BANGUED, Abra – A local court here nullified the 90-day suspension order issued by the municipal government against some five barangay officials of barangay Calaba for lack of factual and legal basis.
In a 10-page decision dated June 18, 2024, Judge German Ballesteros III of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 1 stated that the court will no longer issue a writ of preliminary injunction against the concerned municipal officials who issued the preventive suspension of the involved barangay officials.
The court noted that the heist in issuing the order recommending the preventive suspension of the involved Calaba barangay officials is unreasonable considering the gravity of the effects of such suspension.
“Suspension from office of an elected official would deprive the electorate of the services of the persons they have voted into office,” the decision stressed.
Earlier, Calaba punong barangay Rafael Renato P. Brasuela and barangay kagawads Marjun Santiago, Rosemel Biado, Carmelita Venus and Daryll Blanes filed a petition for certiorari that sought to nullify the preventive suspension meted on them by the municipal council and the municipal mayor for enacting an ordinance that imposes death penalty on violators of the illegal dumping of garbage in their barangay.
On April 17, 2024, the petitioners received a copy of the formal complaint filed by private respondents and summons issued by the municipal council which charged them of alleged misconduct, grave abuse of authority, gross neglect of duty, grave dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The complaint against them alleged that on January 2024 to March 11, 2024, a tarpaulin was installed along barangay Calaba road containing excerpts from a barangay ordinance stating the penalty on the illegal dumping of waste such as first offense – a fine of P1,000; second offense – a fine of P1,000 plus eight hours of community service and third offense – pistol image; the third offense sends a threatening message to the public by impliedly saying that the violators will be shot or killed.
After the petitioners filed their formal answer to the complaint, the municipal council held a special session to tackle the imposition of the penalty against them and the body recommended a 90-day preventive suspension against them through an order dated May 3, 2024.
On May 6, 2024 Mayor Mila Valera imposed the penalty of suspension which the concerned barangay officials received on the same date.
However, the petitioners claimed that the recommendation of imposition of preventive suspension failed to establish any basis, hence, they were compelled to file the petition for certiorari and alleged that the municipal council committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction when they issued the said recommendation.
Moreover, they also alleged apparent bias as there are two other respondents who were not preventively suspended.
On May 15, 2024, the court issued a 72-hour temporary restraining order against the 90-day preventive suspension order.
Subsequently, the TRO was extended for 20 days until a decision shall have been rendered on the said petition.
The court found it very clear that the extreme urgency of the situation required an equally urgent resolution and due to the public interest involved, the petitioners are justified and straightforwardly seeking its intervention.
It argued that while the rules of procedure must be faithfully followed, the same rules may be relaxed for persuasive and weighty reasons to relieve a litigant of injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure.
According to the decision, the TRO already narrated the circumstances that merited the relaxation of the rules that is why it cannot be emphasized enough that the suspension from office of an elected official, whether as a preventive measure or as a penalty, will undeservedly deprive the electorate of the services of the person they have conscientiously chosen and voted into office.
The court pointed out that to be entitled to the injunctive writ, petitioners must show that there exists a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, this right is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined, the invasion of the right is material and substantial and there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious and irreparable damage.
From the said requisites, the court only has to determine if there exists a right to be protected and is threatened by the act sought to be enjoined and that there is an urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious injury.
The court reminded the counsel of the municipal officials should be reminded of the difference between a decision and an interlocutory order where the latter does not terminate or finally dismiss or finally dispose of the case, but leave something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits. A final order or decision is one which leaves to the court nothing more to do so but to resolve the case.
An appeal may be taken only from a judgement or final order that completely disposes of the case or of a matter when declared by the rules to be appealable. No appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order.
The court observed that the words cited by the municipal council in recommending the assailed preventive suspension are general statements mere verbatim reproduction of the provision of law, unsupported by any factual and substantial evidence and that there is no showing that the evidence of guilt is strong.
The decision stipulated that it cannot be said that the continuance in office of the petitioners could influence the witnesses or cause a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence.
The recitals in the order dated May 3, 2024 are questionably unbelievable. The said order did not even state the reasons why the two other barangay officials, barangay kagawads Eddie Garcia and Marlon Barroga, were not included which makes the order more insubstantial.
The court explained that it is apparent that the municipal council’s action are political vendetta unleashed against the petitioners considering that the recommendation of the council was not done in good faith, not for a valid cause and done without according the petitioners due process, thus, there is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction. By Dexter A. See