Baguilat’s motion for reconsideration denied: Ombudsman stands pat on dismissal of Ifugao solon

LAGAWE, Ifugao -- The Office of the Ombudsman affirmed the dismissal of Ifugao Rep. Teodoro B. Baguilat and his perpetual disqualification to hold any public office after it denied his motion for reconsideration on its earlier decision finding him guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty.

In an 11-page order dated June 25, 2013 signed by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, it was discovered that Baguilat filed his motion for reconsideration questioning the January 16, 2013 decision beyond the reglamentary period of only 10 days, thus, he was supposed to file such motion on April 18, 2013 and not on April 29, 2013 since he received a copy of the assailed decision on April 8, 2013.

“Jurisprudence has long settled that the reglamentary period for appealing or filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. More Importantly, such reglamentary period is both mandatory and jurisdictional, “the decision stated, adding that the right to appeal is merely statutory privilege such that a litigant availing for the same must comply with either the governing statue or the rules.

            

The decision pointed out that even on its merits, however, Baguilat’s motion for reconsideration is dismissible since his view of entitlement to the benefit of condonation as enunciated in a long line of decisions and affirmed by Salumbides among others is misplaced. It explained that the doctrine of condonation must be deemed to apply to absolve a public official of administrative liability for prior misconduct only in the event of his re-election to the same office or post.

            

Baguilat’s administrative case was spawned by his acts during his term as Ifugao governor in 2007-2010. Upon the expiration of his term in 2010, he ran and was elected to a congressional seat.

The Ombudsman pointed out that clearly, there was no re-election on his part as the term would connote to elect for another term.

            

On Baguilat’s claim that his acts or omissions are not of such gravity as to merit a hefty penalty as dismissal and perpetual disqualification from holding public office, the Ombudsman asserted that he failed to present new arguments and pieces of evidence that will arrant the reversal of its earlier decision considering that the presented documents were allegedly defective.

            

“The circumstance that Baguilat’s foreign travels may have provided actual benefits to his constituents is immaterial. We find merit in complainant’s assertion that in most of his foreign travels, he failed to provide proper notice to the SanggunianPanlalawigan as he intended to conceal his absence from office in order to prevent the proper succession and/or substitution in office as provided in the Local Government code,” the decision stressed, citing that Baguilat’s omissions signify a pre-meditated or intentional purpose amounting to grave misconduct.

            

On Baguilat’s exculpation in the criminal aspect, it clarified that his discharge from the criminal case does not extend to his administrative case since administrative and criminal cases proceed independently of each other as they involve different causes of action and require different degrees of proof.

            

“Resolving solely the question of whether these same acts to which Baguilat now stands charged administrative constitute a violation of the law,” the decision cited.

            

According to the decision, “Baguilat’s arguments pose no newly discovered evidence or irregularities in facts or law to justify a reversal of the decision sought to be reconsidered.

            

Earlier, the Ombudsman ordered the dismissal of Baguilat and his subsequent perpetual disqualification from public office after finding him guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty for repeatedly failing to notify the SangguniangPanlalawigan of his seven trips abroad.

            

Furthermore, while he was able to designate former Vice Governor Nora Dinamling as acting governor in one occasion, the same order was found by the Ombudsman to be defective.

            

During his term as Ifugao governor, Baguilat travelled to various parts of the world seven times and repeatedly failed to give due notice to the provincial board and the supposed acting governor.