People v.

Sandiganbayan

Facts:

During the 1998 elections, Alejandro A. Villapandos ran for Municipal Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan
and won accordingly. Meanwhile, Orlando M. Tiape, a relative of private respondent's wife, ran for
Municipal Mayor of Kitcharao, Agusan del Norte and lost. Subsequently, private respondent
appointed Tiape to the position of Municipal Administrative and Development Planning Consultant in
the Office of the Municipal Mayor. On February 4, 2000, Solomon B. Maagad and Renato M.
Fernandez charged Tiape and Villapandos for violation of Article 244 of the RPC before the Office of
the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. The complaint was then transmitted to the Fourth Division of the
Sandiganbayan. The case against Tiape was dismissed after his death.

In its decision, the Fourth Division acquitted private respondent. The Fourth Division stated that mere
temporary prohibition, as was the case of Tiape who was under the one-year ban from entering public
service after losing the elections, is not synonymous with absence or lack of legal qualification. The
Fourth Division stated that the necessary legal qualifications for the position of Municipal
Administrator, the position that Tiape was appointed to, is stated in Section 480, Article X of the Local
Government Code:

Section 480. Qualifications, Terms, Powers and Duties.(a) No person shall be appointed administrator
unless he is a citizen of the Philippines, a resident of the local government unit concerned, of good
moral character, a holder of a college degree preferably in public administration, law, or any other
related course from a recognized college or university, and a first grade civil service eligible or its
equivalent. He must have acquired experience in management and administration work for at least
five (5) years in the case of the provincial or city administrator, and three (3) years in the case of the
municipal administrator.

The Fourth division stated that all the qualifications stated in the preceding provision possessed by
Tiape. The Fourth Division further stated that there is no violation of Article 244 of the Revised Penal
Code should a person suffering from temporary disqualification be appointed so long as the
appointee possesses all the qualifications stated in the law.The Ombudsman subsequently filed a
petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan.

Issue:

Whether or not the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in not considering the one-year ban on losing candidates as
a bar for appointment in public office.

Held:

Yes, the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in not considering the one-year ban on losing candidates as a bar for
appointment in public office.
Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distingueredebemus. Where the law does not distinguish, the courts
should not distinguish.

The present case shows that the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan considered temporary
disqualification, the one-year bar, as outside the ambit of legal disqualification. This is against one of
the basic tenets of statutory construction. The Courts must not distinguish where the law does not do
the same. The Fourth Division of Sandiganbayan also failed to take note of Article 9[6] of the
Constitution and Section 94[b] of the Local Government Code of 1991. Both provisions bar the
appointment of losing candidates within a year after such election. Only losing candidates of barangay
elections are exempted from the one-year bar by virtue of the latter provision.

Hence, the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in not considering the one-year ban on losing candidates as a bar for
appointment in public office.