DE LA TORRE vs COMELEC Case Digest DE LA TORRE vs COMELEC 258 SCRA 483, 1996

Facts: Petitioner Rolando P. Dela Torre was disqualified by the Commission on Elections from running for the position of Mayor of Cavinti, Laguna in the May 8, 1995 elections. The ground cited by the COMELEC was Section 40(a) of the Local Government Code of 1991. Said section provides that those sentenced by final judgement for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more imprisonment within two (2) years after serving sentence are disqualified from running for any elective local position. It was established by the COMELEC that the petitioner was found guilty by the Municipal Trial Court for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. It was contended by the petitioner that Section 40(a) is not applicable to him because he was granted probation by the MTC.

Issues: 1. Whether or not the crime of fencing involves moral turpitude. 2. Whether or not a grant of probation affects Section 40(a)s applicability.

Held: The Supreme Court held that actual knowledge by the fence of the fact that property received is stolen displays the same degree of malicious deprivation of ones rightful property as that which animated the robbery or theft which, by their very nature, are crimes of moral turpitude. Anent the second issue, suffice it to say that the legal effect of probation is only to suspend the execution of the sentence. Petitioners conviction of fencing which already declared as a crime of moral turpitude and thus falling squarely under the disqualification found in Section 40(a), subsists and remains totally unaffected notwithstanding the grant of probation. Adelio C. Cruz vs Quiterio L. DalisayAdm. Matter No. R-181-P July 31, 1987Fernan, J: Administrative Matter in the Supreme Court.Malfeasance in office, corrupt practices and serious irregularities.

Doctrine: A corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members.Facts: 1. In a sworn complaint dated July 23, 1984, Adelio Cruz (complainant) charged Quiterio Dalisay (respondent),Senior Deputy Sheriff of Manila, with malfeasance in office, corrupt practices and serious irregularitiesallegedly committed as follows: a. Respondent attached and/or levied the money belonging to complainant Cruz when he was nothimself the judgment debtor in the final judgment of an NLRC case sought to be enforced but rather the company known as Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc..b . R e s p o n d e n t also caused the service of the alias writ of execution upon c o m p l a i n a n t w h o i s a resident of Pasay City, despite knowledge that his territorial jurisdiction covers Manila only anddoes not extend to Pasay City. 2. In his Comment, respondent explained that when he garnished complainants cash deposit at the Philtrustbank he was merely performing a ministerial duty. And that while it is true that said writ was addressed toQualitrans Limousine Service, Inc., it is also a fact that complainant had executed an affidavit before thePasay City assistant fiscal stating that he is the owner/ president of Qualitrans. Because of that declaration,the counsel for the plaintiff in the labor case advised him to serve notice of garnishment on the Philtrustbank.3.On November 12, 1984 this case was referred to the executive judge of the RTC of Manila for investigation,report and recommendation. However, prior to the termination of the proceedings, complainant executed anaffidavit of desistance stating that he is no longer interested in prosecuting the case and that there was justa misunderstanding between complainant and respondent.4.On May 29, 1986, acting on respondents motion the executive judge issued an order recommending thedismissal of the case. Issue: WON the complaint should be dismissed based on complainants motion of desistance.Held: NOReason: 1.It has been held that desistance of complainant does not preclude the taking of disciplinary action againstrespondent.2.Respondents actuation in enforcing a judgment against complainant who is not a judgment debtor in thecase calls for disciplinary action. What is incumbent upon respondent is to ensure that only the portion of adecision ordained or decreed in the dispositive part should be the subject of the execution. 3. The tenor of the NLRC judgment and the implementing writ is clear enough. It directed Qualitrans LimousineService, inc., to reinstate the discharged employees and pay them full backwages. Respondent, however,c h o o s e t o

pierce the veil of corporate entity usurping a power b e l o n g i n g t o t h e c o u r t a n d a s s u m e d improvidently that since the complainant is the owner/president of Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc., theyare one and the same. It is a well settled doctrine both in law and equity that as a legal entity, a corporationhas a personality distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members. 4. The mere fact that one is president of the corporation does not render the property he owns or possessesthe property of the corporation, since that president, as an individual, and the corporation are separateentities. Decision: ACCORDINGLY, we find Respondent Deputy Sh e r i f f Q u i t e r i o l . D a l i s a y N E G L I G E N T i n t h e enforcement of the writ of execution in NLRC Case No. 8-12389-91, and a fine equivalent to 3 months salaryis hereby imposed with a stern warning that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future willmerit a heavier penalty. Let a copy of the Resolution be filed in the personal record of the respondent AGUINALDO vs. SANTOS, G.R. No. 94115, August 21, 1992 Pertinent provision of the Local Government Code: Section 60 Grounds for Disciplinary Actions In this petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary mandatory injunction and/or restraining order, petitioner Rodolfo E. Aguinaldo assails the decision of respondent Secretary of Local Government dated March 19,1990 in Adm. Case No. P-10437-89 dismissing him as Governor of Cagayan. Facts: Petitioner was the duly elected Governor of the province of Cagayan, having been elected to said position duringthe local elections held on January 17, 1988, to serve a term of four (4) years therefrom. On December 7, 1989, a sworn complaint for disloyalty to the Republic and culpable violation of the Constitution was filed by Veronico Agatep, ManuelMamba and Orlino Agatep, respectively the mayors of the municipalities of Gattaran, Tuao and Lasam, all in Cagayan,against petitioner for acts the latter committed during the

coup . Petitioner was required to file a verified answer to thecomplaint. In his letter, petitioner denied being privy to the planning of the coup or actively participating in itsexecution, though he admitted that he was sympathetic to the cause of the rebel soldiers .Respondent Secretary considered petitioner's reply letter as his answer to the complaint of Mayor Veronico Agatep andothers. On the basis thereof, respondent Secretary suspended petitioner from office for sixty (60) days from notice,pending the outcome of the formal investigation into the charges against him. During the hearing conducted on thecharges against petitioner, complainants presented testimonial and documentary evidence to prove the charges.Petitioner neither presented evidence nor even cross-examined the complainant's witnesses, choosing instead to movethat respondent Secretary inhibit himself from deciding the case, which motion was denied. Thereafter, respondent Secretary rendered the questioned decision finding petitioner guilty as charged and ordering his removal fromoffice. While this case was pending before this Court, petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Governor of Cagayan for the May 11, 1992 elections. As petitioner won by a landslide margin in the elections , the resolution pavedthe way for his eventual proclamation as Governor of Cagayan.One of the three grounds petitioner relies on for this petition is that: the alleged act of disloyalty committed by petitioner should be proved by proof beyond reasonable doubt, and not be a mere preponderance of evidence, because it is an act punishable as rebellion under the Revised Penal Code. Issue: Whether or not petitioner should be removed from office on the ground of disloyalty to the Republic. Held: NO. Petitioner's re-election to the position of Governor of Cagayan has rendered the administration casepending before the Court moot and academic . It appears that after the canvassing of votes, petitioner garnered themost number of votes among the candidates for governor of Cagayan province. The rule is that a public official can not beremoved for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election to office operates as acondonation of the officer's previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor. Theforegoing rule, however, finds no application to criminal cases pending against petitioner for acts he

may have committedduring the failed coup.Equally without merit is petitioner's claim that before he could be suspended or removed from office, proof beyondreasonable doubt is required inasmuch as he is charged with a penal offense of disloyalty to the Republic which is definedand penalized under Article 137 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner is not being prosecuted criminally under theprovisions of the Revised Penal Code, but administratively with the end in view of removing petitioner as the duly electedGovernor of Cagayan Province for acts of disloyalty to the Republic where the quantum of proof required is onlysubstantial evidence. WHEREFORE , petitioner is hereby GRANTED and the decision of public respondent Secretary of Local Government datedMarch 19, 1990 in Adm. Case No. P-10437-89, dismissing petitioner as Governor of Cagayan, is hereby REVERSED