DISCIPLINE

Grounds for disciplinary action1 H Salalima v. Guingona – Administrative investigation can proceed
even during the pendency of an appeal of audit findings to the COA.
L An elective local official may be disciplined, suspended or removed
from office on any of the following grounds:
(D-VOM-A15-FO) 5 Elective municipal officials
- filed before the Sangguniang panlalawigan, may be appealed
(a) Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines; to the Office of the President.
(b) Culpable violation of the Constitution;
(c) Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office, gross H Berces v. Executive Secretary – A.O. No. 18 (Feb. 12, 1987), which
negligence, dereliction of duty; provides that on appeal from the decision of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, the President may stay execution of the appealed
H Regidor v. City of Dagupan – acts of lasciviousness cannot be decision, was deemed to have not repealed R.A. 7160, inasmuch as the
considered misconduct in office, and may not be the basis of an order of repealing clause of R.A. 7160 did not expressly repeal the
suspension to constitute a ground for disciplinary action, the mayor administrative order, and implied repeals are frowned upon.
charged with the offense must be convicted in the criminal action.
H Malinao v. Reyes – The decision of the sangguniang panlalawigan in
administrative cases involving elective local officials must be in writing
(d) Commission of an offense involving moral turpitude or an stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the reasons for the decision,
offense punishable by at least prision mayor; and must be signed by the requisite majority of the sanggunian.
(e) Abuse of authority;
5 Elective barangay officials
H Salalima v. Guingona – In failing to share with the municipalities - filed before the Sangguniang panlunsod or sanggunaing bayan
concerned the amount paid by NAPOCOR for the redemption of the concerned, whose deicision shall be final and executory.
properties acquired by the Province of Albay at a public auction held for
delinquent realty taxes, the Provincial Officials were held guilty of abuse H Office of the Ombudsman v. Rolson Rodriguez – The Ombudsman
of authority. has concurrent jurisdiction with the Sangguniang Bayan over
administrative cases against elective barangay officials occupying
(f) Unauthorized absence for 15 consecutive working days; positions below salary grade 27.
(g) Application for, or acquisition of, foreign citizenship or
residence or the status of an immigrant of another country; and Local Elective Official Complained Of Proper Office
(h) Such other grounds as may be provided by this Court 1. Provincial governor and vice Office of the President, through the
governor Executive Secretary as “disciplining
L The power to discipline does not include the power to remove. The 2. Mayors, vice-mayors and the authority”
members of Sangguniang
law on suspension or removal of elective officials must be strictly Panlalawigan or Panlungsod of
construed and applied. HUCs, ICCs an CCs, and
3. Mayors, vice-mayors and
Notice of Hearing (Sec. 62)2 members of Sangguniang
1. Within 7 days after the administrative complaint is filed, the Office of the President Panlungsod and Bayan of Cities
or the Sanggunian concerned as the case may be, shall require the respondent to and Municipalities in Metro Manila
submit his verified answer within 15 days from receipt thereof, and commence the
investigation of the case within 10 days after the receipt of such answer of the Mayors, vice-mayors anf members of Sangguniang Panlalawigan, appealable
respondent; Sangguniang Bayan of Municipality to the Office of the President
2. When the respondent is an elective official of a province of HUC, such hearing and Barangay chair and members of Sangguniang Panglungsod or Bayan,
investigation shall be conducted in the place where he renders or holds office. For Sangguniang Barangay whose decision shall be finals and
all other local elective officials, the venue shall be the place where the Sanggunian
concerned is located executory

L Jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary actions against elective

JURISDICTION ON COMPLAINTS local officials is lodged in two authorities: the Disciplining Authority and
L a verified complaint may be filed against: the Investigating Authority.3 The former is the President of the
Philippines, whether acting by himself or through the Executive
5 Provincial, HUC or ICC elective officials Secretary, while the latter is the Secretary of the Interior and Local
- filed before the Office of the President Government, who may act by himself or constitute an Investigating
Committee. (Joson v. Torres)
H Ganzon v. CA –The Constitution places local governments under the
supervision of the Executive. It likewise allows Congress to include the PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION
LGC provisions for the removal of local officials, which suggests that
Congress may exercise removal powers. So the LGC has done and
L WHO MAY IMPOSE:
delegated its exercise to the President. Supervision is not incompatible 1) President,
with disciplinary authority. 2) The governor, for elective municipal officials or
3) The mayor,4 for elective barangay officials and
H Joson v. Torres – Under A.O. No. 23, the President has delegated 4) The Ombudsman,5 but his primary jurisdiction to investigate
the power to investigate complaints to Secretary of DILF. This applies only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and
delegation is valid because what is delegated is only the power to
concurrent only in cases cognizable by the regular courts;
investigate, not to discipline. His power to investigate is based on the
alter ego principle or the qualified political agency, corollary to the 5) Minister of Local Government, for provincial or city official,
control power of the President. L WHEN MAY IT BE IMPOSED:
- Any time after the issues are joined;
The respondent has the right to a formal investigations under A.O. 23, - When evidence of guilt is strong, and
which includes the right to appear and defend himself in person or by - Given the gravity of the offense, there is great probability that
counsel, the right to confront the witnesses against him and the right to the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the
compulsory process for the attendance of witnesses and the production
of documents. Thus, in this case, where the Secretary denied the
witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the
petitioner’s motion for a formal investigation and decided the case on records and other evidence6;
the basis of position papers, the right of the petitioner was violated L LIMITATION:
 Shall not exceed beyond 60 days; or 90 days within a single
year (in case several cases are filed against respondent)
1
An elective official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated by order of proper
court
2 3
No investigation shall be held within 90 days immediately prior to any local election and no A.O. No. 23
4
preventive suspension shall be imposed prior the 90-day period immediately preceding local LGC, Sec. 63, par [a]
5
election. It shall be deemed automatically lifted upon the start of the aforesaid period (Sec. 62, R.A. 6770
6
par[c]). Sec. 7, Rule 18, IRR
1
 DISCIPLINE
H Regidor v. Chiongban – complaints against provincial or city officials
are supposed to be filed with the Minister (now Secretary) of Local
Government.
H Joson v. Torres – When the petitioner failed to file his answer
despite the many opportunities given to him, he was deemed to have
waived his right to answer and to present evidence. At that point, the
issues were deemed joined, and it was proper for the Executive
Secretary to suspend him, inasmuch as the Secretary found that the
evidence of guilt was strong and that the continuance in office could
influence the witnesses and pose a threat to the safety and the integrity
of the evidence against him
H Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole – The authority to preventively suspend is
exercised concurrently by the Ombudsman, pursuant to R.A. 6770; the
same law that authorized a preventive suspension of 6 months.
H Rios v. Sandiganbayan – The preventive suspension of an elective
official by the Sandiganbayan on a violation of R.A. 3019, shall, likewise
by only for 60 days, and not 90 days, consistent with Sec. 63, R.A.
7160, which provides that “any single preventive suspension of local
elective officials shall not extend beyond 60 days.
H Ganzon v. CA – The petitioner may serve the suspension so far
ordered, but may no longer be suspended for the offenses he was
charged originally; provided: (a) that delays in the investigation of those
charges “due to his fault, neglect or request,” shall not be counted in
computing the time of suspension; and (b) that if during, or after the
expiration of his preventive suspension, the petitioner commits another
or other crimes and abuses for which proper charges are filed against
him.
L Upon the expiration of the preventive suspension, the respondent shall
be deemed reinstated in office without prejudice to the continuation of the
proceedings against him, which shall be terminated within 120 days from
the time he was formally notified of the case against him.
L Any abuse of this exercise shall be penalized as abuse of authority.
PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION
L The investigation of the case shall be terminated within 90 days from
the start thereof. 30 days thereafter, the Office of the President or the
sanggunian concerned shall render a decision:
 in writing;
 stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the reasons for such
decision; and
 furnished the respondent and all interested parties.7
PENALTY
L shall not exceed his unexpired term, or a period of 6 months for every
administrative offense, nor shall it be a bar to the candidacy of the
respondent as long as he meets the qualifications required.
H Pablico v. Villapando – By virtue of Sec. 60 of the LGC: “any elective
local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated
above by the order of the proper court,” the penalty of dismissal fro the
service may be imposed upon an erring local elective official only by a
court of law. The provisions of the IRR granting the disciplining authority
the power to remove an elective official administratively are invalid.
H Sangguniang Barangay of Don Mariano Marcos v. Martines –
where petitioner filed with the SB of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya,
administrative charges against respondent for dishonesty, misconduct in
office and violation of the Anti-Graft Law, and the SB rendered a
decision imposing upon Martinez the penalty of removal, it was held that
the SB does not have the authority to remove elective local officials, it
being clear from Sec. 60 of the LGC. The SB acted beyond its
jurisdiction when it ordered the removal of Martinez from office.
c Under Sec. 40 of the LGC, the penalty of removal from office as a result
of administrative case shall be a bar to the candidacy of the respondent
for any elective local office.
H Salalima v. Guingona – SC upheld the imposition of the
administrative penalty of suspension of not more than 6 months for each
offense, provided that the successive service of the sentence should not
7
Sec. 66 par [a], LGC
exceed the unexpired portion of the term of the petitioners. The
suspension did not amount to removal from office.
THE OMBUDSMAN
L The Ombudsman has the power to impose administrative sanctions, as
it has full administrative disciplinary authority. Sec. 15, R.A. No. 6770
(Ombudsman Act of 1989) covers the entire range of administrative
activities attendant to administrative adjudication. Such power is direct,
and nor merely recommendatory.
L Disciplining authority over all elective and appointive officials of
the government, its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies,
except only of impeachable members of the Congress and the Judiciary.
L VESTED BY THE CONSTITUTION
The general investigatory power of the Ombudsman is decreed by
Section 13(1), Article XI, of the 1987 Constitution:
Sec. 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following
powers, functions, and duties:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any
act or omission of any public official, employee, office or
agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper, or inefficient;
L VESTED BY STATUTES:
Sec. 19, R.A. 6770 – The Ombudsman shall act on all complaints
relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions which:
 Are contrary to law or regulation;
 Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory;
 Are inconsistent with the general course of an agency's
functions, though in accordance with law;
 Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of
facts; Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an
improper purpose; or
 Are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification.
Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. — The Ombudsman or his Deputy
may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority
pending an investigation, if in his judgment, (a) the evidence of guilt is
strong, and (b) the charge against such officer or employee involves
dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the
performance of duty; (c) the charges would warrant removal from the
service; or (d) the respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the
case filed against him.
The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by
the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six months, without pay,
except when the delay in the disposition of the case by the Office of the
Ombudsman is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent,
in which case the period of such delay shall not be counted in computing
the period of suspension herein provided.
Administrative appeal
L Decisions may, within 30 days from receipt thereof, be appealed to:
1) The Sangguniang Panlalawigan
- In case of decisions of component cities’ Sangguniang
Panlunsod and Bayan
H Malinao v. Reyes – certiorari will not lie because there is still an
adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law (i.e., appeal of
the decision of Sanggunian Panlalwigan to the Office of the President)
2) The Office of the President
- In case of decisions of sangguniang panlalawigan and
panlunsod of HUCs and ICCs.
- Shall be final and executory
2
 DISCIPLINE

H Mendoza v. Laxina – there is appeal to the Office of the President,

although in this case, because the issue raised was purely legal, resort
to court was upheld. The phrases “final and executor” and “final or
executor” in Secs. 67-68 of the LGC simple mean that administrative
appeal will not prevent the enforcement of the decision. While the
administrative decision is immediately executor, the local elective official
may nevertheless appeal the adverse decision to the Office of the
President of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, as the case may be. After
all, if exonerated on appeal, he will be paid his salary and such other
emoluments denied him during the pendency of his appeal.

EXECUTION PENDING APPeal

L General Rule: An appeal shall not prevent a decision from being
executed; the respondent shall be considered as having been placed
under preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal.

L Exception:
H Berces v. Executive Secretary – A.O. No. 18 authorizes the Office
of the President to stay the execution of a decision pending appeal.
A.O. No. 18 was not repealed by the LGC

EFFECT OF RE-ELECTION
Doctrine of Condonation
L shall bar the continuation of the administrative case against him,
inasmuch as the re-election of the official is tantamount to condonation
by the people of whatever past misdeeds he may have committed.

H Lingating v. COMELEC – respondent mayor, having been found

guilty of the administrative charged and ordered removed from office,
had seasonably filed an MR with the Sanggunian Panlalawigan, and no
action on his motion was taken, then the decision of the Sanggunian
Panlalawigan never became final. After the respondent was elected, he
may no longer be removed from office for that administrative offense.

H Salumbides v. Ombudsman – however, the doctrine of condonation,

while applies to elective officials, cannot be expanded to cover
appointive officials administratively charted along with the elective
officials. Substantial distinctions exist between elective and appointive
officials. The former occupy their office by virtue of their designation
thereto by an appointing authority.

RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT ON ADMINISTRATIVE

INVESTIGATION AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
L The respondent shall be accorded:
(1) full opportunity to appear and defend himself in person or by
counsel,
(2) to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, and
(3) to require the attendance of witnesses and the production of
documentary process of subpoena or subpoena duces tecum8.

8
Sec. 65, LGC
3