Dismissed Mayor Teddy C. Tumang of Mexico, Pampanga has reiterated before the Supreme Court (SC) his plea for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the enforcement of his dismissal and allow him to reassume his post as town executive.
In a pleading filed last Friday, March 28, Tumang also asked the SC that after the issuance of a TRO, the Court of Appeals’ (CA) 2024 decision that affirmed his dismissal by the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) in 2022 be reversed and set aside.
Aside from Tumang, those who repleaded for the issuance of a TRO and the reversal of the CA’s decision were former municipal engineer Jesus S. Punzalan, former administrative officer Luz Ca. Bondoc, and former accountant Perlita T. Lagman.
Represented by lawyers led by Romulo B. Macalintal, their new pleading before the SC was in response to the comment on their petition filed by the OMB.
In an urgent motion filed last Feb. 24, Tumang told the SC he should be reinstated on the ground of inordinate delay in the handling of the cases against him and based on the doctrine of condonation.
He and his co-petitioners were ordered dismissed by the OMB for violation of Republic Act No. 9184, the Government Procurement Reform Act, in the purchase of base course and other construction materials in 2008 without public bidding.
They appealed their dismissal before the CA which affirmed the OMB order in a decision dated July 18, 2024. They elevated the case to the SC.
In their new pleading, they told the SC that the OMB “conveniently forgets’ that the complaints against them “were not initiated timely.”
“It was only after the lapse of about 10 years or in January 2018 that the OMB assailed petitioners’ alleged participation in the purchase of base course and other construction materials for the repair of village roads in Mexico, Pampanga in 2008,” they said.
“In other words, the OMB launched purported administrative cases after memory could turn faint and records could be lost, lending only doubts on the integrity of what remained to purportedly justify even the baseless of accusations against petitioners. Petitioners’ ability to fully defend themselves likewise became hampered over time,” they also said.
In a previous pleading, Tumang had told the SC that the OMB had a “flip flopping application of the condonation doctrine.”
Before its abandonment in April 12, 2016, the condonation doctrine “effectively operated as a condonation of past administrative misconduct of local chief executives and prevented his/her removal from office once reelected to the same post.”
Tumang said he was reelected town mayor in 2010 and, thus, the condonation doctrine should apply in his case.
Also presented to the SC was a copy of the Jan. 21, 2025 CA decision which ordered the reinstatement of Lagman, Punzalan, and Bondoc on the cases involving the same 2008 purchase of base course and construction materials.
Tumang and his three co-petitioners told the SC that the OMB committed “forum shopping and multiplicity of suits deliberately caused by the piecemeal filing of complaints involving similar incidents leading to the issuance of conflicting decisions.”
In pressing for a TRO, Tumang told the SC:
“Now, Petitioner Tumang’s present term is about to expire in a few months. As such any resolution in this case may no longer allow Petitioner Tumang to complete his remaining term and may thus soon be an ‘empty or hallow victory i.e., a vindication when the term of office is about to expire or has expired.’
“This should not be countenanced, hence, this urgent motion for the issuance of a status quo ante order in line with his application for a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.
“To emphasize, Petitioner Tumang had been condoned and fully absolved of any administrative liability for alleged acts supposedly committed during his prior term, such as those allegedly done in 2008.”
He cited a previous SC decision which states that “court decisions should not be reduced to mere pyrrhic victories in order to maintain the people’s faith in the judicial system.”