Administrative Law
CASE DIGEST NO.2
Name: Placido C. Peroy III CYS BLSM 3A
Title Title: Salumbides, Jr. & Araña v. Office of the Ombudsman (G.R. No.
96889)
Ponente CARPIO MORALES .J..
Topic Condonation Doctrine: Applies to elected officials’ prior term acts upon
reelection.
Facts Towards the end of 2001, Mayor Vicente Salumbides III identified the
need to construct a two-classroom building for Tagkawayan Municipal
High School (TMHS) due to a looming classroom shortage. Municipal
Legal Officer Vicente Salumbides, Jr. Suggested charging the
construction cost to the Maintenance and Other Operating
Expenses/Repair and Maintenance of Facilities (MOOE/RMF) and
implementing it “by administration.” However, Municipal Budget Officer
Glenda Araña indicated the lack of available MOOE/RMF funds and
suggested using the municipal government’s savings, contingent upon
Sangguniang Bayan approval for a supplemental budget.
The mayor, acting on Salumbides’s advice in December 2001, ordered the
use of the P1,000,000 MOOE/RMF allocation from the 2002 budget to
finance the projects. Subsequently, Municipal Engineer Jose Aquino was
instructed to commence construction with a total cost estimate of
P222,000. Public biddings in January 2002 were unsuccessful, but
construction proceeded regardless, without appropriation approval.
Respondents, Sangguniang Bayan members, filed administrative
complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman against the petitioners and
others for multiple offenses, including dishonesty and misconduct.
Procedurally, the Ombudsman initially denied preventive suspension for
the respondents, later absolved others besides Salumbides and Araña, and
eventually found the petitioners guilty of simple neglect of duty,
penalizing them with a six-month suspension. Their appeal to the Court of
Appeals upheld the Ombudsman’s ruling, prompting the present petition
to the Supreme Court.
Issues Issues:
1. Whether the condonation doctrine applicable to reelected officials
extends to petitioners as coterminous appointive officials.
2. Whether there exists a conspiracy involving the petitioners.
3. Whether the findings of simple neglect of duty against petitioners were
correct.
Ruling
Court’s Decision:
1. The Supreme Court rejected the application of the condonation
doctrine to appointive officials, distinguishing between the
electoral mandate and appointive authority. The court emphasized
that election expresses the people’s sovereign will, whereas re-
appointment to a position lacks such mandate.
2. The Court saw no merit in allegations of conspiracy, maintaining
that conspiracy connotes intentional acts, distinguishing it from
negligence, the charge here being simple neglect of duty.
3. On the charge of simple neglect, the Supreme Court found that the
petitioners did not exhibit the diligence expected from public
officers. Salumbides failed to ensure legal compliance, while
Araña, despite knowing the improper budgetary sourcing, did not
formally object to the irregularities.
Doctrine:
The doctrine reiterates that the condonation rule for past administrative
offenses committed during previous terms applies only to elective
officials, not appointive ones. Each term is distinct, and reappointment
does not imply public approval of misconduct.
