Atty. Vicente Salumbides, Jr. was the legal officer of Tagkawayan, Quezon. In 2001, his son, Mayor Vicente Salumbides III, sought legal advice on how to go about the construction of a school building considering that there was no budget allotted for such yet there is an urgent need for more classrooms. Atty. Salumbides advised that they could use next year’s budget particularly next year’s Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses/ Repair and Maintenance of Facilities (MOOE/RMF) fund; that the mayor could still push through with the project by using his personal fund and then use next year’s fund as reimbursement. Public biddings were held but they failed. Upon further advice by Atty. Salumbides, the mayor pushed through with the project even though no public bidding was had. Atty. Salumbides justified his advice based on previous projects that were accomplished via the same process.
As a result, several councilors filed an administrative case against Atty. Salumbides and the mayor for neglect of duty. While the case was pending, the mayor was re-elected. By reason of the Condonation Doctrine, the administrative case against the mayor was dropped.
Atty. Salumbides now wants the Condondation Doctrine to be applied to him because he was reappointed to another appointive position.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Salumbides is liable administratively.
HELD: Yes. The Condondation Doctrine only applies to elective officials and does not extend to appointive officials. Indeed, election expresses the sovereign will of the people. Under the principle of vox populi est suprema lex, the re-election of a public official may, indeed, supersede a pending administrative case. The same cannot be said of a re-appointment to a non-career position.
Atty. Salumbides is guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty as legal officer. His advice for the mayor to push through with the project without competitive public bidding is illegal. All government projects must undergo competitive bidding. Likewise, his advice that the mayor may get reimbursement from next year’s MOOE has no legal basis. MOOE funds refer to appropriations for the purchase of goods and services for the conduct of normal local government operations within the fiscal year. The fund for infrastructure projects should be taken from the capital outlays.
Due to the illegal advice, Atty. Salumbides “failed to uphold the law and provide a sound legal assistance and support to the mayor in carrying out the delivery of basic services and provisions of adequate facilities when he advised the mayor to proceed with the construction of the subject projects without prior competitive bidding.” A legal officer who renders a legal opinion on a course of action without any legal basis becomes no different from a lay person who may approve the same because it appears justified.
