G.R. No.
147870 July 31, 2002
RAMIR R. PABLICO, petitioner,
vs.
ALEJANDRO A. VILLAPANDO, respondent
FACTS:
On August 5, 1999, Solomon B. Maagad, and Renato M. Fernandez, both members of the Sangguniang
Bayan of San Vicente, Palawan, filed with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan an administrative
complaint against respondent Alejandro A. Villapando, then Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan, for abuse
of authority and culpable violation of the Constitution.
Complainants alleged that respondent, on behalf of the municipality, entered into a consultancy
agreement with Orlando M. Tiape, a defeated mayoralty candidate in the May 1998 elections. They
argue that such agreement is in violation of Article IX-B, Section 6, of the 1987 Constitution stating that
an appointment to a government position within one-year period is prohibited.
In his answer, respondent argued that he merely hired him anchoring his claim to an opinion from DOJ
stating that the appointment of a defeated candidate within one year from the election as a consultant
does not constitute an appointment to a government office or position as prohibited by the
Constitution.
In 2000, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan found respondent guilty of the administrative
charge and imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from service.
On appeal, the Office of the President affirmed the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Palawan.
Pending MR, then Vice-mayor of San Vicente, Palawan, took his oath of office as Municipal Mayor.
Consequently, respondent filed with the RTC of Palawan a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
preliminary injunction and prayer for a temporary restraining order seeking to annul, inter alia, the
oath administered to petitioner. TRO granted for 72 hours. Petitioner filed an extension but denied.
Hence, petitioner resumed his assumption of the functions of Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan.
In 2000, respondent instituted a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals
seeking to annul: the decision of the Office of the President and that of the Sanggunian.
The CA declared void the assailed decisions and ordered petitioner to vacate the Office of Mayor of San
Vicente, Palawan. MR file, but denied, hence, the instant petition for review.
ISSUE: May local legislative bodies and/or the Office of the President, on appeal, validly impose the penalty of
dismissal from service on erring elective local officials?
RULING: NO. The last paragraph of Section 60 of the Local Government Code of 1991 provides:
“An elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated above by order of the proper court. “
It is clear from the last paragraph of the aforecited provision that the penalty of dismissal from service upon an
erring elective local official may be decreed only by a court of law. Thus, we held that "[t]he Office of the
President 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 the aforequoted Section 60."
Article 124 (b), Rule XIX of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code, however,
adds that – "(b) An elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated in paragraph
(a) of this Article [The grounds enumerated in Section 60, 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." The disciplining authority referred to pertains to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan/Panlungsod/Bayan
and the Office of the President. It must be noted though, that No rule or regulation may alter, amend, or
contravene a provision of law, such as the Local Government Code. 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.
It is beyond cavil, therefore, that the power to remove erring elective local officials from service is lodged
exclusively with the courts. Hence, Article 124 (b), Rule XIX, of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the
Local Government Code, insofar as it vests power on the "disciplining authority" to remove from office
erring elective local officials, is void for being repugnant to the last paragraph of Section 60 of the Local
Government Code of 1991.
