University of the Philippines College of Law

Law on Public Officers | [CMSM]

ROMEO R. SALALIMA ET AL. v. HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., in his capacity as the
Case Name
Executive Secretary, ET AL.
Topic Termination of Official Relations; Removal
Case No. |
GR Nos. 117589-92 | May 22, 1996
Date
Ponente Davide, Jr., J.
Four administrative complaints were filed against Petitioners, who were elective officials of Albay
with the OP, which promulgated AO No. 153, meting out on each Petitioner penalties of
suspension of different durations, to be served successively, but not to go beyond their respective
unexpired terms, in accordance with Sec. 66(b) of the LGC. Petitioners filed a Petition for
Certiorari to annul and set aside AO No. 153, alleging, among others, that the OP acted with grave
abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction because the suspensions, ranging
Case
from 12 to 20 months or for the entire duration of Petitioners’ unexpired term, which was then
Summary only 7 months, constituted permanent disenfranchisement or removal from office, in clear
violation of Sec. 60 of the LGC. The SC said that the suspension imposed for each administrative
offense did not exceed six months, and there was an express provision that the successive service
of the suspension should not exceed the unexpired portion of the term of office of the
petitioners. Ultimately, the SC held that it was not prepared to rule that the suspension amounted
to Petitioners’ removal from office.
The law on suspension or removal of elective public officials must be strictly construed and
applied, and the authority in whom such power of suspension or removal is vested must
exercise it with utmost good faith, for involved is not just an ordinary public official but one
chosen by the people through the exercise of their constitutional right of suffrage. Their will
Doctrine
must not be put to naught by the caprice or partisanship of the disciplining authority. Where the
disciplining authority is given only the power to suspend and not the power to remove, it should
not be permitted to manipulate the law by usurping the power to remove by arbitrarily exercising
the power to suspend in a manner that results in the removal of an elected official from office.

RELEVANT FACTS
• Petitioners were elective officials of the Province of Albay (Albay).
• In 1993, several administrative complaints against Petitioners were filed with the Office of the
President (OP), which were later docketed as four separate cases.
• The President issued AO No. 94, creating an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate the charges, and
submit its findings and recommendations.
• The President promulgated AO No. 153, quoting and adopting pertinent findings and
recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee.

Summary of findings and penalties (A digest for each administrative complaint is provided under the
NOTES section):
OP CASE ISSUE & RULING SUSPENSION
OP Case No. 5470 W/N the payments to be made by 1. Gov. Salalima → 5 months
the NPC under the MOA should
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Law on Public Officers | [CMSM]
accrue solely and exclusively in 2. Vice Gov. and Sangguniang
favor of Albay – NO. Panlalawigan (SP) Members → 4
months
OP Case No. 5469 W/N Petitioners incurred 1. Gov. Salalima & Vice-Gov.
administrative liability in entering Azana → 6 months
into the retainer agreement with 2. SP Members → 4 months
Atty. Cornago, and the Cortes &
Reyna Law Firm, and in making
payments pursuant to said
agreement for purposes of the
case filed by the NPC with the SC
against Albay – YES.
OP Case No. 5471 W/N the conduct of the Gov. Salalima and the SP
proceedings in the administrative Members → 4 months
cases filed and the series of
suspension orders imposed by
the SP Members on Mayor Corral
constituted oppression and
abuse of authority – YES.
OP Case No. 5450 Issue and Ruling: W/N Gov. Gov. Salalima → 5 months
Salalima was guilty of the
violations of Sec. 60, pars. (c) and
(d) of the LGC, Sec. 3, par. (g) of
RA No. 3019, and the provisions
of PD No. 1594 – YES.

• The suspensions imposed on Petitioners were ordered to be served successively, without exceeding
their respective unexpired terms, in accordance with the limitation imposed under Sec. 66(b) of the
Local Government Code (LGC).

RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N Petitioners’ NO. Assuming that the findings and conclusions of the OP in each of the four
suspensions, ranging administrative cases were correct, it committed no grave abuse of discretion in
from 12 to 20 imposing the penalty of suspension, although the aggregate thereof exceeded
months, or for the six months and the unexpired portion of the Petitioners’ term of office. The fact
entire duration of remained that the suspension imposed for each administrative offense did not
their unexpired exceed six months, and there was an express provision that the successive
term, constituted service of the suspension should not exceed the unexpired portion of the term
permanent of office of the Petitioners.
disenfranchisement ● Sec. 66(b) of the LGC expressly provides that, “The penalty of suspension
or removal from shall not exceed the unexpired term of the respondent or a period of six (6)
office months for every administrative offense, nor shall said penalty be a bar to
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Law on Public Officers | [CMSM]
the candidacy of the respondent so suspended as long as he meets the
qualifications for the office.”
● This provision sets the limits to the penalty of suspension, viz., it should not
exceed 6 months or the unexpired portion of the term of office of the
respondent for every administrative offense.
● An administrative offense means every act or conduct or omission which
amounts to, or constitutes, any of the grounds for disciplinary action.
● The offenses for which suspension may be imposed on elective officials by
the proper court are enumerated in Sec. 60 of the LGC, to wit, “An elective
local official may be disciplined, suspended, or removed from office on any
of the following grounds:
○ (a) Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines;
○ (b) Culpable violation of the Constitution;
○ (c) Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office, gross negligence,
or dereliction of duty;
○ (d) Commission of any offense involving moral turpitude or an
offense punishable by at least prision mayor;
○ (e) Abuse of authority;
○ (f) Unauthorized absence for fifteen (15) consecutive working days,
except in the case of members of the sangguniang panialawigan,
sangguniang panlungsod, sangguniang bayan, and sangguniang
barangay;
○ (g) Acquisition for, or acquisition of, foreign citizenship or residence
or the status of an immigrant of another country; and
○ (h) Such other grounds as may be provided in this Code and other
laws.
● THE COURT WAS NOT PREPARED TO RULE THAT THE SUSPENSION
AMOUNTED TO PETITIONERS’ REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. (Bleh.)

Footnote 3:
● The OP is without any power to remove elected officials, since such power
is exclusively vested in the proper courts as expressly provided for in the
last paragraph of Sec. 60 of the LGC.
● Parenthetically, it may be observed that Art. 125, Rule XIX of the LGC-IRR
grants to the disciplining authority the power to remove an elective local
official. Par. (b) provides that, “An elective local official may be removed
from office on the grounds enumerated in paragraph (a) of this Article [The
grounds enumerated in Sec. 60, The Local Government Code of 1991] by
order of the proper court or the disciplining authority whichever first
acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other.”
● This grant to the “disciplining authority” of the power to remove elective
local officials is clearly beyond the authority of the Oversight Committee
that prepared the Rules and Regulations. It is settled that no rule or
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Law on Public Officers | [CMSM]
regulation may alter, amend, or contravene a provision of law, like the LGC.
Implementing rules should conform, not clash, with the law that they
implement, for a regulation which operates to create a rule out of harmony
with the statute is a nullity.
● SEE DOCTRINE.
● “[T]he abridgment of the power to remove or suspend an elective mayor is
not without its own justification, and was, we think, deliberately intended
by the lawmakers. The evils resulting from a restricted authority to suspend
or remove must have been weighed against the injustices and harms to the
public interests which would be likely to emerge from an unrestrained
discretionary power to suspend and remove.

RULING
WHEREFORE, the instant special action for certiorari is hereby partly GRANTED. That part of the challenged
Administrative Order No. 153 imposing the penalty of suspension on petitioner Governor Romeo Salalima
in O.P. Cases Nos. 5450 and 5469 and on petitioners Vice Governor Danilo Azaa and Sangguniang
Panlalawigan Members Juan Victoria, Lorenzo Reyeg, Arturo Osia, Wilbor Rontas, Clenio Cabredo, Ramon
Fernandez, Jr., Masikap Fontanilla, Vicente Go, Sr., and Nemesio Baclao in O.P. Case No. 5469 are hereby
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, without prejudice to the filing of appropriate civil or criminal actions against them
if warranted by the attendant circumstances.

NOTES

OP Case No. 5470

• Complainant: Mayor Corral of Tiwi, Albay.
• Respondents: Governor Salalima, Vice-Governor Azana, and the SP Members.
• Charges: Malversation, and consistent and habitual violation of pars. (c) and (d) of Sec. 60 of the LGC.
Facts:
• In NPC v. Albay, NPC was held liable for unpaid real estate taxes on its real properties, consisting
mainly of geothermal plants in Tiwi and substation facilities in Daraga, both in Albay.
• Earlier, the said properties were sold in a public auction to Albay, being the sole bidder.
• Albay, through Gov. Salalima, and the NPC entered into a MOA, setting forth the amount of the initial
payment and the schedule of payment of the balance.
• Mayor Corral requested Albay, through Gov. Salalima, to remit the tax shares of Tiwi, but the latter
denied.
• Pursuant to a clarification requested by the NPC, the OP declared that the MOA merely recognized
NPC’s liability, that Tiwi was entitled to its shares in NPC’s tax liabilities, and that the latter could
remit them directly to the former.
• NPC then informed Mayor Corral and Gov. Salalima that the former would be paying directly to Tiwi.
• The SP passed an Ordinance, (1) authorizing the Provincial Treasurer to sell all the real properties
acquired in the earlier public auction in another public auction, and (2) declaring as forfeited in favor
of Albay the payments already made by the NPC under their MOA (Php40M).
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Law on Public Officers | [CMSM]
Issue and Ruling: W/N the payments to be made by the NPC under the MOA should accrue solely and
exclusively in favor of Albay – NO.
• PD No. 464 prescribes the tax rates that a province, a municipality, and a city may each separately
levy on the real property located within their respective jurisdictions.
• As such, of the Php40M paid by NPC, Albay was entitled to only Php13M thereof, the balance
representing the collective shares of Tiwi, Daraga, the concerned barangays, and the National
Government.
• Thus, it was immaterial that Albay acquired ownership of the NPC’s real properties through the
public auction because the law provides that the proceeds thereof shall accrue to the proper LGU in
the same manner and proportion as if the taxes have been paid in the regular course.
• The shares of Tiwi, Daraga, the concerned barangays, and the National Government were trust funds.
As such, Albay, upon receipt of NPC’s payments, should have segregated and lodged in special
accounts, the respective shares of the beneficiaries for eventual remittance to them. The payments
could not form part of Albay’s general fund, nor could they be utilized by the latter for its own benefit
or account.
• The OP also declared as invalid the Ordinance passed by the SP, and other Resolutions issued by the
latter. The OP also rejected the defense of Vice-Gov. Azana, the presiding officer of the SP, that he
did not incur administrative liability since he did not participate in the deliberations of one of the
Resolutions, and merely signed it.
• Since Petitioners were guilty, whether by act or omission, of denying the beneficiaries their shares
in NPC’s tax delinquencies, and illegally forfeiting, appropriating, and disbursing funds not
belonging to Albay, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended that:
o Gov. Salalima be suspended for five months; while
o All others for four months.

OP Case No. 5469

• Respondents: Governor Salalima, the Vice-Governor, and the SP Members.
• Charge: Grave abuse of authority under Sec. 60(e) of the LGC.
Facts:
• The NPC went to the SC to question the validity of the public auction, arguing that the former’s real
properties were not subject to real property tax.
• Atty. Ricafort, the Legal Officer of Albay, filed a comment.
• The SP issued a Resolution, authorizing Gov. Salalima to engage the services of a Manila-based law
firm to handle the case against NPC.
• Atty. Cornago entered his appearance with the SC. The former filed a Memorandum with the latter,
suggesting that a retainer agreement be signed between Albay, and Atty, Cornago and the Cortes &
Reyna Law Firm. The SP issued another Resolution, authorizing Gov. Salalima to sign.
• The SC dismissed NPC’s petition.
• Payments, as approved by Azana and Gov. Salalima, were made to Atty. Cornago and the Members
of the Cortes & Reyna Law Firm.
• The Provincial Auditor of Albay informed Gov. Salalima that the payments made by Albay as
Attorney’s Fees, amounting to Php7M, were disallowed by the Commission on Audit (COA).
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Respondents??? Law on Public Officers | [CMSM]
Issue and Ruling: W/N Petitioners incurred administrative liability in entering into the retainer agreement
with Atty. Cornago, and the Cortes & Reyna Law Firm, and in making payments pursuant to said
agreement for purposes of the case filed by the NPC with the SC against Albay – YES.
• Sec. 481 of the LGC, which was based on Sec. 1681 of the LGC, provides that LGUs cannot be
represented by private lawyers, and it is solely the Provincial Fiscal who can rightfully represent
them.
• The Ad Hoc Committee also found that the entire transaction was attended by irregularities.
o First, the disbursements were disallowed by the Provincial Auditor on the ground that these
were made without the prior written conformity of the OSG, and the written concurrence of
the COA. The conformity presented by Petitioners was obtained after the disbursements
were already made.
o Second, Gov. Salalima signed two retainer contracts with two separate entities, namely, Atty.
Cornago, and the Cortes & Reyna Law Firm. However, only the former appeared as
collaborating counsel of record of Albay and signed the Memorandum submitted to the SC.
o Finally, the Attorney’s Fees agreed upon was unreasonable and unconscionable, and,
notably, Albay had its own Legal Officer, who already filed a comment. Furthermore, it was
found that Atty. Cornago did not possess a professional character and social standing that
would merit a Php38.5M fee. Gov. Salalima even admitted that he hired Atty. Cornago not
on the basis of his competency but for personal reasons, i.e., because they were schoolmates
in San Beda College. Neither did the standing of the Cortes & Reyna Law Firm merited
Php38.5M for one Memorandum.
o The Ad Hoc Committee applied the rule of joint responsibility as enunciated under Sec.
305(1) of the LGC. (It was also applied in OP Case No. 5470.) Finding Petitioners guilty of
grave abuse of authority under Sec. 60(e) of the LGC, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended
that:
▪ Gov. Salalima and Azana be suspended for six months; while
▪ All others for four months.

OP Case No. 5471

• Complainant: Mayor Corral of Tiwi, Albay.
• Respondents: Gov. Salalima, the SP Members, and the Vice-Mayor Benibe.
• Charges: Oppression and abuse of authority under Sec. 60(c) and (e) of RA No. 7160.
Facts:
• Subsequent to the events narrated in OP Case No. 5470, Mayor Corral became the subject of several
administrative and criminal complaints filed by certain individuals.
• The SP Members passed an Omnibus Resolution, recommending the preventive suspension of Mayor
Corral for 60 days, which Gov. Salalima approved. Vice-Mayor Benibe was then directed to assume
the office and discharge the functions of Tiwi Mayor.
• Mayor Corral filed a motion to inhibit some of the SP Members, asserting her right to due process,
but it was denied.
• DILG Secretary Alunan III directed the lifting of the order of preventive suspension for having been
issued prematurely because Mayor Corral had not filed her Answer yet.
• The SP Members rendered judgments against Mayor Corral and imposed several penalties of
suspension on her, of which the OP ordered the suspension or stay of execution.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Law on Public Officers | [CMSM]
Issue and Ruling: W/N the conduct of the proceedings in the administrative cases filed and the series of
suspension orders imposed by the SP Members on Mayor Corral constituted oppression and abuse of
authority – YES.
• “Oppression” – an “act of cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction, domination or excessive use of
authority.”
• “Abuse” - to make excessive or improper use of a thing, or to employ it in a manner contrary to the
natural or legal rules for its use. To make an extravagant or excessive use, as to abuse one’s
authority.”
• Sec. 63(d) of RA No. 7160: “Any abuse of the exercise of the powers of preventive suspension shall
be penalized as abuse of authority.”
• A review of the proceedings revealed that the same were marked by haste and arbitrariness.
o Mayor Corral was preventively suspended before she could file her Answer.
o The SP Members did not fully evaluate the pieces of evidence presented to support the
charges made against Mayor Corral; thus lift order by the DILG and the OP, and the dismissal
of the case filed with the Ombudsman.
o Refusal of some of the SP Members to inhibit themselves from assuming jurisdiction over the
administrative cases filed against Mayor Corral, considering that the former were
respondents in the administrative cases filed by the latter with the OP and the DILG.
o Finally, the OP only has appellate jurisdiction over a complaint filed against an elective
municipal official before the SP.
• Dispositive: The charges against Vice Mayor Benibe were dismissed. However, all the other
respondents were found guilty of oppression and abuse of authority under Sec. 60(c) and (e) of RA
No. 7160. The Ad Hoc Committee recommended that each of them be meted the penalty of 4
months suspension without pay.

OP Case No. 5450

• Complainant: Mayor Demetriou of Tabaco.
• Respondent: Gov. Salalima.
• Charges: Violations of Sec. 60, pars. (c) and (d) of the LGC, Sec. 3, par. (g) of RA No. 3019, and the
provisions of PD No. 1594.
Facts:
• Tabaco Public Market (TPM) was destroyed by fire.
• The OP advised Mayor Demetriou and Gov. Salalima to use the Php12M in Budgetary Assistance to
LGUs, remitted by the National Government to Albay, for the rehabilitation of the TPM.
• Albay conducted a public bidding.
• First contract: Gov. Salalima and RYU Construction entered into a contract for Php6M for the repair
and rehabilitation of TPM, stipulating that the project should be completed in 150 days. It took
almost a year to finish.
• Second contract: Gov. Salalima and RYU Construction entered into another contract for additional
repairs and rehabilitation, which was supposed to be finished in 90 days.
• Mayor Demetriou filed a complaint, alleging that despite the delay in the completion of work under
the first contract, liquidated damages were not imposed on, nor collected from, RYU Construction
by Albay. Moreover, the second contract was entered into in violation of PD No. 1594 as RYU incurred
delay with respect to the first contract.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Law on Public Officers | [CMSM]
Issue and Ruling: W/N Gov. Salalima was guilty of the violations of Sec. 60, pars. (c) and (d) of the LGC,
Sec. 3, par. (g) of RA No. 3019, and the provisions of PD No. 1594 – YES.
• Under the IRR of PD No. 1594, the collection of liquidated damages is mandatory in cases of delay
unless there are valid orders of extension of contract work given by the Government.
• Gov. Salalima failed to submit an evidence concerning any order issued by Albay extending RYU
Construction’s contract. The Ad Hoc Committee also commented that, before signing the second
contract, Gov. Salalima should have inquired whether or not RYU Construction incurred negative
slippage, so that the matter of imposing and collecting liquidated damages would have been given
appropriate attention, given that he signed the first contract, in which the same construction
company was involved.
• Furthermore, considering the negative slippage incurred by RYU Construction under the first
contract, it was anomalous for Gov. Salalima to enter into a negotiated contract with the same
contractor, in violation of the rule that construction projects shall generally be undertaken by
contract after “competitive bidding.”
• The Ad Hoc Committee was also of the opinion that the contract was in violation of the COA
Circular prohibiting irregular expenditures or uses of funds, and Secs. 3(e) and (g) of RA No. 3019.
It recommended that Gov. Salalima be meted out the penalty of 5 months suspension without pay.