The Supreme Court (SC) has given the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) 10 days to respond to the petition filed by then Mexico, Pampanga Mayor Teddy C. Tumang, who challenged his dismissal as the town’s chief executive in 2022.

In a resolution issued by the SC Second Division on 5 March, the Court deferred action on Tumang’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction until the OMB files its comment.

In an urgent motion filed on 24 February, Tumang argued that he should be reinstated due to the inordinate delay in the handling of the cases against him, citing the doctrine of condonation.

The petition, filed through their lawyers led by Romulo Macalintal, includes Tumang and three other former municipal officials — former administrative officer Luz C. Bondoc, accountant Perlita T. Lagman, and engineer Jesus S. Punzalan.

The OMB had ordered their dismissal for violating Republic Act 9184, the Government Procurement Reform Act, concerning the purchase of base course and other construction materials in 2008 without public bidding.

Their dismissal was appealed before the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld the OMB’s decision in a ruling dated 18 July 2024, prompting Tumang and his group to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

In their motion, Tumang and his co-respondents pointed out that the transactions in question occurred in 2008, but the administrative cases were only filed in 2018 — 10 years later — and the OMB’s decision came in 2022, four years after the case was filed.

Tumang further argued that the OMB had a “flip-flopping application of the condonation doctrine,” noting that before its abandonment on 12 April 2016, the doctrine effectively shielded local chief executives from removal from office for past administrative misconduct once they were reelected. Tumang, who was reelected as mayor in 2010, contends that the condonation doctrine should apply to his case.

Additionally, Tumang’s camp claimed that the OMB engaged in “forum shopping and a multiplicity of suits,” deliberately causing conflicting decisions through piecemeal filing of complaints involving similar incidents.