Joe Pallugna
THE case of Cagayan de Oro Mayor Oscar Moreno found a parallel case that resulted in a dismissal order of a mayor and the TRO issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in Manila which was decided by the Supreme Court on Oct. 11, 2016, or just about a month ago, which is docketed as I.P.I. No. 16-243-CA-J, entitled Arthur F. Morales I versus Leoncia Real-Dimagiba, et al.
This case started with the fire on May 13, 2015, which razed the warehouse of Kentex Marketing Corp. in Valenzuela City, resulting in the death of 74 employees of Kentex.
Criminal and administrative complaints were filed against Mayor Rexlon Gatchalian of Valenzuela City. On Feb. 11, 2016, or nearing the May 2016 elections, the Ombudsman found Gatchalian guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty and penalized him with dismissal from service with accessory penalties of forfeiture of benefits and privileges and perpetual disqualification to hold public office. Remember Mayor Moreno’s case?
Gatchalian went to the Court of Appeals to question the Ombudsman’s ruling and his case landed at the 15th Division of the Court of Appeals with Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba and two others. The CA issued a Temporary Restarining Order (TRO) in the case entitled Rexlon Gatchalian versus Conchita Carpio-Morales, et. al.
While the case with the CA was pending, one Arthur Morales filed an administrative case for disbarment and administrative sanctions against the justices of the 15th Division for grave ignorance of the law contending that the TRO was contrary to existing jurisprudence. The High Court dismissed the complaint of Morales, stating: “…We have previously explained that administrative complaints against magistrates cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by the erroneous orders of judgments of the former. Administrative remedies are neither alternative to judicial review nor do they cumulate thereto, where such review is still available to the aggrieved parties and the cases not yet been resolved with finality. The parties in interest in the OMB case should have availed of the judicial remedies instead of complainant herein filing an administrative case against respondent associate justices. Since the issuance of a TRO is judicial in nature, the parties could have opted to file a motion to lift the TRO or a motion for reconsideration or could have sought recourse from this Court.
“At the outset, it is clear that the assailed resolutions were issued by respondent justices in the proper exercise of their judicial functions. As such, these are not subject to administrative disciplinary action.”
Thus, the law is now clear, the Court of Appeals can validly review resolutions of dismissal of mayors by the Ombudsman and the CA can validly issue TRO or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the implementation of the resolutions of the Ombudsman and the grant of such injunctive reliefs cannot be subject to administrative cases pending the main cases under appeal.
E-mail: ajpallugna@gmail.com
