MEXICO, Pampanga – The dismissed mayor of this town, along with three other municipal officials, has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a Court of Appeals (CA) ruling that upheld their 2022 dismissal by the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) and order their reinstatement.
In an urgent motion filed on Feb. 24, former Mayor Teddy C. Tumang, former municipal engineer Jesus S. Punzalan, former administrative officer Luz Ca. Bondoc, and former accountant Perlita T. Lagman argued that their dismissal was unjust due to legal inconsistencies, procedural lapses, and inordinate delays in resolving their case.
The motion was filed through their lawyers led by Romulo B. Macalintal.
The four reiterated in their motion their plea for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of their removal while the case is under review.
Tumang, Punzalan, Bondoc, and Lagman were ordered dismissed by the Ombudsman for violation of RA 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act), in the purchase of base course and other construction materials in 2008 without public bidding.
“The delay in filing and resolving this case is a blatant violation of our right to due process. Justice delayed is justice denied,” Tumang said in his petition, questioning the timing of the complaint filed only in 2018 or 10 years after the transactions occurred, and took another four years before the OMB issued its decision in 2022.
In a separate decision on Jan. 21, 2025, the CA reinstated Punzalan, Bondoc, and Lagman for the same case.
Tumang called the conflicting rulings “proof of the Ombudsman’s inconsistent and unfair treatment of our case.”
He also invoked the condonation doctrine, which previously absolved reelected officials of administrative liabilities for past offenses. 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 insisted it should still apply to him, as he was reelected in 2010 before the ruling took effect. “The Ombudsman cannot simply disregard a legal principle that was in effect at the time. It is unfair and unconstitutional.”
Tumang and his co-petitioners accused the OMB of “forum shopping and multiplicity of suits deliberately caused by the piecemeal filing of complaints involving similar incidents leading to the issuance of conflicting decisions,” allegedly meant to weaken their defense.
“With only four months remaining to my term of office which will end on June 30, 2025, I moved for my reinstatement so as not to defeat the will of the electorate who overwhelmingly elected me in the 2022 elections and prevent a mere pyrrhic victory as my term of office about to expire,” Tumang also told the SC.
“The people of Mexico, Pampanga, overwhelmingly voted for me in 2022. My removal not only undermines their will but also sets a dangerous precedent for elected officials,” he stated. “I am not just fighting for myself, but for the integrity of our electoral and judicial systems. The Supreme Court must act now to prevent a grave injustice.” Punto News Team
