An action for damages brought by one against

whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit or other

legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously
and without probable cause, after the
termination of such prosecution, suit or other
proceeding in favor of the defendant therein.
 That the defendant was himself the prosecutor
or at least instigated the prosecution
That the prosecution finally terminated in the
acquittal of the plaintiff
That in bringing the action the prosecutor acted
without probable cause, and
The prosecution was actuated by malice
 Article 19, 20, 21, 26, 2217 and 2219 of
the New Civil Code
 Whether a public officer may or may not recover civil damages
in an action for malicious prosecution, for administrative
complaints brought against him remains a jurisprudential
uncertainty.
 An action for malicious prosecution may stem from unfounded
civil suits with the intention to vex and humiliate where there was
absence of a cause of action.
 Malicious prosecution may also be claimed from unfounded
disbarment proceedings or disbarment complaints without
probable cause.
 While malicious prosecution originally gives ground for civil
remedies, it has now been given a criminal aspect under Section
35 of the Ombudsman Act.
 Rules for Elective Officials Different from Rules for Appointive
Officials
Condonation by Re-election under the Local Government Code
The disqualification of an elective local official from running for re-
election where said official has been removed from office with finality
The condonation of an administrative charge which has not attained
finality at the expiration of the elective officials term, where the
condonation results from winning his re-election bid.
 A public official cannot be removed for misconduct committed
during a prior or a previous term; his re-election operates as a
condonation of the officers previous misconduct.
 The doctrine of Condonation does not apply to criminal acts
committed by the re-elected official during his prior or previous
term.
Guilt is determined by the courts and not the electorate.
 Who are elective officials:
a) governors
b) vice governors
c) members of the sangguniang panlalawigan
d) mayors and vice-mayors of highly urbanized cities,
independent component cities, component cities,
municipalities
e) members of the sangguniang panlungsod or bayan
f) punong barangays
g) members of the sangguniang barangay
h) members of the sangguniang abataan
 Elective local officials may be charged under the a) Local
Government Code or b) the Ombudsman Law. The governing
law would depend on the law under which the respondent was
charged. The Administrative Code of 1987 would apply
suppletorily.
 With the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code by
Section 14 of RA 9006, elective officials who runs for office
other than the one which he is holding is no longer considered
ipso facto resigned therefrom upon filing his certificate of
candidacy. Thus, an elective official remains in his position
notwithstanding that he has filed a certificate of candidacy for
an elective position other than that the one he presently
occupies. This new rule does not, however, apply to appointive
officials who continue to be ruled under the old provisions of the
Omnibus Election Code.
 In any case, the Supreme Court was categorical in ruling that
the power to remove erring elective local officials from service
is lodged exclusively with the courts pursuant to the last
paragraph of Section 60 of the Local Government Code of
1991.
 The author believes that there is concurrence and not
irreconcilable conflict in the possession of this power by both the
Ombudsman and the Courts.
In Garcia vs Mojica, the authority of the Ombudsman to
administratively investigate elective local officials was upheld.
Likewise in Ombudsman vs. Santiago, a barangay chairman was
dismissed from the service by the Ombudsman for dishonesty,
grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service pursuant to the Ombudsman Act.
 A) which court possess the power to remove
B) when and how should the court exercise this power
C) is the power exclusive or exercised concurrently with the
Ombudsman
 Section 61 of the Local Government Code provides the form and
filing of administrative complaints against any erring local elective
official.
Pursuant to the above-mentioned Section, there are only 3
investigative authorities:
A) the Office of the President
B) the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
C) the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan

Preventive Suspension may only be imposed by:

A) the President
B) the Governor
C) the Mayor
 The delegation of the Presidents power to investigate
complaints against local government officials to the Departmetn
of Interior and Local Government (DILG) or a Special
Investigating Committee, under AO No. 23, is not an undue
delegation as the President remains the disciplining authority
and what is delegated is the power to investigate and not the
power to discipline.
 Section 66 of the Local Government Code provides that the
penalty of suspension shall not exceed the unexpired term of
the Respondent or a period of six (6) months for every
administrative offense.
 Decisions of the President under the Local Government Code
are immediately executory even pending appeal before the
Court of Appeals because the pertinent law ( Section 68 of the
Local Government Code) under which the decisions were
rendered mandated them to do so.
 There are five categories of government officials falling within the
original jurisdiction of the Sandigangbayan:
A) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of
regional director and higher, otherwise classified as grade 27 and
higher.
B) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade
27 and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act
of 1989
C) Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution
Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions without
prejudice to the provision of the Constitution
All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and
higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989
 The investigation and adjudication of administrative complaints
against appointive local officials and employees as well as their
suspension and removal shall be in accordance with the Civil
Service Law and rules and other pertinent laws.
Of course, appointive local officials are under the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
The City Mayor as the Chief Executive of the City government
shall have the disciplining authority over appointive local
officials.
 Except as otherwise provided by law, the local chief executive
may impose the penalty of removal from service, demotion in
rank, suspension for not more than one year without pay, fine in
an amount not exceeding six months salary or reprimand and
otherwise discipline subordinate officials and employees under
his jurisdiction.
For preventive suspension not exceeding 60 days.