Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 556 views

    Office of The Ombudsman - Mayor Vergara

    Uploaded by

    gulp_burp
    1) A complaint was filed against Mayor Julius Cesar Vergara during his third term for violating the Code of Conduct for government officials. He was found guilty but filed for reconsideration. 2) The issue is whether Mayor Vergara is entitled to the doctrine of condonation. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of condonation can still be applied to this case since it was instituted before the Court issued a ruling saying the doctrine was obsolete due to inconsistencies with the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Office of The Ombudsman - Mayor Vergara

    Uploaded by

    gulp_burp
    556 views9 pages
    1) A complaint was filed against Mayor Julius Cesar Vergara during his third term for violating the Code of Conduct for government officials. He was found guilty but filed for reconsideration. 2) The issue is whether Mayor Vergara is entitled to the doctrine of condonation. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of condonation can still be applied to this case since it was instituted before the Court issued a ruling saying the doctrine was obsolete due to inconsistencies with the Constitution.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Office of the Ombudsman . Mayor Vergara

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) A complaint was filed against Mayor Julius Cesar Vergara during his third term for violating the Code of Conduct for government officials. He was found guilty but filed for reconsideration. 2) The issue is whether Mayor Vergara is entitled to the doctrine of condonation. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of condonation can still be applied to this case since it was instituted before the Court issued a ruling saying the doctrine was obsolete due to inconsistencies with the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    556 views9 pages

    Office of The Ombudsman - Mayor Vergara

    Uploaded by

    gulp_burp
    1) A complaint was filed against Mayor Julius Cesar Vergara during his third term for violating the Code of Conduct for government officials. He was found guilty but filed for reconsideration. 2) The issue is whether Mayor Vergara is entitled to the doctrine of condonation. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of condonation can still be applied to this case since it was instituted before the Court issued a ruling saying the doctrine was obsolete due to inconsistencies with the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 9

    CASE NO.

    17
    G.R. NO. 216871
    DECEMBER 6, 2017
    OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
    PETITIONER
    VS.
    MAYOR JULIUS CESAR
    VERGARA, RESPONDENT
    FACTS:
    ■ A complaint was filed against Julius Cesar Vergara
    during his third term ( 2004-2007) as Mayor of
    Cabanatuan City. Respondent Mayor Vergara was
    found guilty for violation of Section 5 (a) of R.A.
    No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical
    Standards for Public Officials and Employees. As
    such, petitioner imposed a penalty on respondent.
    FACTS:
    ■ Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration
    contending that the assailed decision cannot be
    implemented or enforced as the same runs counter to
    the established doctrine of condonation, since he was
    reelected as Mayor of Cabanatuan City on May 10,
    2010.
    ISSUE:
    ■ Whether or not respondent Mayor Julius
    Cesar Vergara is entitled to the doctrine
    of condonation
    RULING:
    ■ Yes. The Doctrine of Condonation may still be
    applied.
    RULING:
    ■ This is line with Articles 7 and 8 of the Civil Code.
    Article 7 provides that when the courts declared a
    law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the
    former shall be void and the latter shall govern.
    Administrative or executive acts, orders and
    regulations shall be valid only when they are not
    contrary to the laws or the Constitution. Article 8, on
    the other hand, states that judicial decisions applying
    or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall
    form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.
    RULING:
    ■ The doctrine of condonation was extensively
    discussed in the case of Carpio Morales v. CA and
    Jejomar Binay, Jr. in 2015. The SC simply finds no
    legal authority to sustain the condonation doctrine in
    this jurisdiction and now rendered obsolete by the
    current legal regime. This is primarily due to its
    inconsistency with the 1987 Constitution (applying
    Article 7).
    RULING:
    ■ Said SC ruling was explicit in its pronouncement
    that the abandonment of the doctrine of condonation
    is prospective in application, hence, the same
    doctrine is still applicable in cases that transpired
    prior to this ruling. It should be clarified that it is
    prospective in application for the reason that judicial
    decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
    Constitution, until reversed, shall form part of the
    legal system of the Philippines (Article 8). Unto SC
    devolves the sole authority to interpret what the
    Constitution means, and all persons are bound to
    follow its interpretation.
    RULING:
    ■ Considering that the present case was instituted prior
    to the above-cited ruling of the Court, the doctrine of
    condonation may still be applied. Moreover, the
    application of the doctrine does not require that the
    official must be re-elected to the same position in the
    immediately succeeding election. 

    You might also like