CASE DIGEST : JOSECHITO B. GONZAGA v. GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA GR No. 201914, Apr 26, 2023 GAERLAN

FACTS : Governor Enrique T. Garcia, Jr., together with several provincial officials of Bataan, was charged before the Office of the Ombudsman for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Falsification of Public Documents, Malversation of Public Funds, and Illegal Detention arising from the Province's acquisition of Sunrise Paper Products Industries, Inc.'s properties through a tax delinquency sale and the subsequent compromise agreement. Respondents sought to suspend the proceedings, claiming that a pending case before the Supreme Court involving the validity of the auction sale presented a prejudicial question. The Ombudsman denied the petition, ordered the continuation of the preliminary investigation, and preventively suspended the respondents for up to six months without pay.

On certiorari, the Court of Appeals reversed the Ombudsman's orders, holding that the pending Supreme Court case constituted a prejudicial question and that Governor Garcia's reelection in 2007 and 2010 extinguished his administrative liability under the condonation doctrine, rendering his preventive suspension moot. Petitioners and the Ombudsman challenged the ruling, arguing that the Ombudsman acted within its authority and that the condonation doctrine should not apply. During the pendency of the case, Governor Garcia passed away, a fact judicially noticed by the Court.

ISSUE : WON the CA erred in granting respondents' petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus

HELD : The Supreme Court held that the issue of prejudicial question had become moot because the related civil case (G.R. No. 181311) had already been resolved. It likewise ruled that Governor Garcia's administrative liability had been extinguished under the condonation doctrine since the alleged misconduct occurred between 2004 and 2006 and he was reelected as governor in 2007, before the doctrine was abandoned in Carpio Morales. Moreover, his subsequent death during the pendency of the case rendered the administrative proceedings against him moot.

However, the Court ruled that the condonation doctrine did not apply to respondents Angeles, Talento, and De Mesa because they were appointed, not elective, officials. It emphasized that the Ombudsman has the statutory authority under R.A. No. 6770 to investigate administrative complaints and to impose preventive suspension when warranted. Finding no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman's determination that preventive suspension was necessary to prevent possible intimidation of witnesses or tampering of evidence, the Court reinstated the Ombudsman's orders as to the three appointed officials. Accordingly, it partly granted the petitions and reversed the Court of Appeals' ruling insofar as respondents Angeles, Talento, and De Mesa were concerned.