Salalima+v.+Guingona+Jr.

Salalima v. Guingona GR No. 117589-92, May 22 1996 FACTS: This Supreme Court case involves four administrative complaints filed against Albay Governor Salalima and the members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Albay. The complaints seek to hold the petitioners liable for a) wanton disregard of law amounting to abuse of authority in OP case 5470; b) grave abuse of authority under Section 60 (e) of the Local Government Code in OP cae 5649; c) oppression and abuse of authority under Section 60 (c) and (e) of the Local Government Code in OP case 5471 and d) abuse of authority and negligence in OP case 5450. Relevant to our discussion on whether or not LGUs can hire private lawyers in cases filed against it is OP case 5469. The Province of Albay imposed real property tax against the National Power Corporation. The latter, claiming that it is tax exempt, refused to pay the said tax liability. Due to its refusal to pay, the Province of Albay took over the properties of NPC and sold them in an auction sale. The Province was the sole bidder. Upon the failure of NPC to redeem the property, the Province sought the issuance of a writ of possession from the Regional Trial Court. The NPC challenged this in a petition filed with the Supreme Court. The Province, through its legal office Atty. Ricaforte, filed its comment on the said petition on May 17, 1989. On June 2, 1989, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan issued Resolution No. 129-89, authorizing Salalima to engage the services of a Manila-based law firm to handle the case. As such, on August 25, 1989, Atty. Jesus Carnago entered his appearance with the SC as a collaborating counsel. On November 14, 1989, Atty. Antonio Jose Cortes of Cortes and Reyna Law Firm sent a letter to Salalima, informing him that Atty. Carnago had filed a memorandum in the SC. He then proposed that his law firm and that of Atty. Carnago enter into a retainer agreement with the Province in connection with the case. He charged 50, 000 as acceptance fee and a contingency fee of 18%. In response to this, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan passed Resolution No. 01-90 authorizing Salalima to sign a retainer contract with Cortes and Reyna Law Firm. On June 4, 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Province. The latter then paid the lawyers amounting to around 7 million. However, on May 31, 1993, the Provincial Auditor informed the Province that COA had disallowed the payments for lack of prior written conformity of the Solicitor General and a written concurrence of COA. An administrative complaint was later on filed against the petitioners with the Office of the President. The OP found that the petitioners incurred administrative liability in hiring private lawyers to defend it in the NPC case.

OP’s RATIO 1. Section 481 of the LGC states that the legal officer of the province has the duty to represent the LGU in all civil actions and special proceedings wherein the LGU or any official thereof, in his official capacity, is a party. 2. In the case Municipality of Bocaue v. Manotok, the Supreme Court ruled that the LGU cannot be represented by private lawyers and it is solely the Provincial legal officer or provincial fiscal who can represent it. A private lawyer has no standing in such a case. 3. Sec. 481 and Municipality of Bocaue v. Manotok are applicable in this case. In hiring the private lawyers, the petitioners violated the LGC and the doctrine laid down by the Supreme court. 4. Moreover, the transaction was also full of irregularities. a. The disbursement of 7M as payment was disallowed by COA for failure to comply with the prerequisite conformity from the SolGen and the COA. b. Resolution 01-90 authorized Salalima to contract with Cortes and Reyna Law Firm and NOT with Atty. Carnago. Salalima exceeded the authority given to him in doing so. c. Only Atty. Carnago appeared as counsel in the NPC case. It appears that Cortes and Reyna did not render any form of legal service in relation thereto. d. The provincial legal officer had already filed a comment in the SC. What Carnago filed was merely a memorandum. The total attorney’s fees of 38 Million is clearly unconscionable.

Because of these findings, the OP imposed the penalty of suspension for 6 months against Gov. Salalima and Vice governor Azana, while the members of the SP were suspended for 4 months. The petitioners appealed the case to the SC. In the meantime, the 1992 elections took place wherein the petitioners were reelected. ISSUE: WON the petitioners incurred administrative liabilities in hiring private lawyers to represent the Province HELD: Whether or not they incurred liabilities, they can no longer be held to answer for these in view of the fact that they have already been reelected. Their reelection operates as condonation of any misconduct committed in their prior term. RATIO

In Pascual v. Pascual, the SC ruled that offenses committed or acts done in a previous term are generally held not to furnish a cause for removal in the current term of office. This is because each term is separate from other terms and that the reelection operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefore. Such a rule is founded on the theory that an official’s reelection expresses the sovereign will of the electorate to forgive or condone any act or omission constituting a ground for administrative discipline which was committed during the previous term. Also, sound policy dictates such a rule. A contrary rule would open the floodgates to exacerbating endless partisan contests between reelected officials and their political enemies who may not stop to hound the former during his new term with administrative cases for acts alleged to have been committed during his previous term. RULING: OP Decision imposing penalties is reversed and set aside.