GOV. ANTONIO CALINGIN, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, SPECIAL 17TH DIVISION, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RENATO S. DE VILLA, DEPT. OF INTERIOR & LOCAL GOVERNMENT SECRETARY JOEY LINA,…

Calingin versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Governor Antonio Calingin against the Court of Appeals, the Executive Secretary, and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government. Governor Calingin sought to annul the suspension order issued against him by the Office of the President and to stop the Department of the Interior and Local Government from enforcing it during the election period. The case matters because it settles two questions every local government lawyer must know: when a decision of the Office of the President in a disciplinary case against an elective local official becomes final and executory, and how far the Commission on Elections may exempt a suspension from the election ban on the movement of public officers.

Procedural History

The Office of the President issued a resolution suspending Governor Calingin for ninety days. The Department of the Interior and Local Government then issued a memorandum implementing that resolution. Governor Calingin moved for reconsideration before the Office of the President, and separately filed a petition for prohibition before the Court of Appeals, asking that the Department be restrained from executing the suspension. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for prohibition and later denied the motion for reconsideration. Governor Calingin then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, asking that the resolutions of the Court of Appeals be annulled.

Facts

The Office of the President issued a resolution dated March 22, 2001 in an administrative case filed against Governor Calingin of Misamis Oriental, suspending him for ninety days. The resolution was approved and signed on that same date by Executive Secretary Renato de Villa, by authority of the President.

On April 24, 2001, the Commission on Elections promulgated a resolution granting an exemption to the election ban in the movement of public officers. On April 30, 2001, an undersecretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, by authority of the Secretary, issued a memorandum implementing the suspension. On May 3, 2001, Governor Calingin filed a motion for reconsideration with the Office of the President.

On May 7, 2001, Governor Calingin filed a petition for prohibition before the Court of Appeals to prevent execution of the suspension. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on May 11, 2001, and denied reconsideration on July 1, 2002. Hence the petition before the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the decision of the Office of the President was already final and executory.
• Whether or not the exemption from the election ban in the movement of any public officer granted by the Commission on Elections was valid.

Applicable Provisions

Section 67 of the Local Government Code of 1991 provides:

SEC. 67. Administrative Appeals. – Decisions in administrative cases may, within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof, be appealed to the following: (a) The sangguniang panlalawigan, in the case of decisions of the sangguniang panlungsod of component cities and the sangguniang bayan; and (b) The Office of the President, in the case of decisions of the sangguniang panlalawigan and the sangguniang panlalawigan of highly urbanized cities and independent component cities. Decisions of the Office of the President shall be final and executory.

This is the provision the Court holds governs disciplinary actions against elective local officials, making the President's decision final and executory.

Section 15, Chapter 3, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides:

SEC. 15. Finality of Order. – The decision of the agency shall become final and executory fifteen (15) days after the receipt of a copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless within that period an administrative appeal or judicial review, if proper, has been perfected. One motion for reconsideration may be filed, which shall suspend the running of the said period.

This is the general rule invoked by the petitioner, which the Court holds must yield to the special provisions of the Local Government Code.

Section 68 of the Local Government Code provides:

SEC. 68. Execution Pending Appeal. – An appeal shall not prevent a decision from becoming final or executory. The respondent shall be considered as having been placed under preventive suspension during the pendency of an appeal in the event he wins such appeal. In the event the appeal results in an exoneration, he shall be paid his salary and such other emoluments during the pendency of the appeal.

This confirms that an appeal does not stay execution of the decision.

Section 1 of the Commission on Elections Resolution Number 3401 provides:

Section 1. Prohibited Acts – (a) During the election period from January 2, 2001 until July 13, 2001, no public official shall make or cause any transfer/detail whatsoever of any officer or employee in the civil service, including public school teachers, or suspend elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay official, except upon prior written approval of the Commission.

This is the election ban from which the Commission granted the exemption now in dispute.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the decision of the Office of the President was already final and executory. The petitioner argued that the fifteen-day period under the Administrative Code applied and that his motion for reconsideration suspended it. The Court disagreed. It held that where two statutes apply, the one specially intended for the case must prevail. A disciplinary action against an elective local official is governed by the Local Government Code, which is special, and which was enacted later than the Administrative Code. The Court also held that even though appeal to the Court of Appeals is available under Rule 43, Section 12 of Rule 43 in relation to Section 68 of the Local Government Code provides for immediate execution pending appeal. Thus, no motion for reconsideration is allowed by law, though the parties may appeal, and the appeal does not stay execution.

On the second issue, the Court held that the exemption granted by the Commission on Elections was valid. The petitioner claimed the exemption rested on a mere draft resolution. The records showed that the resolution of the Office of the President was approved and signed on March 22, 2001, before the Commission promulgated its exemption resolution on April 24, 2001, and that the request to implement the suspension was filed on the same date. The request was accompanied by the affidavit of complaint, affidavit of controversion, reply, and draft resolution, satisfying the documentary requirements. There being a proper basis, the exemption was valid.

Doctrine

First, decisions of the Office of the President in administrative cases against elective local officials are final and executory under Section 67 of the Local Government Code. No motion for reconsideration is allowed, though an appeal to the Court of Appeals may be taken, and that appeal does not stay execution. Second, where a general law and a special law both apply, the special law prevails, and a later law repeals or modifies an earlier inconsistent one. Third, the Commission on Elections may validly exempt a suspension from the election ban upon prior written approval, provided the request is in writing and supported by the required sworn documents.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the resolutions of the Court of Appeals were affirmed. Governor Calingin lost; the suspension stood.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the decision of the Office of the President against an elective local official is final and executory, and no motion for reconsideration is allowed. Examiners use this case to test the special-law rule under Section 67 of the Local Government Code and the validity of Commission on Elections exemptions from the election ban.