SECTION 64. Salary of Respondent Pending Suspension. - The respondent official preventively
suspended from office shall receive no salary or compensation during such suspension; but, upon
subsequent exoneration and reinstatement, he shall be paid full salary or compensation
including such emoluments accruing during such suspension.

SECTION 68. Execution Pending Appeal. - An appeal shall not prevent a decision from
becoming final or executory. The respondent shall be considered as having been placed
under preventive suspension during the pendency of an appeal in the event he wins such
appeal. In the event the appeal results in an exoneration, he shall be paid his salary and
such other emoluments during the pendency of the appeal. (Emphasis supplied)

Based from the foregoing and the dispositive portion of the “decision” of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan pertaining to the benefits of the respondents, if it turns
out that until today the barangay officials concerned are being denied of their
honoraria during the period of their suspension, it would be well within their rights
to ask from the Sangguniang Panlungsod an order directing their Punong Barangay
and Barangay Treasurer to process, approve and release their claim. The periods
before the implementation of the suspension and after its expiration shall already be
subject to the “services rendered” requirement and would therefore fall no longer
within the compelling power of the Sangguniang Panlungsod in relation to the same
administrative case.

For your guidance.

BLANDINO M. MACEDA, CESO III

Regional Director

Ord/bmm
Legal/isko/ama