View full case

EDGARDO M. AGUILAR v. ELVIRA J. BENLOT

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari brought by Edgardo Aguilar. Aguilar had served as Punong Barangay of Barangay Bunga, Toledo City, Cebu for three terms, and was elected as Barangay Kagawad in the October 2010 barangay elections. This occurred after the resignation of the Punong Barangay and two other barangay kagawads, which were accepted and approved by the Mayor of Toledo City. As the third-ranking Kagawad, Aguilar succeeded as Punong Barangay.

On December 7, 2010, Aguilar was re-elected as President of the Association of Barangay Captains of Toledo City, thus earning a seat in the City Council. However, his sister and the other two kagawads were later appointed back to their positions on January 1, 2011. Subsequently, in January 2012, Elvira Benlot and Samuel Cuico filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, alleging that the resignations were a part of a scheme to allow Aguilar to serve a fourth consecutive term in violation of the three-term limit.

In 2013, Aguilar was re-elected as Punong Barangay, while the other two kagawads were also re-elected. Initially, the Ombudsman dismissed the administrative complaint against Aguilar, but later reconsidered and found him liable for grave misconduct. Aguilar's appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed due to procedural infirmities, leading him to bring the case before the Supreme Court. In his petition for review, Aguilar raised three grounds to challenge the CA's ruling.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether personal service and filing of pleadings and other papers is mandatory under Section 11 of Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in not considering the prima facie merit of the petitioner's case in its exercise of discretion.

  3. Whether the petitioner had ample opportunity to present evidence in the proceedings before the Ombudsman.

  4. Whether there was a conspiracy among the three individuals who resigned and the petitioner to circumvent the three-term limit for the position of Punong Barangay.

  5. Whether the act committed by the petitioner constitutes grave misconduct.

RULING:

  1. Personal service and filing of pleadings and other papers is mandatory under Section 11 of Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Resort to other modes of service or filing can only be made when personal service or filing is not practicable, and such resort must be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable. Failure to comply with this rule may result in the court considering the paper as not filed.

  2. The CA erred in not considering the prima facie merit of the petitioner's case in its exercise of discretion. The court should have viewed the petitioner's procedural blunder together with the prima facie merit of the case and considered if a relaxation of the rules was warranted.

  3. The petitioner cannot claim that it did not have ample opportunity to present evidence in the proceedings before the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman's factual findings are generally accorded great weight and respect by the courts, and the petitioner had the chance to present evidence during the Ombudsman proceedings.

  4. Yes, there was conspiracy among the three individuals who resigned and the petitioner to circumvent the three-term limit for the position of Punong Barangay. The resignations were done immediately after the oaths of office were taken, and the three individuals wasted no time in filing their resignations and did not serve a day in their elected positions. They then accepted appointments in surprising changes of heart. The court concluded that the resignations were concerted acts to enable the petitioner to circumvent the three-term limit.

  5. Yes, the act committed by the petitioner constitutes grave misconduct. The concerted acts of the petitioner and the three individuals amount to grave misconduct, as it involves transgression of established rules and is connected to the performance of the petitioner's official duties. The misconduct implies wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment, and it involves corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Personal service and filing of pleadings and other papers is the general rule, and resort to other modes of service and filing is the exception. Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be made, accompanied by a written explanation.

  • The court has discretion to consider a pleading or paper as not filed if other modes of service or filing were resorted to without a written explanation as to why personal service was not done.

  • In considering the plausibility of an explanation for resorting to other modes of service or filing, the court shall consider the circumstances, time, place, the importance of the subject matter, and the prima facie merit of the pleading involved.

  • Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman are generally conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded great weight and respect by the courts.

  • Conspiracy is sufficiently established when the concerted acts show the same purpose or common design and are united in its execution.

  • Misconduct by a public officer must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. It must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment, and it must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer's official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of office.

  • Assumption of office by operation of law generally should not be counted for purposes of the three-term limit rule, as running for an elective position presupposes voluntariness. However, if there is evidence of willful act of conspiring to circumvent the law, the assumption of office by operation of law can be considered voluntary.

  • The doctrine of condonation, which precludes the imposition of the penalty of dismissal upon re-election following a change of administration, is abandoned and has no legal authority in the Philippines. However, the ruling on condonation is prospective in its application.