CASES IN PUBLIC CORPORATION

CASE: CARPIO-MORALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 217126-27, November

10, 2015
DOCTRINE: CONDONATION DOCTRINE

FACTS

Petitioner Conchita Carpio-Morales, in her capacity as the Ombudsman, filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition against the Resolution of the Court of Appeals which granted the
private respondent Jejomar Erwin Binay Jr.’s prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order (TRO) against the implementation order of the Ombudsman.

Respondent Binay, Jr. was charged with administrative and criminal cases in connection with the
allegation that he is involved in anomalous activities, attending the procurement and construction
phases of the Makati Parking Building project, committed during his previous and present terms
as City Mayor of Makati. However, Binay, Jr. argued that he could not be held administratively
liable since some of the projects were undertaken before he was elected the Mayor of Makati and
others transpired during his first term, thus, rendering administrative cases against him moot and
academic.

The Ombudsman issued an order placing Binay, Jr. in a preventive suspension. Binay, Jr. prayed
for Temporary Restraining Order from the Court of Appeals in which the latter granted. The
Court of Appeals found it prudent on its part to issue a TRO considering the established facts
wherein the acts which are the subject of the administrative cases filed against Binay, Jr. were
committed in his previous term, applying the condonation doctrine.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in issuing the TRO and
eventually, the WPI in enjoining the implementation of the preventive suspension order against
Binay, Jr. based on the condonation doctrine.

RULING

No, CA did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the TRO and the WPI in enjoining the
implementation of preventive suspension order against Binay, Jr. The CA’s resolution was all

____________________________

By: Louise Marie L. Pomida

 CASES IN PUBLIC CORPORATION

backed on cases upholding the condonation doctrine. The condonation doctrine is not based on
statutory law and is a jurisprudential creation which was decided under 1935 Constitution.

However, the Court finds no legal authority to sustain the condonation doctrine in this
jurisdiction and the Court’s abandonment of the condonation doctrine should be prospective in
application for the reason that judicial decision applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution, until reversed, shall for part of the legal system of the Philippines.

____________________________

By: Louise Marie L. Pomida