Al, Lpo, El Reviewer

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW REVIEWER 2017
Atty. Edgar P. Borge
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 2) Whether AO 308 violates the right to privacy
RULING:
BASIS: Administrative Code during President
Corazon Aquinos time; Yes. AO 308 was a law since it redefines the
parameters of basic rights of citizens in a state which
HOW WILL YOU DESCRIBE: Ople v. Torres Case: should be covered by a law and not an administrative
order. Since citizens cannot transact without the
Points to Remember: PRN, they would have difficulty exercising rights and
enjoy privileges in the state. The defense that it gives
Description of Administrative Code no right and imposes no duty cannot stand.
Description of Administrative Powers
2) Yes, it violates the right to privacy. AO 308 not
Define Administrative Order
only aims to implement the PRN, it also aims to apply
biometrics to all citizens by finger-scanning and
Blas Ople vs. Exec. Sec. Ruben Torres etc.; others. This shows that it is not merely for
National Computer Center (NCC); COA Chair identification but for generation of other data which
G.R. No. 127685. July 23, 1998 may be subject to misuse under A0 308 by several
government agencies.
PUNO, J.:
Sandoval NOTES (as ruled in Ople Case):
FACTS:
DESCRIPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
On 1996, Pres. Fidel Ramos issued AO 308 for the
National Computerized Identification Reference The Code is a general law and incorporates in a
System which would identify persons seeking basic unified document the major structural, functional
social services. By using the Population Reference and procedural principle of governance (Third
Number (PRN) generated by the National Statistics Whereas Clause, Administrative Code of 1987) and
Office (NSO), it would reduce and avoid fraudulent embodies changes in administrative structures and
transactions. procedures designed to serve the people. (Fourth
Whereas Clause, Administrative Code of 1987) The
AO 308 also provides that the funds necessary for Code is divided into seven (7) books. These books
the implementation of its system would come from contain provisions on the organization, powers and
the budget of the members of the Inter-Agency general administration of departments, bureaus and
Coordinating Committee (IACC) such as the NEDA, offices under the executive branch, the organization
DILG, DOH, GSIS, NSO and NCC. and functions of the Constitutional Commissions and
other constitutional bodies, the rules on the national
Petitioner Sen. Ople filed for a TRO enjoining its government budget, as well as guidelines for the
implementation saying that it is unconstitutional for exercise by administrative agencies of quasi-
usurpation by the president of legislative powers of legislative and quasi-judicial powers. The Code
congress to make laws. covers both the internal administration, i.e., internal
organization, personnel and recruitment, supervision
The provision in appropriating public funds and the and discipline, and the effects of the functions
PRN system should be in a law as within the exclusive performed by administrative officials on private
right of congress and not in a mere administrative individuals or parties outside government.
order since it confers right and imposes duties to
citizens. Lastly, it violates the right to privacy of the
ADMINISTRATIVE POWER:
people.
Respondents contend that it is within the Administrative power is concerned with the work of
administrative power of the President in merely applying policies and enforcing orders as determined
implementing the Administrative Code of 1987 and by proper governmental organs. It enables the
that AO 308 actually protects a persons right to President to fix a uniform standard of administrative
privacy. It confers no right, imposes no duty, affords efficiency and check the official conduct of his
no protection, and creates no office agents. To this end, he can issue administrative
orders, rules and regulations.
ISSUE:
1) Whether AO 308 was a law beyond the power of

the President
Page | 1
---mjg October 2017---
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER: department, regardless of its name or

designation.
An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the
President which relates to specific aspects in the
administrative operation of government. It must be (8) Bureau
in harmony with the law and should be for the sole refers to any principal subdivision or unit of
any department. For purposes of Book IV,
purpose of implementing the law and carrying out
this shall include any principal subdivision
the legislative policy.
or unit of any instrumentality given or
assigned the rank of a bureau, regardless
DEFINITIONS under Executive Order 292 of actual name or designation, as in the
case of department-wide regional offices.
SECTION 2. General Terms Defined. Unless
the specific words of the text, or the context as a (9) Office
whole, or a particular statute, shall require a different refers, within the framework of
meaning: governmental organization, to any major
functional unit of a department or bureau
(1) Government of the Republic of the including regional offices. It may also refer
Philippines: to any position held or occupied by
refers to the corporate governmental entity individual persons, whose functions are
through which the functions of government defined by law or regulation.
are exercised throughout the Philippines,
including, save as the contrary appears (10) Instrumentality
from the context, the various arms through refers to any agency of the National
which political authority is made effective in Government, not integrated within the
the Philippines, whether pertaining to the department framework vested with special
autonomous regions, the provincial, city, functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed
municipal or barangay subdivisions or other with some if not all corporate powers,
forms of local government. administering special funds, and enjoying
operational autonomy, usually through a
(2) National Government charter. This term includes regulatory
refers to the entire machinery of the central agencies, chartered institutions and
government, as distinguished from the government-owned or controlled
different forms of local governments. corporations.
(3) Local Government (11) Regulatory agency

refers to the political subdivisions refers to any agency expressly vested with
established by or in accordance with the jurisdiction to regulate, administer or
Constitution. adjudicate matters affecting substantial
rights and interest of private persons, the
(4) Agency of the Government principal powers of which are exercised by
refers to any of the various units of the a collective body, such as a commission,
Government, including a department, board or council.
bureau, office, instrumentality, or
government-owned or controlled (12) Chartered institution
corporation, or a local government or a refers to any agency organized or operating
distinct unit therein. under a special charter, and vested by law
with functions relating to specific
(5) National Agency constitutional policies or objectives. This
refers to a unit of the National Government. term includes the state universities and
colleges and the monetary authority of the
(6) Local Agency State.
refers to a local government or a distinct
unit therein. (13) Government-owned or
controlled corporation
(7) Department refers to any agency organized as a stock
refers to an executive department created or non-stock corporation, vested with
by law. For purposes of Book IV, this shall functions relating to public needs whether
include any instrumentality, as herein governmental or proprietary in nature, and
defined, having or assigned the rank of a owned by the Government directly or
Page | 2
through its instrumentalities either wholly, FOR GOCCs (The purpose for which they are
or, where applicable as in the case of stock created) Case of Blaquera
corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-
one (51) per cent of its capital stock: BLAQUERA vs. ALCALA
Provided, That government-owned or G.R. No. 109406, September, 11, 1998
controlled corporations may be further
categorized by the Department of the PURISIMA, J.:
Budget, the Civil Service Commission, and
the Commission on Audit for purposes of FACTS:
the exercise and discharge of their
respective powers, functions and These are consolidated cases challenging the
responsibilities with respect to such constitutionality and validity of Administrative Order
corporations. Nos 29 and 268.
If performing Governmental Function: Administrative Order 268, which was then issued by
Part/Includes in the definition of President Corazon Aquino on February 21, 1992,
Government of the Republic of the grants each official and employees of the
Philippines (GRP) government the productivity incentive benefits in an
amount equivalent to thirty percent of the
If performing Proprietary function: Not part employees one-month basic salary but which
of GRP amount not be less than two thousand pesos. Such
Administrative Order provides that the productivity
(14) Officer as distinguished incentive benefits shall be granted only for the year
from clerk or employee, 1991.
refers to a person whose duties, not being
of a clerical or manual nature, involves the Moreover, all heads of government agencies,
exercise of discretion in the performance of including government owned and controlled
the functions of the government. When corporations and financial institutions are strictly
used with reference to a person having prohibited from granting or availing such benefits for
authority to do a particular act or perform a the year 1992 and the future years pending the
particular function in the exercise of result of comprehensive study being undertaken by
governmental power, officer includes any the Office of the President.
government employee, agent or body Petitioners who are officials and employees of
having authority to do the act or exercise several government departments and agencies were
that function. paid incentive benefits for the year 1992.
(15) Employee However, on January 19, 1993, then President Fidel

when used with reference to a person in the Ramos issued Administrative Order 29 authorizing
public service, includes any person in the the grant of productivity incentive benefits for the
service of the government or any of its year 1992 in the maximum amount of one thousand
agencies, divisions, subdivisions or pesos and reiterating the prohibition under Section 7
instrumentalities. of Administrative Order 268 enjoining the grant of
productivity incentive benefits without prior approval
of the President. Section 4 of Administrative Order
29 directed all departments, offices and agencies
which authorized payment of productivity incentive
bonus for the year 1192 in excess of one thousand
to immediately cause refund of the excess.
Accordingly, compliance for such caused the
deduction from petitioners salaries or allowances of
the amounts needed to cover overpayments as
alleged by the petitioners.
ISSUE:
Whether the issuance of Administrative Orders 29

and 268 were valid exercise of presidential control?
Whether Philippine Tourism Authority is a GOCC and

hence covered by the CS Law.
Page | 3
RULING 1: DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION /

DOCTRINE OF PRIOR RESORT
YES. The court held that the President issued subject
Administrative Orders to regulate the grant of
productivity incentive benefits and to prevent 1. This doctrine states that courts cannot or will
discontentment, dissatisfaction and demoralization not determine a controversy which requires
among government personnel by committing limited the expertise, specialized skills and
resources of government for the equal payment of
incentives and awards. The President was only knowledge of the proper administrative
exercising his power of control by modifying bodies because technical matters of intricate
the acts of the respondents who granted questions of fact are involved.
incentive benefits to their employees without
appropriate clearance from the Office of the
President, thereby resulting to uneven 2. Relief must first be obtained in an
distribution of government resources. administrative proceeding before a remedy
The duty of the President to execute the law is of will be supplied by the court even though the
constitutional origin. So, too, is his control of all matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a
executive departments. Thus, it is, that department
court.
heads are men of his confidence. Neither can it be
said that the President encroached upon the
authority of the Commission on Civil Service to grant
SEE: Case of Villaflor
benefits to governmental personnel. Administrative
Orders 29 and 268 did not revoke the privilege of
employees to receive incentive benefits. The same VILLAFLOR V. CA
merely regulated the grant and amount thereof. GR NO. 95694, OCTOBER 9, 1997
Conformably, it is the President or the head of each PANGANIBAN, J.:

department or agency who is authorized to incur the
necessary expenses involved in the honorary FACTS:
recognition of subordinate officers and employees of
the government. It is not the duty of Commission to In 1940, Villaflor acquired through Deed of Absolute
fix the amount of the incentives. Such function Sales, parcel of agricultural landsfrom different
belongs to the President or his duly empowered alter
owners. The deed states that the land was sold to
ego.
Villaflor but no formal document was then executed,
RULING 2: (Sandoval Notes) and since then until the present time, Villaflor has
been in possession and occupation of the same.
YES. Government-owned or controlled corporations
may perform governmental or proprietary functions In 1946, Villaflor leased to Nasipit Lumber Co., Inc.
or both, depending on the purpose for which they a parcel of land, containing an area of 2 has,
have been created. If the purpose is to obtain special together with all the improvements existing thereon,
corporate benefits or earn pecuniary profit, the for a period of 5 years at a rental of P200.00 per
function is proprietary. If it is in the interest of health, annum to cover the annual rental of house and
safety and for the advancement of public good and building sites for 33 houses or buildings.
welfare, affecting the public in general, the function
is governmental. Powers classified as proprietary In 1948, in an Agreement to Sell Villaflor conveyed
are those intended for private advantage and
to Nasipit Lumber, 2 parcels of land.From said day,
benefit.
the parties agreed that Nasipit Lumber shall continue
to occupy the property not anymore in concept of
SUPERVISION AND CONTROL
lessee but as prospective owners. On 7 December
ARTICLE VII, SECTION 17: 1948, Villaflor and Nasipit Lumber executed an
Agreement, confirming an Agreement to Sell, but
Section 17. The President shall have control of all with reference to the Sales Application filed with the
the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He Bureau of Land. Sales Application of Villaflor were
shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. rejected for having leased the property to another
even before he had acquired transmissible rights
thereto.
Page | 4
In August 1950, Villaflor executed a document, jurisdiction; i.e., courts cannot and will not resolve a
denominated as a Deed of Relinquishment of controversy involving a question which is within the
Rights, in favor on Nasipit Lumber, in consideration jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially
of the amount of P5,000 that was to be reimbursed where the question demands the exercise of sound
to the former representing part of the purchase price administrative discretion requiring the special
of the land, the value of the improvements Villaflor knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and
introduced thereon, and the expenses incurred in the
intricate matters of fact.
publication of the Notice of Sale; in light of his
difficulty to develop the same as Villaflor has moved In recent years, it has been the jurisprudential
to Manila. Pursuant thereto Nasipit Lumber filed a trend to apply this doctrine to cases involving
Sales Application over the 2 parcels of land. Order matters that demand the special competence of
of Award was then issued in favor of Nasipit administrative agencies even if the question involved
Lumber. In 1973, Villafor wrote a letter to Nasipit is also judicial in character. It applies where a claim
Lumber, reminding the latter of their verbal is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into
agreement in 1955; but the new set of corporate play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the
officers refused to recognize Villaflors claim. In a resolution of issues which, under a regulatory
formal protest dated 31 January 1974 which Villaflor scheme, have been placed within the special
filed with the Bureau of Lands, he protested the Sales competence of an administrative body; in such case,
the judicial process is suspended pending referral of
Application of Nasipit Lumber, claiming that the
such issues to the administrative body for its view.
company has not paid him P5,000.00 as provided in
the Deed of Relinquishment of Rights dated 16
In cases where the doctrine of primary
August 1950. jurisdiction is clearly applicable, the court cannot
arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a
The Director of Lands found that the payment controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially
P5,000.00 in the Deed and the consideration in the lodged with an administrative body of special
Agreement to Sell were duly proven, and ordered the competence. In Machete vs. Court of Appeals, the
dismissal of Villaflors protest. In 1978, Villaflor filed Court upheld the primary jurisdiction of the
a complaint in the trial court for Declaration of Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board
Nullity of Contract (Deed of Relinquishment of (DARAB) in an agrarian dispute over the payment of
Rights), Recovery of Possession (of two parcels of back rentals under a leasehold
land subject of the contract), and Damages. In contract. In Concerned Officials of the Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. Vasquez,the
1983, he died. The trial court ordered his widow,
Court recognized that the MWSS was in the best
Lourdes D. Villaflor, to be substituted as petitioner.
position to evaluate and to decide which bid for a
RTC dismissed the complaint. The heirs of petitioner waterworks project was compatible with its
appealed to the Court of Appeals which, however, development plan.
rendered judgment against them. Hence this
petition. The rationale underlying the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction finds application in this case,
ISSUE: since the questions on the identity of the land in
dispute and the factual qualification of private
Whether the findings of the CA conclusive and respondent as an awardee of a sales application
binding upon the SC. (Whether the Doctrine of require a technical determination by the Bureau of
Primary Jurisdiction was observed) Lands as the administrative agency with the
expertise to determine such matters. Because these
issues preclude prior judicial determination, it
RULING:
behooves the courts to stand aside even when they
apparently have statutory power to proceed, in
Yes. Since the doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction was recognition of the primary jurisdiction of the
observed and applied, the findings of RTC and CA administrative agency.
are conclusive and binding upon the SC.
One thrust of the multiplication of administrative
Primary Jurisdiction of the Director of Lands agencies is that the interpretation of contracts and
and Finality of Factual Findings of the Court of the determination of private rights thereunder is no
Appeals longer a uniquely judicial function, exercisable only
by our regular courts
Underlying the rulings of the trial and appellate
courts is the doctrine of primary
Page | 5
Petitioner initiated his action with a protest before investigation xxx to determine the following points:
the Bureau of Lands and followed it through in the (a) whether or not the Nasipit Lumber Company, Inc.
Ministry of Natural Resources and thereafter in the paid or reimbursed to Villaflor the consideration of
Office of the President. Consistent with the doctrine the rights in the amount of P5,000.00 and what
of primary jurisdiction, the trial and the appellate evidence the company has to prove payment, the
courts had reason to rely on the findings of these relinquishment of rights being part of the
specialized administrative bodies. administrative process in the disposition of the land
in question.
The primary jurisdiction of the director of lands and
the minister of natural resources over the issues Besides, the authority of the Director of Lands to
regarding the identity of the disputed land and the pass upon and determine questions considered
qualification of an awardee of a sales patent is inherent in or essential to the efficient exercise of his
established by Sections 3 and 4 of Commonwealth powers like the incident at issue, i.e., whether
Act No. 141, also known as the Villaflor had been paid or not, is conceded by law.
Under Public Land Act: Reliance by the trial and the appellate courts on the
factual findings of the Director of Lands and the
Section 3. The Secretary of Agriculture and Minister of Natural Resources is not misplaced. By
Commerce (now Secretary of Natural Resources) reason of the special knowledge and expertise of said
shall be the executive officer charged with carrying administrative agencies over matters falling under
out the provisions of this Act through the Director of their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass
Lands, who shall act under his immediate control. judgment thereon; thus, their findings of fact in that
regard are generally accorded great respect, if not
Section 4. Subject to said control, the Director of finality, by the courts. The findings of fact of an
Lands shall have direct executive control of the administrative agency must be respected as long as
survey, classification, lease, sale or any other form they are supported by substantial evidence, even if
of concession or disposition and management of the such evidence might not be overwhelming or even
lands of the public domain, and his decision as to preponderant. It is not the task of an appellate court
questions of fact shall be conclusive when approved to weigh once more the evidence submitted before
by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce. the administrative body and to substitute its own
judgment for that of the administrative agency in
Thus, the Director of Lands, in his decision, respect of sufficiency of evidence.
said:
However, the rule that factual findings of an
It is merely whether or not Villaflor has been paid the administrative agency are accorded respect and even
Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos stipulated finality by courts admits of exceptions. This is true
consideration of the deed of relinquishment made by also in assessing factual findings of lower courts. It
him without touching on the nature of the deed of is incumbent on the petitioner to show that the
relinquishment. The administration and disposition resolution of the factual issues by the administrative
of public lands is primarily vested in the Director of agency and/or by the trial court falls under any of
Lands and ultimately with the Secretary of the exceptions. Otherwise, this Court will not disturb
Agriculture and Natural Resources (now Secretary of such findings.
Natural Resources), and to this end
We mention and quote extensively from the rulings
Our Supreme Court has recognized that the Director of the Bureau of Lands and the Minister of Natural
of Lands is a quasi-judicial officer who passes on Resources because the points, questions and issues
issues of mixed facts and law (Ortua vs. Bingson raised by petitioner before the trial court, the
Encarnacion, 59 Phil 440). Sections 3 and 4 of the appellate court and now before this Court are
Public Land Law thus mean that the Secretary of basically the same as those brought up before the
Agriculture and Natural Resources shall be the final aforesaid specialized administrative agencies. As
arbiter on questions of fact in public land conflicts held by the Court of Appeals:
(Heirs of Varela vs. Aquino, 71 Phil 69; Julian vs.
Apostol, 52 Phil 442). We find that the contentious points raised by
The ruling of this Office in its order dated September appellant in this action, are substantially the same
10, 1975, is worth reiterating, thus: matters he raised in BL Claim No. 873 (N). In both
actions, he claimed private ownership over the land
it is our opinion that in the exercise of his power of in question, assailed the validity and effectiveness of
executive control, administrative disposition and the Deed of Relinquishment of Rights he executed in
allegation of public land, the Director of Lands should August 16, 1950, that he had not been paid
entertain the protest of Villaflor and conduct formal the P5,000.00 consideration, the value of the
Page | 6
improvements he introduced on the land and other LEONARDO A. PAAT v. COURT OF APPEALS
expenses incurred by him. G.R. No. 111107. January 10, 1997
In this instance, both the principle of primary TORRES, JR., J.:

jurisdiction of administrative agencies and the
doctrine of finality of factual findings of the trial FACTS:
courts, particularly when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals as in this case, militate against petitioners
The truck of private respondent Victoria de Guzman,
cause. Indeed, petitioner has not given us sufficient
reason to deviate from them. while on its way to Bulacan was seized by the DENR
personnel in Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya because the
Discussion of Primary Jurisdiction in case of driver could not produce the required documents for
Villaflor (Sandoval Notes) the forest products found concealed in the truck.
Petitioner Layugan issued an order of confiscation of
Courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy the truck and gave the owner thereof fifteen (15)
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction days to submit an explanation why the truck should
of an administrative tribunal, especially where the not be forfeited. Private respondents, however,
question demands the exercise of sound failed to submit. The Regional Executive Director of
administrative discretion requiring the special DENR sustained Layugans action of confiscation
knowledge, experience and services of the
invoking Section 68-A of Presidential Decree No. 705
administrative tribunal to determine technical and
as amended. Private respondents filed a letter of
intricate matters of fact.
reconsideration which was, denied. The case was
In recent years, it has been the jurisprudential trend brought by the petitioners to the Secretary of DENR.
to apply this doctrine to cases involving matters that Pending resolution however of the appeal, a suit for
demand the special competence of administrative replevin was filed by the private respondents with
agencies even if the question involved is also judicial the Regional Trial Court which issued a writ ordering
in character. It applies where a claim is originally the return of the truck to private respondents. A
cognizable in the courts, and comes into play petition for certiorari was filed by the petitioners with
whenever enforcement of the claim requires the the respondent Court of Appeals which sustained the
resolution of issues which, under a regulatory trial courts order ruling.
scheme, have been placed within the special
competence of an administrative body; in such case, ISSUE:
the judicial process is suspended pending referral of
such issues to the administrative body for its view.
Whether the suit of replevin filed by the private
In cases where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is respondents be prosper
clearly applicable, the court cannot arrogate unto
itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the RULING:
jurisdiction over which is lodged with an
administrative body of special competence. NO. Before a party is allowed to seek the
intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he
should have availed of all the means of
DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF administrative processes afforded him. If a remedy
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES within the administrative machinery can still be
resorted to by giving the administrative officer
concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter
Under this doctrine, an administrative decision must that comes within his jurisdiction then such remedy
first be appealed to the administrative superiors up should be exhausted first before courts judicial
to the highest level before it may be elevated to a power can be sought. The premature invocation of
courts intervention is fatal to ones cause of action.
court of justice for review.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
Exceptions remedies was not without its practical and legal
reasons, for one thing, availment of administrative
See: Cases of Paat and Carale remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a
speedier disposition of controversies.
Page | 7
This doctrine is disregarded: CARALE VS. ABARINTOS

G.R. No. 120704. March 3, 1997
(EXCEPTIONS)
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
(1) when there is a violation of due process,
FACTS:
(2) when the issue involved is purely a legal
question, Private Respondent Pontejos was appointed as Labor
Arbitration Associate. However, petitioner Chairman
(3) when the administrative action is patently illegal of the NLRC (Carale), issued Administrative Order
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, No. 10-03 series of 1994, detailing/reassigning
private respondent to the NLRC, Fourth Division,
(4) when there is estoppel on the part of the Cebu City.
administrative agency concerned,
For this reason, Pontejos filed a complaint before the
(5) when there is irreparable injury, RTC of Cebu City against herein petitioners for Illegal
Transfer (R.A. 6715).
(6) when the respondent is a department secretary
whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the On the other hand, Motions to Dismiss were filed by
implied and assumed approval of the latter, Carale, arguing that it is the CSC which has exclusive
jurisdiction over any question concerning personnel
(7) when to require exhaustion of administrative movement.
remedies would be unreasonable,
(8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim, Pontejos alleged that there is no other available and
speedy remedy in order to protect his interest than
(9) when the subject matter is a private land in land to resort to this Honorable Court; that the urgency
case proceedings, (10) when the rule does not of judicial intervention is an exception to the rule of
provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, and exhaustion of administrative remedies.
(11) when there are circumstances indicating the The RTC dismiss the Motions to Dismiss ruling that
urgency of judicial intervention. the only effect of non-compliance with the rule on
exhaustion of administrative remedies is that it will
In the case at bar, there is no question that the deprive the complainant of a cause of action; it does
controversy was pending before the Secretary of not affect the jurisdiction of the court.
DENR when it was forwarded to him following the Hence, this petition.
denial by the petitioners of the motion for
reconsideration of private respondents through the ISSUE:
order of July 12, 1989. By appealing to him, they
acknowledged the existence of an adequate and Whether administrative remedies must first be
plain remedy still available and open to them in the exhausted before filing a complaint in the court.
ordinary course of the law. Thus, they cannot now,
without violating the principle of exhaustion of RULING:
administrative remedies, seek courts intervention by
filing an action for replevin for the grant of their relief Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for
during the pendency of an administrative administrative review, and provides a system of
proceedings. administrative appeal, or reconsideration, the courts,
for reasons of law, comity and convenience, will not
entertain a case unless the available administrative
remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate
authorities have been given an opportunity to act
and correct the errors committed in the
administrative forum.
In the instant case, Pontejos did not attempt to seek

administrative relief, which was both available and
sufficient. Initially, he could have asked for
Page | 8
reconsideration of the detail order, failing which, he On August 16, 1960, Mamaril, et al. sold Lots No. 1
could have gone directly to the CSC, through the and 4 to Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company
MSPB.
On February 1, 1963, unknown to Lepanto
The accepted exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of Consolidated Mining Company, the Court of First
administrative remedies are the following: Instance of La Union, Second Judicial District, issued
an Order in Land Registration Case No. N-361 (LRC
1. where the question is purely legal; Record No. N-14012) entitled Rafael Galvez,
Applicant, Eliza Bustos, et al., Parties-In-Interest;
2. where judicial intervention is urgent; Republic of the Philippines, Movant declaring OCT
No. 0-381 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province
3. when its application may cause great and of La Union issued in the name of Rafael Galvez, null
irreparable damage; and void, and ordered the cancellation thereof.
4. where the controverted acts violate due On October 28, 1963, Lepanto Consolidated Mining
process; Company sold to herein petitioner Lots No. 1 and 4,
with the deed being entered in TCT NO. 4314 as
5. failure of a high government official from entry No. 12381. Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
whom relief is sought to act on the matter; 5710 was thus issued in favor of the petitioner which
and starting since then exercised proprietary rights over
Lots No. 1 and 4.
6. when the issue of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies has been rendered In the meantime, Rafael Galvez filed his motion for
moot. reconsideration against the order issued by the trial
court declaring OCT No. 0-381 null and void. The
Sandoval Notes: motion was denied on January 25, 1965. On appeal,
the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Republic of
Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is not the Philippines in a Resolution promulgated on
jurisdictional. It only renders the action premature, August 14, 1973 in CA-G. R. No. 36061-R.
i.e., claimed cause of action is not ripe for judicial
determination and for that reason a party has no Thereafter, the Court of Appeals issued an Entry of
cause of action to ventilate in court. Judgment, certifying that its decision dated August
14, 1973 became final and executory on October 23,
1973.
WHEN MAY THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT
VALIDLY INVOKE THAT PRESCRIPTION MAY On April 22, 1974, the trial court in L. R. C. Case No.
RUN AGAINST THE STATE? N-361 issued a writ of execution of the judgment
which was served on the Register of Deeds, San
See:Case of Shipside Fernando, La Union on April 29, 1974.
SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED, vs. CA Twenty-four long years thereafter, on January 14,

G.R. No. 143377. February 20, 2001 1999, the Office of the Solicitor General received a
letter dated January 11, 1999 from Mr. Victor
MELO, J.: G. Floresca, Vice-President, John Hay Poro Point
Development Corporation, stating that the
FACTS: aforementioned orders and decision of the trial court
in L. R. C. No. N-361 have not been executed by the
On October 29, 1958, Original Certificate of Title No. Register of Deeds, San Fernando, La Union despite
0-381 was issued in favor of Rafael Galvez, over four receipt of the writ of execution.
parcels of land Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3 and Lot 4.
On April 11, 1960, Lots No. 1 and 4 were conveyed On April 21, 1999, the Office of the Solicitor General
by Rafael Galvez in favor of Filipina Mamaril, filed a complaint for revival of judgment and
Cleopatra Llana, Regina Bustos, and Erlinda Balatbat cancellation of titles before the Regional Trial Court
in a deed of sale which was inscribed as Entry No. of the First Judicial Region (Branch 26, San
9115 OCT No. 0-381 on August 10, 1960. Fernando, La Union) docketed therein as Civil Case
No. 6346
Page | 9
In its complaint in Civil Case No. 6346, the Solicitor On May 23, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied
General argued that since the trial court in LRC Case petitioners motion for reconsideration on the
No. 361 had ruled and declared OCT No. 0-381 to be grounds that: (1) a complaint filed on behalf of a
null and void, which ruling was subsequently corporation can be made only if authorized by its
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the defendants- Board of Directors, and in the absence thereof, the
successors-in-interest of Rafael Galvez have no valid petition cannot prosper and be granted due
title over the property covered by OCT No. 0-381, course;and (2) petitioner was unable to show that it
and the subsequent Torrens titles issued in their had substantially complied with the rule requiring
names should be consequently cancelled. proof of authority to institute an action or
proceeding.
On July 22, 1999, petitioner Shipside, Inc. filed its
Motion to Dismiss, based on the following ISSUES:
grounds: (1) the complaint stated no cause of action
because only final and executory judgments may be 1. whether the petition under the signature of
subject of an action for revival of judgment; (2) the Lorenzo Balbin, Jr., should be dismissed for
plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest because the it was made without authority? (Admin
real property covered by the Torrens titles sought to Issue)
be cancelled, allegedly part of Camp Wallace
(Wallace Air Station), were under the ownership and 2. whether the Republic of the Philippines can
administration of the Bases Conversion Development maintain the action for revival of judgment?
Authority (BCDA) under Republic Act No. 7227; (3) (Procedural Issue)
plaintiffs cause of action is barred by prescription;
(4) twenty-five years having lapsed since the RULING:
issuance of the writ of execution, no action for revival
of judgment may be instituted because under 1. No, The Court has consistently held that the
Paragraph 3 of Article 1144 of the Civil Code, such requirement regarding verification of a
action may be brought only within ten (10) years pleading is formal, not jurisdictional. Such
from the time the judgment had been rendered. requirement is simply a condition affecting
the form of the pleading, non-compliance
An opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed by with which does not necessarily render the
the Solicitor General on August 23, 1999, alleging pleading fatally defective.
among others, that: (1) the real party-in-interest is
the Republic of the Philippines; and (2) prescription On the other hand, the failure of the
does not run against the State. petitioner to submit the required
documents that should accompany the
On August 31, 1999, the trial court denied petitioners petition, including the certification against
motion to dismiss and on October 14, 1999, its forum shopping, shall be sufficient ground
motion for reconsideration was likewise turned for the dismissal thereof. The same rule
down. applies to certifications against forum
shopping signed by a person on behalf of a
On October 21, 1999, petitioner instituted a petition corporation which are unaccompanied by
for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of proof that said signatory is authorized to file
Appeals, docketed therein as CA-G.R. SP No. 55535, a petition on behalf of the corporation.
on the ground that the orders of the trial court
denying its motion to dismiss and its subsequent In certain exceptional circumstances,
motion for reconsideration were issued in excess of however, the Court has allowed the belated
jurisdiction. filing of the certification.in Loyola,
Roadway, and Uy, the Court excused non-
On November 4, 1999, the Court of Appeals compliance with the requirement as to the
dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 55535 on certificate of non-forum shopping. With
the ground that the verification and certification in more reason should we allow the instant
the petition, under the signature of Lorenzo Balbin, petition since petitioner herein did submit a
Jr., was made without authority, there being no certification on non-forum shopping, failing
proof therein that Balbin was authorized to institute only to show proof that the signatory was
the petition for and in behalf and of petitioner. authorized to do so. That petitioner
Page | 10
subsequently submitted a secretarys REPUBLIC vs. EXTELCOM

certificate attesting that Balbin was G.R. No. 147210. January 15, 2002
authorized to file an action on behalf of .
petitioner likewise mitigates this oversight. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
2. No, the Republic of the Philippines cannot FACTS:

maintain the action for revival of judgment.
On December 29, 1992, the International
The Solicitor General, argues that the Communications Corporation (now Bayantel) filed
States cause of action in the cancellation of an application with the NTC for a CPCN to install,
the land title issued to petitioners operate and maintain a digital Cellular Mobile
predecessor-in-interest is imprescriptible Telephone System/Service (CMTS) with prayer for a
because it is included in Camp Wallace, Provisional Authority (PA)
which belongs to the government.This is
misleading. However, Express Telecommunication Co., Inc.
(Extelcom) filed in NTC an Opposition prayingfor the
With the transfer of Camp Wallace to the dismissal of Bayantels application. On May 3, 2000,
BCDA, the government no longer has a the NTC issued an Order granting in favor of
right or interest to protect. Consequently, Bayantel, applying Rule 15, Section 3 of its 1978
the Republic is not a real party in interest Rules of Practice and Procedure. Extelcom filed with
and it may not institute the instant the CA a petition seeking the annulment of the Order
action. Nor may it raise the defense of of the RTC, which was eventually granted by
imprescriptibility, the same being applicable the CA. Aggrieved, Bayantel brought the case to the
only in cases where the government is a SC. Extelcom contends that the NTC should have
party in interest. Under Section 2 of Rule 3 applied the Revised Rules which were filed with the
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, every Office of the NAR on February 3, 1993. The NTC, on
action must be prosecuted or defended in the other hand, issued a certification to the effect
the name of the real party in interest. To that inasmuch as the 1993 Revised Rules have not
qualify a person to be a real party in interest been published in a newspaper of general
in whose name an action must be circulation, the NTC has been applying the 1978
prosecuted, he must appear to be the Rules. Thus, the present petition.
present real owner of the right sought to
enforced. A real party in interest is the party Sandoval Notes: (Issue and Ruling)
who stands to be benefited or injured by
the judgment in the suit, or the party Discuss the nature and functions of the NTC,
entitled to the avails of the suit. And by real and analyze its powers and authority as well
interest is meant a present substantial as the laws, rules and regulations that govern
its existence and operations.
interest, as distinguished from a mere
expectancy, or a future, contingent,
RULING:
subordinate or consequential interest.
The NTC was created pursuant to Executive Order
The BCDA is an entity invested with a No. 546, promulgated on July 23, 1979. It assumed
personality separate and distinct from the the functions formerly assigned to the Board of
government. Communications and the Communications Control
Bureau, which were both abolished under the said
Executive Order. Previously, the NTCs function were
merely those of the defunct Public Service
Commission (PSC), created under Commonwealth
Act No. 146, as amended, otherwise known as the
Public Service Act, considering that the Board of
Communications was the successor-in-interest of the
PSC. Under Executive Order No. 125-A, issued in
April 1987, the NTC became an attached agency of
the Department of Transportation and
Communications.
Page | 11
In the regulatory communications industry, the NTC The absence of publication, coupled with the
has the sole authority to issue Certificates of Public certification by the Commissioner of the NTC stating
Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the that the NTC was still governed by the 1987 Rules,
installation, operation, and maintenance of clearly indicate that the 1993 Revised Rules have not
communications facilities and services, radio taken effect at the time of the grant of the
communications systems, telephone and telegraph provisional authority to Bayantel. The fact that the
systems. Such power includes the authority to 1993 Revised Rules were filed with the UP Law
determine the areas of operations of applicants for Center on February 3, 1993 is of no moment. There
telecommunications services. Specifically, Section 16 is nothing in the Administrative Code of 1987 which
of the Public Service Act authorizes the then PSC, implies that the filing of the rules with the UP Law
upon notice and hearing, to issue Certificates of Center is the operative act that gives the rules force
Public Convenience for the operation of public and effect. Book VII, Chapter 2, Section 3 thereof
services within the Philippines whenever the merely states:
Commission finds that the operation of the public
service proposed and the authorization to do Filing. (1) Every agency shall file with the University
business will promote the public interests in a proper of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified
and suitable manner. (Commonwealth Act No. 146, copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on
Section 16[a]) The procedure governing the issuance the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed
of such authorizations is set forth in Section 29 of the within three (3) months from the date shall not
said Act. thereafter be the basis of any sanction against any
party or persons.
Is the filing of the administrative rules and
regulations with the UP Law Center the (2) The records officer of the agency, or his
operative act that gives the rules force and equivalent functionary, shall carry out the
effect? requirements of this section under pain of
disciplinary action.
RULING:
(3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by
In granting Bayantel the provisional authority to the issuing agency and shall be open to public
operate a CMTS, the NTC applied Rule 15, Section 3 inspection.
of its 1978 Rules of Practice and Procedure, which
provides: This Court, in Tanada v. Tuvera (G.R. No. L-63915,
December 29, 1986, 146 SCRA 446) stated, thus:
Sec. 3. Provisional Relief. Upon the filing of an
application, complaint or petition or at any stage We hold therefore that all statutes, including those
thereafter, the Board may grant on motion of the of local application and private laws, shall be
pleader or on its own initiative, the relief prayed for, published as a condition for their effectivity, which
based on the pleading, together with the affidavits shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a
and supporting documents attached thereto, without different effectivity is fixed by the legislature.
prejudice to a final decision after completion of the
hearing which shall be called within thirty (30) days Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and
from grant of authority asked for. (italics ours) executive orders promulgated by the President in the
exercise of legislative power or, at present, directly
Respondent Extelcom, however, contends that the conferred by the Constitution. Administrative Rules
NTC should have applied the Revised Rules which and Regulations must also be published if their
were filed with the Office of the National purpose is to enforce or implement existing law
Administrative Register on February 3, 1993. These pursuant also to a valid delegation.
Revised Rules deleted the phrase on its own
initiative; accordingly, a provisional authority may Interpretative regulations and those merely internal
be issued only upon filing of the proper motion in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of
before the Commission. the administrative agency and not the public, need
not be published. Neither is publication required of
In answer to this argument, the NTC, through the the so-called letters of instructions issued by
Secretary of the Commission, issued a certification to administrative superiors concerning the rules or
the effect that inasmuch as the 1993 Revised Rules guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the
have not been published in a newspaper of general performance of their duties.
circulation, the NTC has been applying the 1978
Rules. We agree that the publication must be in full or it is
no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the
public of the contents of the laws.
Page | 12
The Administrative Order under consideration is one ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONSHIPS

of those issuances which should be published for its
effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce and Involve Admin Agencies mere
implement an existing law pursuant to a valid supervision/oversee
delegation, i.e., P.D. 1071, in relation to LOI 444 and
EO 133 (Philippine International Trading Corp. v. See: case of Beja
Angeles, 263 SCRA 421, 446-447 [1996]).
BEJA vs. CA
Thus, publication in the Official Gazette or a
G.R. No. 97149. March 31, 1992
newspaper of general circulation is a condition sine
qua non before statutes, rules or regulations can
ROMERO, J.:
take effect. This is explicit from Executive Order No.
200, which repealed Article 2 of the Civil Code, and
FACTS:
which states that:
Fidencio Beja Sr. an employee of Philippine ports
Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
authority, hired as Arrastre supervisor in 1975 and
completion of their publication either in the Official
later on appointed as terminal supervisor in 1988. On
Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in
October 21, 1988, the General Manager, Rogelio A.
the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided (E.O.
Dayan filed administrative case against Beja Sr. and
200, Section 1).
Villaluz for grave dishonesty. Grave misconduct
willful violation of reasonable office rules and
The Rules of Practice and Procedure of the NTC,
regulations and conduct prejudicial to the best
which implements Section 29 of the Public Service
interest of the service. Consequently, they were
Act (C.A. 146, as amended), fall squarely within the
preventively suspended for the charges. After
scope of these laws, as explicitly mentioned in the
preliminary investigation conducted by the district
case of Tanada v. Tuvera (146 SCRA 446 [1986]).
attorney for region X, administrative case was
considered closed for lack of merit.
Our pronouncement in Tanada v. Tuvera is clear and
categorical. Administrative rules and regulations
On December 13, 1988 another administrative case
must be published if their purpose is to enforce or
was filed against Beja by the PPA manager also for
implement existing law pursuant to a valid
dishonesty grave misconduct violation of office rules
delegation. The only exception are interpretative
and regulations, conduct prejudicial to the best
regulations, those merely internal in nature, or those
interest of the service and for being notoriously
so-called letters of instructions issued by
undesirable. Beja was also placed under preventive
administrative superiors concerning the rules and
suspension pursuant to sec. 412 of PD No. 807. The
guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the
case was redocketed and thereafter, the PPA
performance of their duties (PHILSA International
indorsed it to the AAB for appropriate action.
Placement & Services Corp. v. Secretary of Labor,
G.R. No. 103144, April 4, 2001, 356 SCRA 174).
The AAB proceeded to hear the case and gave Beja
an opportunity to present evidence. However, on
Hence, the 1993 Revised Rules should be published
February 20, 1989, Beja filed petition for certiorari
in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
with preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial
circulation before it can take effect. Even the 1993 Court of Misamis Oriental. Two days later, he filed
Revised Rules itself mandates that said Rules shall with the ABB a manifestation and motion to suspend
take effect only after their publication in a newspaper the hearing of administrative case on account of the
of general circulation (Section 20 thereof). In the pendency of the certiorari proceeding before the
absence of such publication, therefore, it is the 1978 court. AAB denied the motion and continued with the
Rules that governs. hearing of the administrative case. Thereafter, Beja
moved for the dismissal of the certiorari case and
proceeded to file before the Court for a petition for
certiorari with preliminary injunction and/or
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF temporary restraining order.
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
ISSUE:
GENERALLY: How Describe?
Whether the Administrative Action Board of DOTC
1. To Enforce has jurisdiction over administrative cases involving
2. To Implement personnel below the rank of Assistant General
3. To Administer Manager of the Philippine Ports Authority, an
4. To Execute Laws attached agency of DOTC.
Page | 13
RULING: Manager with the approval of the PPA board of

Directors the power to investigate its personnel
The PPA General Manager is the disciplining below the rank of Assistant Manager who may be
authority who may, by himself and without the charged with an administrative offense. During such
approval of the PPA Board of Directors, subject a investigation, the PPA General Manager, may subject
respondent in an administrative case to preventive the employee concerned to preventive suspension.
suspension. His disciplining powers are sanctioned The investigation should be conducted in accordance
not only by Sec.8 of PD no. 857 but also by Sec. 37 with the procedure set out in Sec. 38 of PD no. 807.
of PD no. 807 granting the heads of agencies the
Jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters
involving disciplinary actions against officers and DOCTRINE OF DELEGATION OF POWERS
employees in the PPA. With respect to the issue, the
Court qualifiedly rules in favor of the petitioner. The *Legislative powers
PPA was created through PD no. 505 dated July
1974. Under the Law, the corporate powers of the Rule: A Power already delegated must no
PPA were vested in a governing Board of Directors longer be delegated.
known as the Philippine Ports Authority Council. Sec.
5(i) of the same decree gave the council the power EXCEPTIONS:
to appoint, discipline and remove, and determine
the composition of the technical staff of the authority 1. Local Government
and other personnel. On December 23, 1975, PD 2. President (tariff powers)
3. Administrative Bodies
no. 505 was substituted by PD no. 857 sec. 4(a)
4. Emergency Powers of the Government
thereof created the Philippine Ports Authority which
5. People at Large through Plebiscite &
would be attached to the then Department of Public
Referendum
Works, Transportation and Communication. When
Executive order no. 125 dated January 30, 1987 TESTS OF VALID DELEGATION:
reorganizing the Ministry of Transportation and
Communication was issued, the PPA retained its 1. COMPLETENESS TEST: Complete in
attached status. Administrative Code of 1987 itself.
classified PPA as an attached agency to the DOTC.
Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, the *This means that the law must be complete in all its
other two being supervision and control and terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature
administrative supervision, Attachment is defined so that when it reaches the delegate, it will have
as the lateral relationship between the department nothing to do but to enforce it.
or its equivalent and the attached agency or
corporation for purposes of policy and program 2. SUFFICIENT STANDARDS TEST: The
law must offer sufficient standard that must
coordination. An attached agency has a larger
be determinate or atleast be determinable
measure of independence from the Department to
to specify limits of the delegated authority
which it is attached than one which is under
and specify conditions under which it is to
departmental supervision and control or be implemented.
administrative supervision. This is borne out by the
lateral relationship between the Department and
the attached agency. The attachment is merely for KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION
policy and program coordination. With respect to
administrative matters, the independence of an 1. Legislative Regulation: must be
attached agency from the department control and published/exercising quasi-legislative
supervision is furthermore reinforced by the fact that power
even an agency under a Departments administrative
supervision is free from Departmental interference a. Contingent
with respect to appointments and other personnel b. Supplemental
actions in accordance with the decentralization of 2. Interpretative Regulation: Internal
Regulations
personnel functions under the administrative Code
of 1987. The Law impliedly grants the general
Page | 14
See: Case of Taada 2) Whether a publication shall be made in

publications of general circulation
*Article 2 : Civil Code
RULING:
TAADA vs. TUVERA
G.R. No. L-63915 April 24, 1985 (136 SCRA 27; April 24, 1985)
ESCOLIN, J.: 1) The court held that all statute including those of
local application shall be published as condition for
FACTS:
their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days after
publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed
Petitioners filed a writ of mandamus to compel
by the legislature.
respondent public officials to publish and/or cause to
publish various presidential decrees, letters of
The clear object of this provision is to give the
instructions, general orders, proclamations,
general public adequate notice of the various laws
executive orders, letters of implementations and
which are to regulate their actions and conduct as
administrative orders.
citizens. Without such notice and publication, there
They invoke the right of the people to be informed
would be no basis for the application of the maxim
on matters of public concern as well as the principle
ignoratia legis nominem excusat. It would be the
that laws, to be valid and enforceable, must be
height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a
published in the Official Gazette.
citizen for the transgression of a law which he had
no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.
The government argued that while publication was
necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was
2) The publication must be full or no publication at
otherwise provided, as when the decrees themselves
all since its purpose is to inform the public of the
declared that they were to become effective
content of the laws.
immediately upon approval. The court decided on
April 24, 1985 in affirming the necessity for
(146 SCRA 446; December 29, 1986)
publication of some of the decrees. The court
ordered the respondents to publish in the official
1) All statutes, including those of local application
gazette all unpublished Presidential Issuances which
and private laws, shall be published as a condition
are of general force and effect.
for their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days after
The petitioners suggest that there should be no
publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed
distinction between laws of general applicability and
by the legislature.
those which are not. The publication means
complete publication, and that publication must be
2) Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that publication
made in the official gazette.
of laws must be made in the Official Gazette, and not
elsewhere, as a requirement for their effectivity. The
ISSUES:
Supreme Court is not called upon to rule upon the
wisdom of a law or to repeal or modify it if it finds it
(136 SCRA 27; April 24, 1985)
impractical.
1) Whether all laws shall be published in the official
gazette
REQUISITE OF A VALID ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION:
2) Whether publication in the official gazette must
be in full 1. Its promulgation must be authorized by the
legislature
(146 SCRA 446; December 29, 1986) 2. It must be within the scope of the authority
given by the legislature.
1) Whether a distinction be made between laws of 3. It must be promulgated in accordance with
general applicability and laws which are not as to the prescribed procedure.
their publication 4. It must be reasonable.
Page | 15
*OTHERWISE, In EXCESS of authority. regulations for that function, to repeat, may

legitimately be exercised only for the purpose of
See: Case of Toledo (Second Requisite) carrying the provisions of the law into effect; and
since there is no prohibition or restriction on the
TOLEDO VS. COMELEC & CSC employment of 57-year old persons in the statute
GR No. 135864. November 24, 1999 or any provision respecting age as a factor in
employmentthere was nothing to carry into effect
through an implementing rule on the matter. The
PURISIMA, J.:
power vested in the CSC was to implement the law
or put it into effect, not to add to it; to carry the law
FACTS: into effect or execution, not to supply perceived
omissions in it.
Atty. Augusto Toledo was appointed by then
Comelec Chairman Ramon Felipe as Manager of the Additionally, the CSRPAP cannot be considered
Education and Information Department of the effective as of the time of the application to Toledo
Comelec on May 1986, at which time Toledo was of a provision thereof, for the reason that said rules
already more than 57 years old. Toledos were never published as required by both RA 2260
appointment papers and his oath of office were and PD 807. The argument that it was a mere
endorsed by the Comelec to the CSC on June 1986 reiteration of existing law and circularized cannot
for approval and attestation. However, no prior stand as formerly discussed.
request for exemption from the provisions of Section
22, Rule III of the CSRPAPwhich prohibits the Also, Toledos separation from service was through
appointment of persons 57 years old or above into no fault of his own. Petition granted.
government service without prior CSC approvalwas
secured. Petitioner then reported for work. PHILSA INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT and
SERVICES CORPORATIONvs. THE HON.
Comelec, upon discovery of the lack of authority SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT;
required under CSRPAP, and CSC Memo Circular 5 VIVENCIO DE MESA, RODRIGO MIKIN and
issued Resolution No. 2066, which declared void CEDRIC LEYSON G.R. No. 103144. April 4,
from the beginning Toledos appointment. Petitioner 2001
appealed to CSC, which considered him a de facto
officer and his appointment voidable, and moved for GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
reconsideration but was denied, hence the present
petition for certiorari. FACTS:
ISSUE: Petitioner Philsa International Placement and
Services Corporation (Philsa) is a domestic
W/N CSRPAP provision is valid corporation engaged in the recruitment of workers
for overseas employment. In 1985, private
RULING: respondents were recruited by petitioner for
employment in Saudi Arabia each paying placement
No. The Civil Service Act of 959 (RA 2260), which fees of P5,000 for Mikin and P6,500 for De Mesa and
established the CSC, contained no provision Leyson.
prohibiting appointment or reinstatement into
government service of any person already 57 years After being deployed in Saudi, the private
old. Sec 5 Rule 6 of the Revised Civil Service Rules, respondents were forced to sign a second and third
which prohibits such, was purely the creation of CSC. contract by their foreign employer Al-Hejailan,
increasing their work hours from 48 hours to 60 hour
Marcoss PD 807 (Civil Service Decree), which without additional pay. When they refused to sign,
established a new CSC and superseded RA 2260, also their work contract was terminated and were
provided that rules and regulations shall become repatriated to the Philippines.
effective only 30 days after publication in the OG or
in any newspaper of general circulation. The new The private respondents filed a case before the POEA
CSC adopted the CSRPAP. No provision re prohibition for illegal exaction and contract substitution to the
of appointment of 57-year-old made in PD 807; POEA Hearing Officer for both offices of the Workers'
prohibition was purely created by CSC. Assistance and Adjudication Office (POEA-WAAO) for
complaints on money claims of OFWs and the
The provision cannot be valid, being entirely a CSC Licensing and Recruitment Office (POEA-LRO), for
creation, it has no basis in the law which it was cases involving recruitment violations warranting
meant to implement. It cannot be justified as a valid suspension or cancellation of license.
exercise of its function of promulgating rules and
Page | 16
POEA ruled in favor of private respondents and to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a
granted the award for damages for illegal exaction in valid delegation.
violation of POEA Memorandum Circular No. 11,
Series of 1983 which enumerated the allowable fees Interpretative regulations and those merely internal
which may be collected from applicant, and POEA in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of
Memorandum Order No. 2, Series of 1983 providing the administrative agency and the public, need not
for the applicable schedule of placement and be published. Neither is publication required of the
documentation fees for private employment agencies so-called letter of instructions issued by the
not more than P2,500 in compliance with Sec. 32 and administrative superiors concerning the rules or
34 of the Labor Code. guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the
performance of their duties.
Philsa appealed to the Sec. of Labor and Employment
but was denied hence this case. They argued that it Sandoval Notes:
cannot be liable for illegal exaction since both POEA
Memorandum were void for lack of publication or May a person be held liable for violation of an
filed with the National Administrative Register, as administrative regulation which was not
required in Book VII, Chapter 2, Sec. 3 of the Admin published?
Code of 1987.
Held: Petitioner insists, however, that it cannot be
Respondent Sec. of Laborend Employment argued held liable for illegal exaction as POEA Memorandum
through the Solicitor General that the questioned Circular No. II, Series of 1983, which enumerated the
administrative circular is not among those requiring allowable fees which may be collected from
publication contemplated by Taada vs. Tuvera as it applicants, is void for lack of publication.
is addressed only to a specific group of persons and
not to the general public. There is merit in the argument.
ISSUE: In Tanada v. Tuvera (136 SCRA 27 [1985]), the

Court held, as follows:
Whether the POEA Memorandum orders were void
for lack of publication We hold therefore that all statutes, including those
of local application and private laws, shall be
RULING: published as a condition for their effectivity, which
shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a
Yes, both were void for lack of publication or filed different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.
with the National Administrative Register.
Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 11, Series of 1983 executive orders promulgated by the President in the
was declared void for lack of publication since it is exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are
not internal in nature nor merely regulating only the validly delegated by the legislature or, at present,
personnel of the POEA. directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative
rules and regulations must also be published if their
Likewise, POEA Memorandum Order No. 2, Series of purpose is to enforce or implement existing law
1983 was also void for lack of publication or filing pursuant to a valid delegation.
with the National Administrative Register since its
purpose is to enforce and implement an existing law Interpretative regulations and those merely internal
pursuant to a valid delegation. The defense of the in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of
SG that this memo had basis other than the POEA the administrative agency and the public, need not
memo cannot stand because the memo itself did not be published. Neither is publication required of the
cite the Art. 32 and 34 of the labor Code. so-called letter of instructions issued by the
administrative superiors concerning the rules or
And since under Book VI, Chapter II, Section 3 of the guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the
Administrative Code of 1987, rules in force on the performance of their duties.
date of effetivity were not filed within three months
shall not become the basis of any sanction against Applying this doctrine, we have previously declared
any party or persons. Hence, the petitioner cannot as having no force and effect the following
be liable for damages under the said POEA memos. administrative issuances: a) Rules and Regulations
issued by the Joint Ministry of Health-Ministry of
Citing Tanada vs. Tuvera, administrative rules and Labor and Employment Accreditation Committee
regulations must also be published if their purpose is regarding the accreditation of hospitals, medical
clinics and laboratories (Joint Ministry of Health-
Page | 17
Ministry of Labor and Employment Accreditation Does the publication requirement apply as
Committee v. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 263 well to administrative regulations addressed
[1991]); b) Letter of Instruction No. 416 ordering the only to a specific group and not to the general
suspension of payments due and payable by public?
distressed copper mining companies to the national
government (Caltex Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Held: The Office of the Solicitor General likewise
Appeals, 208 SCRA 726 [1992]); c) Memorandum argues that the questioned administrative circular is
Circulars issued by the POEA regulating the not among those requiring publication contemplated
recruitment of domestic helpers to Hong Kong (Phil. by Tanada v. Tuvera as it is addressed only to a
Association of Service Exporters v. Torres, 212 SCRA specific group of persons and not to the general
298 [1992]); d) Administrative Order No. SOCPEC public.
89-08-01 issued by the Philippine International Again, there is no merit in this argument.
Trading Corporation regulating applications for
importation from the Peoples Republic of China The fact that the said circular is addressed only to a
(Philippine International Trading Corporation v. specified group, namely private employment
Angeles, 263 SCRA 421 [1996]); and e) Corporate agencies or authority holders, does not take it away
Compensation Circular No. 10 issued by the from the ambit of our ruling in Tanada v. Tuvera. In
Department of Budget and Management the case of Phil. Association of Service Exporters v.
discontinuing the payment of other allowances and Torres ((212 SCRA 298 [1992]), the administrative
fringe benefits to government officials and circulars questioned therein were addressed to an
employees (De Jesus v. Commission on Audit, 294 even smaller group, namely Philippine and Hong
SCRA 152 [1998). In all these cited cases, the Kong agencies engaged in the recruitment of
administrative issuances questioned therein were workers for Hong Kong, and still the Court ruled
uniformly struck down as they were not published or therein that, for lack of proper publication, the said
filed with the National Administrative Register as circulars may not be enforced or implemented.
required by the Administrative Code of 1987
(Administrative Code of 1987, Book VII, chapter 2, Our pronouncement in Tanada v. Tuvera is clear and
Section 3). categorical. Administrative rules and regulations
POEA memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 must be published if their purpose is to enforce or
must likewise be declared ineffective as the same implement existing law pursuant to a valid
was never published or filed with the National delegation. The only exceptions are interpretative
Administrative Register. regulations, those merely internal in nature, or those
so-called letters of instructions issued by
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 administrative superiors concerning the rules and
provides for the applicable schedule of placement guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the
and documentation fees for private employment performance of their duties. Administrative Circular
agencies or authority holders. Under the said Order, No. 2, Series of 1983 has not been shown to fall
the maximum amount which may be collected from under any of these exceptions.
prospective Filipino overseas workers is P2,500.00.
The said circular was apparently issued in In this regard, the Solicitor Generals reliance on the
compliance with the provisions of Article 32 of the case of Yaokasin v. Commissioner of Customs (180
Labor Code x x x. SCRA 599 [1989]) is misplaced. In the said case, the
validity of certain Customs Memorandum Orders
It is thus clear that the administrative circular under were upheld despite their lack of publication as they
consideration is one of those issuances which should were addressed to a particular class of persons, the
be published for its effectivity, since its purpose is to customs collectors, who were also the subordinates
enforce and implement an existing law pursuant to a of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs. As
valid delegation (Philippine International Trading such, the said Memorandum Orders clearly fall under
Corporation v. Angeles, supra.). Considering that one of the exceptions to the publication requirement,
POEA Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 namely those dealing with instructions from an
has not as yet been published or filed with the administrative superior to a subordinate regarding
National Administrative Register, the same is the performance of their duties, a circumstance
ineffective and may not be enforced. which does not obtain in the case at bench.
To summarize, petitioner should be absolved from

the three (3) counts of exaction as POEA
Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 could
not be the basis of administrative sanctions against
petitioner for lack of publication.
Page | 18
ADMIN REGULATION FOR INTERNAL (need Resolution granting Photokinas application for a writ
not be published) of prohibitory injunction. Comelec thru Solicitor
General filed a motion but was denied by respondent
Judge. Hence, a petition for certiorari was elevated
MAY THE WINNING BIDDER COMPEL THE directly to Supreme Court by the OSG in behalf of
GOVERNMENT? Comelec.
ISSUE:
(See case COMELEC v. Quijano-Padilla)
Whether Photokina can compel Comelec, a
government agency, to formalize a contact
COMELEC vs. Quijano-Padilla notwithstanding that its bid exceeds the amount
G.R. No. 151992, September 18, 2002 appropriated by Congress for the project?
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: RULING:
FACTS: NO. The court reiterated that, No contract

involving the expenditure of public funds by
Voters Registration Act of 1996 (RA No. 8189) was any government agency shall be entered into
passed, pursuant to that the Comelec promulgated a or authorized unless the proper accounting
Resolution approving in the principle the Voters official of the agency concerned shall have a
Registration and Identification System Project (VRIS) certified to the officer entering into obligation
which envisions a computerized database system for that funds have been duly appropriated for the
May 2004 Elections with an aim of tamper-proof and purpose and that the amount cover the
counterfeit-resistant voters identification card. proposed contract for the current calendar
Comelec then issued pre-qualify and bid for the year is available for expenditure on account
supply and installations of IT equipment and ancillary thereof, subject to verification of the auditor.
services for VRIS Project. (Sec 7, Administrative Code of 1987)
Photokina Corporation pre-qualified and allowed to The court ruled that, Photokina cannot accede to its
participate as one of the bidders. After public bidding contention that there is already a perfected contract
was conducted, Photokina garnered the highest since existence of appropriations and availability of
score and was declared the winning bidder, on which funds are indispensable pre-requisites to or
a resolution was issued by Comelec for the approval conditions sine qua non for the execution of
of such, and was immediately accepted by government contracts. To hold otherwise is to allow
Photokina, parties then initially proceeded to a public officer to execute a binding contract that
formalize the contract with Comm. Sadain. would obligate the government in an amount in
excess of the appropriations for the purpose for
However, under budget appropriation passed by which the contract was attempted to be made, which
Congress for the said project was only 1 billion pesos, the court found as a dangerous precedent.
on which the actual fund budget for the project was
1.2 bilion. For such disparity, the execution of the Even the draft contract submitted by Commissioner
contract was of no avail, irregardless of the Sadain that provides for a 1.2 Bilion pesos is
expiration of office of then oppositorComelec unacceptable, of which the court share sentiment
Chairman Demetriou and despite several with then Chairman Demetriou that it circumvents
notifications by Photokina. the statutory requirements on government contracts.
Hence, petitioners are justified in refusing to
Then incumbent Chairman Benipayo, through press formalize the contract with Photokina, as prudence
releases and public announcements, announced that dictates them not to enter into a contract not backed
the VRIS Project has been set aside, and plan of re- up by sufficient appropriation and available funds.
engineering the entire modernization program of the
Comelec. Photokina, with the adverse turn of events,
filed with RTC Quezon City a petition for mandamus, NOTE:
prohibition and damages against Comelec and all its
Commisioners. Photokina alleged the refusal of What is the remedy available to a party who
Comelec and the Commissioners to formalize the contracts with the government contrary to the
contract; that Chairman Benipayo on his statement requirements of the law and, therefore, void
committed grave abuse of discretion; and that ab initio?
Comelec failed to perform its duty under the contract
incurring damages on the part of Photokina.
Respondent Judge Quijano-Padilla issued a
Page | 19
Held: Of course, we are not saying that the party Incorporated. The Notice of Demolition was for the
who contracts with the government has no other removal of private respondents stalls, sari-sari
recourse in law. The law itself affords him the stores and carinderia to give way to the Peoples
remedy. Section 48 of E.O. No. 292 explicitly Park.
provides that any contract entered into contrary to
the above-mentioned requirements shall be void, On July 12, 1990, the group of vendors led by their
and the officers entering into the contract shall be
President Roque Fermo filed a letter-complaint
liable to the Government or other contracting party
(Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay) with the CHR
for any consequent damage to the same as if the
transaction had been wholly between private against the petitioners, asking the CHR Chairman
parties. So when the contracting officer transcends Mary Concepcion Bautista for a letter to be
his lawful and legitimate powers by acting in excess addressed to then Mayor Brigido Simon Jr. of Quezon
of or beyond the limits of his contracting authority, City to stop the demolition.
the Government is not bound under the contract. It
would be as if the contract in such case were a CHR in its Resolution ordered the disbursement of
private one, whereupon, he binds himself, and thus, financial assistance of not more than 200,000 in
assumes personal liability thereunder. (Fernandez, a favor of the private respondents and directed the
Treatise on Government Contracts Under Philippine petitioners to desist from further demolition with the
Law, 2001, supra., pp. 22-23). Otherwise stated, the warning that violation of said order would lead to a
proposed contract is unenforceable as to the
citation for contempt and arrest.
Government.
Petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of CHR and
While this is not the proceeding to determine where
the culpability lies, however, the constitutional moved for the dismissal of the CHR case. CHR cited
mandate cited above constrains us to remind all petitioners in contempt for carrying out the
public officers that public office is a public trust and demolition despite the order to desist and imposes a
all public officers must at all times be accountable to fine of 500.00 on each of them.
the people. The authority of public officers to enter
into government contracts is circumscribed with a The motion to dismiss filed by petitioners to CHR was
heavy burden of responsibility. In the exercise of denied and the motion for reconsideration was also
their contracting prerogative, they should be the first dismissed.
judges of the legality, propriety and wisdom of the
contract they entered into. They must exercise a high Hence, this case.
degree of caution so that the Government may not
be the victim of ill-advised or improvident action
ISSUE:
(Rivera v. Maclang, 7 SCRA 57 [1963]).
1. Whether CHR has Jurisdiction over the case

ON QUESTIONS: and whether they have an adjudicatory
power.
CAN THE CHR issue a TRO?
DOES IT HAVE CONTEMPT POWER? 2. Whether CHR has the power to issue TRO.
DOES THE CHR have adjudicatory power?
3. Whether CHR has contempt power.
See Case of Simon Jr.
RULING:
SIMON JR. VS. CHR
GR NO. 100150, JANUARY 5, 1994 1. NO. In its Order x x x denying petitioners motion
to dismiss, the CHR theorizes that the intention of
the members of the Constitutional Commission is to
VITUG, J.:
make CHR a quasi-judicial body. This view, however,
has not heretofore been shared by this Court. In
FACTS: Carino v. Commission on Human Rights (204 SCRA
483, 492), the Court x x x has observed that it is
A Demolition Notice was signed by Carlos Quimpoin only the first of the enumerated powers and
his capacity as an Executive Officer of the Quezon functions that bears any resemblance to adjudication
City Integrated Hawkers Management Council under of adjudgment, but that resemblance can in no way
the Office of the City Mayor. This Notice was sent to be synonymous to the adjudicatory power itself. The
the private respondents, the members and officers Court explained:
of the North EDSA Vendors Association,
Page | 20
x x x [T]he Commission on Human Rights x x x was government (See Export Processing Zone Authority
not meant by the fundamental law to be another v. Commission on Human Rights, 208 SCRA 125).
court or quasi-judicial agency in this country, or
duplicate much less take over the functions of the 3. YES. On its contempt powers, the CHR is
latter. The most that may be conceded to the constitutionally authorized to adopt its operational
Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for
contempt for violations thereof in accordance with
it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make
the Rules of Court. Accordingly, the CHR acted
findings of fact as regards claimed human rights
within its authority in providing in its revised rules,
violations involving civil and political rights. But fact its power to cite or hold any person in direct or
finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to indirect contempt, and to impose the appropriate
the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a penalties in accordance with the procedure and
quasi-judicial agency or official. The function of sanctions provided for in the Rules of Court. That
receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the power to cite for contempt, however, should be
facts of a controversy is not a judicial function, understood to apply only to violations of its adopted
properly speaking. To be considered such, the operational guidelines and rules of procedure
faculty of receiving evidence and making factual essential to carry out its investigatorial powers. To
conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied exemplify, the power to cite for contempt could be
by the authority of applying the law to those factual exercised against persons who refuse to cooperate
with the said body, or who unduly withhold relevant
conclusions to the end that the controversy may be
information, or who decline to honor summons, and
decided or determined authoritatively, finally and
the like, in pursuing its investigative work. The order
definitively, subject to such appeals or modes of
to desist (a semantic interplay for a restraining
review as may be provided by law. This function, to order) in the instance before us, however, is not
repeat, the Commission does not have. investigatorial in character but prescinds from an
adjudicative power that it does not possess.
2. NO. In Export Processing Zone Authority v.
Commission on Human rights (208 SCRA 125, 131),
the Court x x x explained:
ON JURISDICTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
The constitutional provision directing the CHR to
BODIES
provide for preventive measures and legal aid
services to the underprivileged whose human rights
have been violated or need protection may not be
ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS
construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission
CORPORATION v. CA, ROSALIE OROPESA
to issue a restraining order or writ of injunction for,
and/or NESTOR OROPESA
if that were the intention, the Constitution would
G.R. No. 92461. September 2, 1992
have expressly said so. Jurisdiction is conferred only
by the Constitution or by law. It is never derived by
implication.
NOCON, J.:
Evidently, the preventive measures and legal aid
FACTS:
services mentioned in the Constitution refer to
extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a writ
On May 23, 1988, petitioner, who is the developer of
of preliminary injunction) which the CHR may seek
a subdivision in Antipolo, filed a complaint before
from the proper courts on behalf of the victims of
RTC of Manila for collection of the amount due under
human rights violations. Not being a court of justice,
a promissory note executed by respondents
the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ,
representing the unpaid balance of the purchase
for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be
price of a lot bought by the latter from the former.
issued by the judge of any court in which the action
is pending [within his district], or by a Justice of the
Respondents refused to pay the balance of the
Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Court. x x x. A
purchase price of the subdivision lot due to
writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary remedy.
petitioners abandonment of its undertaking to fully
It is available only in a pending principal action, for
develop the Antipolo Hills Subdivision.
the preservation or protection of the rights and
interest of a party thereto, and for no other
This lead to respondents and other buyers to form
purpose.
the Antipolo Hills Homeowners Association in order
that they may better be heard by petitioner.
The Commission does have legal standing to indorse,
for appropriate action, its findings and
The Association filed a complaint against petitioner
recommendations to any appropriate agency of
Page | 21
before the HLURB, pursuant to its exclusive jurisdiction lies with the HLURB, and not with the civil
jurisdiction as provided under P.D. 957, for non- courts.
development of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision and
prayed that petitioner be restrained from collecting The contention of the petitioner that HLURB has no
the monthly amortization of the homeowners, to take jurisdiction because what the law provides is that it
over the development of the Antipolo Hills may take over only those cases filed by the lot buyers
Subdivision and to allow respondents to directly against the developer and not vice versa is
make their payment of monthly amortizations with untenable. The exclusive jurisdiction vested in the
the HLURB which the latter granted. Petitioner NHA is broad and general to regulate the real
appealed the decision to the same board but the estate trade and business in accordance with the
latter sustained the decision. provisions of said law. As clarified in PD 1344, such
exclusive jurisdiction includes jurisdiction to hear and
On the other hand, the petition filed by petitioner in decide cases involving unsound real estate business
RTC Manila was granted. practices (Sec. 1 [A]) as well as claims for refund
and complaints for specific performance filed by the
ISSUE: buyer (paragraphs B&C) of PD 1344."
Whether RTC and not the HLURB has the jurisdiction

to hear and determine cases filed by developer to lot
buyers as the mentioned cause of action did not fall ON DUE PROCESS
under HLURBs jurisdiction.
ANG TIBAY, represented by TORIBIO
RULING: TEODORO, manager and propietor, and
NATIONAL WORKERS BROTHERHOOD vs.
NO. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and
NATIONAL LABOR UNION, INC.,
Section 1 of PD 1344 gives the National Housing G.R. No. L-46496. February 27, 1940
Authority (NHA) now HLURB, the exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide certain cases as LAUREL, J.:
follows:
FACTS:
"SECTION 1. In the exercise of its function to
regulate the real estate trade and business and in Teodoro Toribio owns and operates Ang Tibay, a
addition to its powers provided for in Presidential leather company which supplies the Philippine Army.
Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall Due to alleged shortage of leather, Toribio caused
have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases the layoff of a number of his employees. However,
of the following nature: the National Labor Union, Inc. (NLU) questioned the
validity of said lay off as it averred that the said
A. Unsound real estate business practices: employees laid off were members of NLU while no
B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed members of the rival labor union (National Workers
by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against Brotherhood) were laid off. NLU claims that NWB is
the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or a company dominated union and Toribio was merely
salesman; and busting NLU.
C. Cases involving specific performance of
contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers The case reached the Court of Industrial Relations
of subdivision lot or condominium unit against the (CIR) where Toribio and NWB won. Eventually, NLU
owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman." went to the Supreme Court invoking its right for a
new trial on the ground of newly discovered
The constitutionality of such grant of exclusive evidence. The Supreme Court agreed with NLU. The
jurisdiction to the National Housing Authority (now Solicitor General, arguing for the CIR, filed a motion
HLURB) over cases involving the sale of commercial for reconsideration.
subdivisions was upheld in Tropical Homes case.
ISSUE:
A close scrutiny of the complaint discloses that the
promissory note upon which the collection suit is
Whether or not the National Labor Union, Inc. is
predicated, merely schedules the amortization of the
entitled to a new trial for the appreciation of new
balance or unpaid portion of the purchase price of
evidence considering also that respondents were
the house and lot. What appellant is collecting
denied due process for laying off employees without
involves the "sales of lots in commercial
just cause.
subdivisions," which per the Tropical Homes case
Page | 22
RULING: (7) The administrative body should, in all

controversial questions, render its decision in such a
Yes. The records show that the newly discovered manner that the parties to the proceeding can know
evidence or documents obtained by NLU, which they the various issues involved, and the reasons for the
attached to their petition with the SC, were evidence decisions rendered. The performance of this duty is
so inaccessible to them at the time of the trial that inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.
even with the exercise of due diligence they could
not be expected to have obtained them and offered In this case due process requirements are not totally
as evidence in the Court of Industrial Relations. observed in CIR for the respondents lack evidence
to support their claims which in fact is existing at that
Further, the attached documents and exhibits are of time. Acquiring the aforementioned evidence, it is
such far-reaching importance and effect that their the CIR that has the proper forum and jurisdiction to
admission would necessarily mean the modification appreciate evidences that would comply the
and reversal of the judgment rendered (said newly respondents right to due process.
obtained records include books of business/inventory
accounts by Ang Tibay which were not previously
accessible but already existing). EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION vs.
NLRC and RICARDO L. SADAC
The SC also outlined that administrative bodies, like G.R. No. 102467 June 13, 1997
the CIR, although not strictly bound by the Rules of
Court must also make sure that they comply to the VITUG, J.:
requirements of due process. For administrative
bodies, due process can be complied with by FACTS:
observing the following:
(1) The right to a hearing which includes the right Petition to go against the decision of NLRC in holding
of the party interested or affected to present his that Sadac as the VP for the legal department of bank
own case and submit evidence in support a regular employee of the bank.
thereof.
Sadac was appointed VP for the legal department of
(2) Not only must the party be given an
opportunity to present his case and to adduce bank with monthly salary, allowance and Christmas
evidence tending to establish the rights which he bonus, with specific legal tasks to perform for the
asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence bank.
presented.
Later, nine lawyers of the bank's legal department
(3) While the duty to deliberate does not impose addressed a petition-letter to the chairman of the
the obligation to decide right, it does imply a board of directors accusing Sadac of abusive
necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that conduct, inefficiency, mismanagement,
of having something to support its decision. A ineffectiveness and indecisiveness.
decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a
nullity, a place when directly attached.
Sadac promptly minifested to file criminal, civil and
administrative chrges against the nine lawyers. Then
(4) Not only must there be some evidence to
support a finding or conclusion but the evidence Chairman Morales called the lawyers in attempt to
must be substantial. Substantial evidence is more resolve the differences, but didn't result positively.
than a mere scintilla It means such relevant evidence Morales in the board meeting then apprised the
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to situation, directors adopted a resolution directing
support a conclusion. one of the directors (Banico) to look further into the
matter and determine the best course of action for
(5) The decision must be rendered on the the bank.
evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties Banico after his meetings with the lawyers and
affected. exploring various alternatives to solve the crisis, but
failed wrote to the board of directors his findings
(6) The administrative body or any of its judges,
affirming the charges against Sadac. Morales then
therefore, must act on its or his own independent
sent Sadac a memorandum informing him of the
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy,
and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in charge, the findings of Banico and the expression of
arriving at a decision. the boards' loss of confidence upon him and that
they advise and awaits for Sadac's resignation.
Page | 23
In reaction to the memorandum, Sadac addressed a Article 282(c) of the Labor Code provides that "willful
letter to Morales with copies furnish to the directors, breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him
stating that the findings of Banico contained libelous by his employer" is a cause for the termination of
statements and the decision of the board will amount employment by an employer. Ordinary breach of
to illegal dismissal; with request for a full hearing by trust will not suffice, it must be willful and without
the directors so he could clear his name. justifiable excuse. This ground must be founded on
facts established by the employer who must clearly
and convincingly prove by substantial evidence the
Vice-chairman Romulo answered Sadac that they are
facts and incidents upon which loss of confidence in
exercising its managerial prerogative to control, the employee may fairly be made to rest; otherwise,
conduct business in the manner deems fit and to the dismissal will be rendered illegal.
regulate the same.
Confident that no employer-employee existed
In reaction thereto, Sadac requested for a full between the bank and private respondent,
hearing and formal investigation but the same petitioners have put aside the procedural
remained unheeded. On 9 November 1989, requirements for terminating one's employment, i.e.,
respondent Sadac filed a complaint for illegal (a) a notice apprising the employee of the particular
dismissal with damages against petitioner Bank and acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought,
individual members of the Board of Directors thereof. and (b) another notice informing the employee of the
After learning of the filing of the complaint, petitioner employer's decision to dismiss him. Failure to
Bank terminated the services of respondent Sadac. comply with these requirements taints the dismissal
Finally, on 10 August 1989, Sadac was removed from with illegality. This procedure is mandatory, any
his office. judgment reached by management without that
compliance can be considered void and
inexistent. While it is true that the essence of due
Labor Arbiter rendered decision that Sadacs
process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as
termination was illegal and entitled to reinstatement applied in administrative proceedings, an opportunity
and payment of full back wages. NLRC affirmed the to explain one's side, meetings in the nature of
decision upon appeal by the Bank. Sadac filed for consultation and conferences such as the case here,
execution of judgment where it gave its computation however, may not be valid substitutes for the proper
which amounted to P 6.03 M representing his back observance of notice and hearing.
wages and the increases he should have received
during the time he was illegally dismissed. The Bank In this place petitioner believes that the relation
opposed to Sadacs computation. The Labor Arbiter between them was not actually within the scope of
favor Sadacs computation. NLRC, upon appeal by an employer employee relationship as required
the bank, reversed the decision. CA reversed the under the Labor Code, hence mere termination on
decision of NLRC. Hence, this petition. the ground of loss of confidence is enough. However,
in this case the court finds that there exist that
ISSUE: relationship and the respondent may be terminated
only upon just cause and with proper notice and
hearing which are not accorded by the respondent.
Whether respondent was dismissed without due
process of law.
ADAMSON & ADAMSON, INC., vs.
RULING: HON. AUGUSTO M. AMORES, JOHNSON &
JOHNSON [PHILIPPINES], INC. and the
BOARD OF INVESTMENTS
Yes. The existence of an employer-employee
G.R. No. L-58292. July 23, 1987
relationship, between the bank and private
respondent brings the case within the coverage of
the Labor Code. Under the Code, an employee may FERNAN, J.:
be validly dismissed if these requisites are attendant:
(1) the dismissal is grounded on any of the causes FACTS:
stated in Article 282 of Labor Code, and (2) the
employee has been notified in writing and given the Adamson, a Foreign national corporation (Adamson
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself as so at that time, was not yet a Philippine national as
required by Section 2 and Section 5, Rule XIV, Book defined in RA 5186) and a manufacturer of hygienic
V, of the Implementing Rules of the Labor and other related products applied for Certificate of
Code. Authority to BOI in compliance with the Foreign
Investment Act (RA 5455) requiring foreign national
Page | 24
corporation to obtain the said certificate in order for requirements of due process in justiciable cases
them to expand their business activities to areas presented before them. However, the standard of
which is within their primary purpose. They need to due process that must be met in administrative
secure the certificate because at that time that the tribunals allows a certain latitude as long as the
two laws mentioned are enacted, they are not yet element of fairness is not ignored. Hence, there is no
actually manufacturing their products. denial of due process where records show that
hearings were held with prior notice to adverse
parties. But even in the absence of previous notice,
Johnson another foreign corporation was also in the
there is no denial of procedural due process as long
same line of business with Adamson. as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard.
Based on the foregoing, the court rule that petitioner
Sometime in 1979, after it had acquired new was not deprived of its right to procedural due
machineries, Johnson commenced the manufacture process in the BOI. In the first place, it was notified
and marketing of disposable diapers. During the first of the May 14, 1980 hearing. The notice specified
quarter of 1980, it manufactured sanitary feminine that the hearing was on the petition although it also
tampons and absorbent cotton. stated therein with particularity, petitioner's prayer
for a stop and desist order. Necessarily, it is
Alleging that Johnson should not be allowed to immaterial that said notice was sent before Johnson
expand its business activities "to areas in which it filed its answer to the petition and there was yet no
was not licensed and in which it was not actually joinder of issues considering that the proceeding was
engaged as at the effectivity of Rep. Act Nos. 5186 before an administrative tribunal where technicalities
and 5455 without first obtaining from the Board of that should be observed in a regular court may be
Investments the corresponding certificates of dispensed with.
authority after prior publication and posting of
notices, Adamson filed with BOI a petition praying Secondly, during the hearing, petitioner was given
the opportunity to present its case, including its
for the preliminary stop and desist in the
prayer for a stop and desist order. As clearly
manufacture of the mentioned products.
enunciated in the minutes of the hearing which We
have painstakingly studied and set forth herein to
BOI informed Johnson of the petition and require the determine if any irregularity attended the questioned
latter to answer it. While waiting for the answer of BOI proceeding, it was conducted for the purpose of
Johnson BOI send notice of hearing to the parties. It hearing the arguments and receiving evidence of the
is almost 3 days before the date of the scheduled parties "to resolve the case expeditiously." Having
hearing when Johnson answer. been given the opportunity to put forth its case,
petitioner has only itself, or, better still, its counsel
On the day of the hearing the parties are given and officers who were present therein, to blame for
opportunity to explain their stands and to even cross- its failure to do so.
examine witnesses and to give attachments and
documents. Petitioner's right to procedural due process was not
violated when the hearing was conducted before a
director of the BOI and not before the members of
Impatient on the resolution BOI, Adamson filed a
the board themselves who decided the case. The
motion praying that hearings be scheduled for the requirements of a fair hearing do not mandate that
reception of evidence for a permanent stop and the actual taking of testimony or the presentation of
desist order to Johnson. BOI denied the motion and evidence be before the same officer who will make
release its resolution favoring Johnson. the decision on the case.
Adamson filed to RTC of Manila a petition seeking for AMERICAN TOBACCO vs. THE DIRECTOR OF
judicial relief. PATENTS
G.R. No. L-26803 October 14, 1975
ISSUE:
ANTONIO, J.:
Whether BOI denied due process to Adamson.
FACTS:
RULING:
Petitioners challenge the validity of Rule 168 of the
No. While administrative tribunals exercising quasi- "Revised Rules of Practice before the Philippine
judicial powers are free from the rigidity of certain Patent Office in Trademark Cases" as amended,
procedural requirements they are bound by law and authorizing the Director of Patents to designate any
practice to observe the fundamental and essential ranking official of said office to hear "inter
Page | 25
partes" proceedings. Said Rule likewise provides that The rule that requires an administrative officer to
"all judgments determining the merits of the case exercise his own judgment and discretion does not
shall be personally and directly prepared by the preclude him from utilizing, as a matter of practical
Director and signed by him." This amendment by administrative procedure, the aid of subordinates to
the Director of Patents was approved by the investigate and report to him the facts, on the basis
Secretary of Agriculture. of which the officer makes his decisions. It is
sufficient that the judgment and discretion finally
In accordance with the amended Rule, the Director exercised are those of the officer authorized by law.
of Patents delegated the hearing of petitioners' cases
to hearing officers, specifically, Attys. Amando Neither does due process of law nor the
Marquez, Teofilo Velasco, Rustico Casia and Hector requirements of fair hearing require that the actual
Buenaluz, the other respondents herein. taking of testimony be before the same officer who
will make the decision in the case. As long as a party
Petitioners filed their objections to the authority of is not deprived of his right to present his own case
the hearing officers to hear their cases, alleging that and submit evidence in support thereof, and the
the amendment of the Rule is illegal and void decision is supported by the evidence in the record,
because under the law the Director must personally there is no question that the requirements of due
hear and decide inter partes cases. Said objections process and fair trial are fully met. In short, there is
were overruled by the Director of Patents, hence, the no abnegation of responsibility on the part of the
present petition for mandamus, to compel The officer concerned as the actual decision remains with
Director of Patents to personally hear the cases of and is made by said officer. It is, however, required
petitioners, in lieu of the hearing officers. that to "give the substance of a hearing, which is for
the purpose of making determinations upon
ISSUE: evidence the officer who makes the determinations
must consider and appraise the evidence which
Whether the petitioner was denied due process by justifies them."
the amendment of the Rules of Practice in Philippine
Patents Office to delegate the authority to determine In the case at bar, while the hearing officer may
cases. make preliminary rulings on the myriad of questions
raised at the hearings of these cases, the ultimate
RULING: decision on the merits of all the issues and questions
involved is left to the Director of Patents.
No. It has been held that power-conferred upon an
administrative agency to which the administration of ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC., and L.B.
a statute is entrusted to issue such regulations and NESTLE vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
orders as may be deemed necessary or proper in RELATIONS and EULOGIO P. FLORES
order to carry out its purposes and provisions maybe G.R. No. L-15118. December 29, 1960
an adequate source of authority to delegate a
particular function, unless by express provisions of GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:
the Act or by implication it has been withheld. There
is no provision either in Republic Act No. 165 or 166
FACTS:
negativing the existence of such authority, so far as
the designation of hearing examiners is concerned.
Nor can the absence of such authority be fairly On November 9, 1954, upon charges filed by
inferred from contemporaneous and consistent respondent Eulogio P. Flores, and after preliminary
Executive interpretation of the Act. investigation, a complaint for unfair labor practice
was filed in the Court of Industrial Relations by an
It could hardly be expected, in view of the magnitude acting prosecutor of that court against Erlanger and
of his responsibility, to require him to hear personally Galinger, Inc (EGI). The complaint alleged that the
each and every case pending in his Office. This would corporation and general manager, thru their officers,
leave him little time to attend to his other duties. supervisors and agents, initiated and assisted in the
formation of a labor organization composed of their
Thus, it is well-settled that while the power to decide employees and supervisors known as the Kontiki
resides solely in the administrative agency vested by Employees Association and continuously thereafter
law, this does not preclude a delegation of the power interfered with its administration, supported,
to hold a hearing on the basis of which the decision controlled and dominated it, thereby violating the
of the administrative agency will be employees' right to self-organization as provided in
made. section 3 of Republic Act 975; that by reason of the
union activities of Eulogio P. Flores he was
summarily and discriminatorily discharged him.
Page | 26
Answering the complaint, the herein petitioners, findings are not conclusive upon the Industrial Court,
denied the charge of unfair labor practice and as which has the discretion to accept or reject them.
special defenses alleged that the separation of There is, therefore, no reason to fear that the parties
Eulogio P. Flores was justified, and that the filing of who undergo trial under the procedure as above
the complaint by an acting prosecutor of the stated are denied the constitutional guarantee of due
Industrial Court was violative of the law on due process.
process.
The fact that the decision rendered by the court
based upon the report of Hearing Examiner Perez
ISSUE: who heard the evidence only in part is of no moment,
for the court below studied and examined not only
Whether petitioner EGI was denied due process by the evidence received by said hearing examiner but
CIR. also that presented before the others and found that
the findings and conclusions contained in the report
RULING: conform to its own. This court has already ruled, in
the case of Indias vs. Philippine Iron Mines, Inc. (101
No. Petitioners in the first-place question the manner Phil., 297; 54 Off. Gaz., [6] 1817), that "where the
in which the prosecution of the case had been Court of Industrial Relations approved the report of
conducted, alleging that with the filing of the the hearing examiner after a perusal of the record of
complaint by the very same acting prosecutor of the the case, this pre-supposes that it had examined the
Industrial Court who conducted the preliminary evidence and found no justification in modifying his
investigation, the reception of evidence by hearing findings and conclusions. It is not necessary for the
examiners of the same court, and the adoption by court to make in the order its own discussion of the
Judge Tabigne of the report of Examiner Pedro evidence or its own findings of fact."
Perez, the said Industrial Court assumed the role of
accuser, prosecutor and judge at the same time. We VIGAN ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, INC., vs.
find the objection to be without legal basis. The THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
procedure followed by the Industrial Court was in G.R. No. L-19850. January 30, 1964
accordance with section 5(b) of the Industrial Peace
Act (Republic Act No. 875), which reads in part as CONCEPCION, J.:
follows:
FACTS:
. . . Whenever it is charged by an offended party or
his representative that any person engaged or is
RA. 316 granted petitioner Vigan Electric Light
engaging in any unfair labor practice, the Court or
any agency or agent designated by the Court must Company, Inc., a franchise to construct, maintain
investigate such charge and shall have the power to and operate an electric light, heat and/or power
issue and cause to be served upon such person a plant for the purpose of generating and distributing
complaint stating the charges in that respect and light, heat and/or power, for sale within the limits of
containing a notice of hearing before the Court or a several municipalities of the province of Ilocos Sur.
member thereof, or before a designated Hearing Petitioner was also granted certificate of public
Examiner at the time and place fixed therein not less convenience by PSC on the scheduled rates the
than five nor more than ten days after serving the former filed in the latter.
said complaint.
Five years later petitioner received a letter from PCS
Under the above legal provision, it is apparent that informing them of an alleged letter-petition from
the Court of Industrial Relations, in the exercise of
Congressman Crisologo and 107 residents of Vigan
its investigatory powers, in unfair labor practice
for alleged sale of 2000 electric meters in black
cases, may designate its acting prosecutor to
conduct an investigation of the charges filed by the market by the Avegon Co., as anomalous and illegal.
aggrieved party, and later have the complaint filed They also alleged excessive rates of Petitioner.
on the basis of the result of said investigation,
requiring the respondent to file his answer and then Petitioner denied all allegations.
hear both parties thru designated hearing examiners.
Such procedure has been sanctioned by this Court in On March 15, 1962, petitioner received a
case of National Printing Workers vs. Asia Printing, communication form the General Auditing Office
et. al. (99 Phil., 589; 52 Off. Gaz., [12] 5858). It is notifying him that one Mr. Cesar A. Damole had
true that the prosecutors and hearing examiners are "been instructed to make an audit and examination
officers of the court. Their functions and duties as of the books and other records of account" of said
such are, however, well-defined in the law and their
petitioner, "under the provisions of Commonwealth
Page | 27
Act No. 325 and in accordance with the request of commission, and upon the nature and object of such
the Public Service Commission contained in its letter proceedings, that is, whether the proceedings, are,
dated March 12, 1962", and directing petitioner to on the one hand, legislative and rule-making in
cooperate with said Mr. Damole "for the successful character, or are, on the other hand,
accomplishment of his work". determinative and judicial or quasi-judicial, affecting
the rights an property of private or specific persons.
As a general rule, a public utility must be afforded
2 days later PCS order the reduction of rates by the
some opportunity to be heard as to the propriety and
Petitioner and based the reduction on the findings of
reasonableness of rates fixed for its services by a
Mr. Damole that there is an excess of revenue on the public service commission. (43 Am. Jur. 716;
petitioner. Emphasis supplied.)
ISSUE: Wherefore, we hold that the determination of the

issue involved in the order complained of partakes of
Whether petitioners right to due process was denied the nature of a quasi-judicial function and that
by PCS by fixing the rates of the former without having been issued without previous notice and
notice and hearing. hearing said order is clearly violative of the due
RULING: process clause, and, hence, null and void,
Yes. When the rules and/or rates are meant to apply ELISEO SILVA vs. THE HONORABLE
to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the FELICIANO OCAMPO, GABRIEL P. PRIETO and
Philippines, this may partake of a legislative QUINTIN PAREDES, JR., in their capacities as
character, such is not the nature of the order Commissioners of the Public Service
complained of. Indeed, the same
Commission and BELEN CABRERA
applies exclusively to petitioner herein. What is
G.R. No. L-5162. January 31, 1952
more, it is predicated upon the finding of fact
based upon a report submitted by the General
Auditing Office that petitioner is making a profit of BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
more than 12% of its invested capital,
which is denied by petitioner. Obviously, the latter is FACTS:
entitled to cross-examine the maker of said report,
and to introduce evidence to disprove the contents Belen Cabrera filed in the Public Service Commission
thereof and/or explain or complement the same, as an application for a certificate of public convenience
well as to refute the conclusion drawn therefrom by to install, maintain and operate in the City of Lipa an
the respondent. In other words, in making said ice plant with a 10-ton daily productive capacity and
finding of fact, respondent performed a to sell the product of said plant in said city as well as
function partaking of a quasi-judicial character the in several municipalities of the province of Batangas.
valid exercise of which demands previous notice and Eliseo Silva opposed the application on the ground
hearing. that his ice plant was adequate to meet the needs of
the public and that public convenience did not
Indeed, sections 16(c) and 20 (a) of Commonwealth require the operation of another ice plant.
Act No. 146, explicitly require notice and hearing Commissioner Feliciano Ocampo commissioned
with the PCS when it performs it quasi-judicial Attorney Antonio H. Aspillera, chief of the legal
function. division, to receive the evidence. Based on the
evidence received by Aspillera, the Commission
Since compliance with law must be presumed, it granted the application. On appeal, however, the
should be assumed that petitioner's current rates Supreme Court held that the proceedings had before
were fixed by respondent after proper notice and Attorney Aspillera were null and void being in
hearing. Hence, modification of such rates cannot be violation of section 3 of the Public Service Act, as
made, over petitioner's objection, without such amended, and set aside the decision of the
notice and hearing, particularly considering that the Commission and ordered that the case returned for
re-hearing.
factual basis of the action taken by respondent is
assailed by petitioner.
At the re-hearing of the case Comm. Ocampo allows
Belen Cabrera the submission or refiling of evidence
Whether notice and a hearing in proceedings before presented at the hearing before Comm. Aspillera as
a public service commission are necessary depends well evidence de novo which petitioner opposed
chiefly upon statutory or constitutional provisions because it will be a contradiction to the ruling of the
applicable to such proceedings, which make notice SC that they may refile evidence presented before if
and hearing, prerequisite to action by the the same was agreed by the parties.
Page | 28
ISSUE: The Public Service Commission has power to grant

temporary or provisional permit when the purpose of
Whether Comm. Ocampo erred in ordering the the permit is to meet an urgent public necessity.
resubmission of the previous evidence and whether
PSC has the authority to issue provisional permit to FORTUNATO F. HALILI vs. PUBLIC SERVICE
operate. COMMISSION and CAM TRANSIT CO., INC.,
G.R. No. L-5948. April 29, 1953
RULING:
Yes and Yes. In this case the court agreed that LABRADOR, J.:
Comm. Ocampo erred in ruling the resubmission of
the evidence presented before Atty. Aspillera as it FACTS:
would negate the very essence of Re-hearing the
case. However, they ruled and they found out that Petitioner herein is the holder of various certificates
the evidence was actually used by the Commission of public convenience to operate auto-truck services
for the purposes of determining whether the between Balara and various points in the city of
applicant could be given a provisional authority to Manila and its suburbs. Respondent CAM Transit Co.,
operate. Inc., also holds a certificate of public convenience to
operate a line of trucks between Balara and City Hall,
As the court held:
Manila. This certificate was obtained by it through
assignment, with the approval of the Public Service
Hearing of a contested application for a permanent
Commission, from Benjamin Encarnacion. One of the
certificate of public convenience before any officer
original lines granted to Benjamin Encarnacion. now
other than a Commissioner of the Public Service
operated by the respondent CAM Transit Co., Inc., is
Commission is null and void under section3 of the
the Balara-City Hall (Manila), via Kamuning line,
Public Service Act. If a re-hearing of a contested
starting at Balara fifter plant, passing through
application was ordered by the Supreme Court for a
Barangka road, Marikina-San Juan road, Highway 54,
violation of section 3 of said Act, the applicant has
Kamuning road, etc
no alternative but to present evidence de novo,
unless of course, said parties agree at said hearing
On July 2, 1952, CAM Transit Co., Inc., filed a
or hearings to re-submit the evidence already
petition with the respondent Commission, alleging
presented and taken down, with such modifications
that the route authorized in its City Hall (Manila)-
and under such conditions as they may agree upon, Balara line, and passing along the Marikina-Barangka
including such other evidence which they may wish road, Marikina-San Juan road, and Highway 54, is
to present. The rationale of the rule is none other entirely different from that supported by the
than to make the Commission, or any of the evidence presented in the hearing, and praying that
Commissioners who may be authorized for this the certificate be amended so that the route
purpose, to try the case or, receive the evidence authorized should be along Highway 54, Silagan
itself, as the law requires, so that it may have the Avenue, U.P. site, ending at Balara, instead of
necessary opportunity for observation and Highway 54, Marikina San Juan road, Barangka road,
appreciation of the evidence to enable it to reach an ending at Balara. Acting upon this petition, the
accurate and intelligent conclusion. Mere re- respondent Commission on the following day, July 3,
1952, and without a previous notice to the petitioner
submission of the evidence already presented would
or a previous hearing thereon, ordered the
not meet this compelling objective, the only
modification of the line in accordance with the
exception being when the opposing parties agree to petition.
such re-submission. This is a privilege that they can
exercise or waive in the use of their discretion. ISSUE:
However, for the purpose of the issuance of a Whether the order for amendment of the route,
provisional permit, there being an urgent public need without notice to the petitioner or hearing in which
for the service of applicant, not only by the people of the latter may be given opportunity to be present,
the vicinity but also of the neighboring towns, was lawfully and validly issued by the Commission.
although the evidence presented by the applicant
has been admitted in violation of Sec. 3 of said Act RULING:
on a directive of the Supreme Court, such evidence
No. The amendment of the respondent operator's
may serve as justification, if the Commission so finds
lines affects the rights granted and guaranteed by
it, to warrant the issuance of a provisional permit.
the certificate of public convenience of the petitioner.
Page | 29
To allow the respondent Commission to authorize the respondent Ago protested claiming that "its eastern
amendment, without giving the petitioner boundary should be the provincial boundary line of
opportunity to be heard and express his objections Agusan-Surigao as described in Section 1 of Art.
thereto, is clearly a deprivation of a precious right 1693 of the Philippine Commission as indicated in the
and privilege without due process of law. green pencil in the attached sketch" of the areas as
."Due process of law, or, in the mean accord with the prepared by the Bureau of Forestry. However, upon
procedure outlines in the law, or, in the absence of reviewing the documents (license control maps) of
express procedure, under such safeguards for the the boundaries, and considering the evidence
protection of individual rights as the settled maxims presented, the Director of Forestry ruled that "the
of law permit and sanction for the particular class of claim of the Ago Timber Corporation runs counter to
cases to which the one in question belongs," (16 the intentions of this Office is granting the license of
C.J.S., 1141.) In the case at bar, the Public Service Mr. Narciso Lansang; and further, that it also runs
Act does not include the amendment made in the counter to the intentions of this Office in granting the
disputed order among those may be ordered without Timber License Agreement to the Lianga Bay
notice or hearing in accordance with Section 17 of Logging Co., Inc. The intentions of this Office in
the Act. Is the amendment, without notice or granting the two licenses (Lansang and Lianga Bay
hearing, permitted by the well settled maxims of Logging Co., Inc.) are patently manifest in
law? We declare it is not, because due process of law that distances and bearings are the controlling
guarantees notices and opportunity to be heard to factors. Hence, they denied the claims of Ago.
persons who would be affected by the order or act
contemplated. A motion for reconsideration was filed but the same
denied. Ago also elevated the matter to the Office of
It is therefore hold that the amendment authorized the president which denied the same. Hence Ago
by the order of the respondent Commission of July filed a petition seeking judicial remedy in RTC of
3,1952, is not authorized by the facts contained in Agusan for the determination of correct boundaries.
the decision granting the certificate of public RTC ruled in favor of Ago.
convenience in favor of the predecessor in interest
of the respondent operator, and that even if there ISSUE:
was really an error in the original decision fixing the
route , in that the said routes were not in accordance Whether the judge is correct in taking cognizance of
with the evidence submitted, the issuance of the the case excercising Judicial review.
order without proper notice to the petitioner and
opportunity on the part of the latter to be heard in RULING:
relation to the petition, is a violation of the
petitioner's right not be deprived of his property No in this particular case. Respondent Judge
without due process of law. erred in taking cognizance of the complaint filed by
respondent Ago, asking for the determination anew
LIANGA BAY LOGGING, CO., INC., vs. HON. of the correct boundary line of its licensed timber
MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, and AGO TIMBER area, for the same issue had already been
CORPORATION determined by the Director of Forestry, the Secretary
G.R. No. L-30637. July 16, 1987 of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Office
of the President, administrative officials under whose
TEEHANKEE, C.J.: jurisdictions the matter properly belongs. Section
1816 of the Revised Administrative Code vests in the
Bureau of Forestry, the jurisdiction and authority
FACTS:
over the demarcation, protection, management,
reproduction, reforestation, occupancy, and use of
The parties herein are both forest concessionaries all public forests and forest reserves and over the
whose licensed areas are adjacent to each other. granting of licenses for game and fish, and for the
Since the concessions of petitioner and respondent taking of forest products, including stone and earth
are adjacent to each other, they have a common therefrom. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
boundary-the Agusan-Surigao Provincial boundary- Resources, as department head, may repeal or
whereby the eastern boundary of respondent Ago's modify the decision of the Director of Forestry when
concession is petitioner Lianga's western boundary. advisable in the public interests, whose decision is in
Because of reports of encroachment by both parties turn appealable to the Office of the President.
on each other's concession areas, the Director of
Forestry ordered a survey to establish on the ground Courts of justice devoid of jurisdiction to take
the common boundary of their respective concession cognizance of purely administrative matters. In
areas. Forester Cipriano Melchor undertook the giving due course to the complaint below, the
survey and fixed their common boundaries which respondent court would necessarily have to assess
Page | 30
and evaluate anew all the evidence presented in the and awarding it to the protestant, private respondent
administrative proceedings, which is beyond its Alejandro Cruz.
competence and jurisdiction. For the respondent
court to consider and weigh again the evidence Pursuant to its "Land for the Landless Program," the
already presented and passed upon by said officials City of Manila, through its City Tenants' Security
would be to allow it to substitute its judgment for Commission, undertook to subdivide and award
that of said officials who are in a better position to
parcels of land of the former Teresa Estate II, in
consider and weigh the same in the light of the
Sampaloc, Manila, to the occupants thereof. Lot 3,
authority specifically vested in them by law. Such a
posture cannot be entertained, for it is a well-settled Block 3 was subdivided into three lots.
doctrine that the courts of justice will generally not
interfere with purely administrative matters which In 1958, private respondent Alejandro Cruz, who was
are addressed to the sound discretion of government the original lessee of the area, subsequently,
agencies and their expertise unless there is a clear constructed a residential house thereon. In the same
showing that the latter acted arbitrarily or with grave year, he sublet his house on Lot 3-A to the petitioner.
abuse of discretion or when they have acted in a
capricious and whimsical manner such that their Availing of the City's "Land for the Landless
action may amount to an excess or lack of Program," both parties filed with the City Tenants'
jurisdiction. Security Commission, their applications to purchase
Lots 3-A and 3-C. On June 24, 1977, Lot 3-A was
A doctrine long recognized is that where the law
awarded to Rosario while Lot 3-C was awarded to
confines in an administrative office the power to
Cruz.
determine particular questions or matters, upon the
facts to be presented, the jurisdiction of such office
shall prevail over the courts. The general rule, under Not satisfied with just Lot 3-C, Cruz opposed the
the principles of administrative law in force in this award of Lot 3-A to Rosario on the ground that, as a
jurisdiction, is that decisions of administrative mere lessee of Cruz's house, and not a house owner-
officers shall not be disturbed by the courts, except applicant.
when the former have acted without or in excess of
their jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. After conducting an investigation, the City Tenants'
Findings of administrative officials and agencies who Security Commission issued a Resolution No. 018-78
have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is dated December 8, 1978 revoking the award of Lot
confined to specific matters are generally accorded 3-A to Rosario and awarding it to Cruz
not only respect but at times even finality of such
findings is supported by substantial evidence. As
the Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint on
recently stressed by the Court, "in this era of clogged
court dockets, the need for specialized administrative the ground that plaintiff had not been denied
boards or commissions with the special knowledge, procedural due process, and that he failed to exhaust
experience and capability to hear and determine administrative remedies for he should have appealed
promptly disputes on technical matters or essentially the resolution of the City Tenants' Security
factual matters, subject to judicial review in case of Commission to the Office of the President before
grave abuse of discretion, has become well-nigh seeking a judicial review thereof. As no appeal had
indispensable. been taken in due time, the resolution became final
and executory.
JUANITO A. ROSARIO vs. THE HON. COURT
OF APPEALS, and ALEJANDRO CRUZ ISSUE:
G.R. No. 89554 July 10, 1992
Whether court may dismiss the case on the ground
GRIO-AQUINO, J.: of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
(Whether the doctrine is jurisdictional)
FACTS:
RULING:
This is a petition for review of the decision of the
Court of Appeals affirming the dismissing his action No. Unfortunately, both the trial court and the Court
to annul and set aside the City Tenants' Security of Appeals skirted that legal issue and simply
Commission's Resolution No. 018-78, revoking the dismissed Rosario's petition for review of the
award to him of Lot 3, being a portion of Lot 3, Block Resolution of the City Tenants' Security Commission
3 of the former Teresa Estate II in Sampaloc, Manila, on the grounds of non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies and tardiness.
Page | 31
Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not, JOSE T. VIDUYA, as collector of Customs of

however, necessarily fatal to an action. Thus, did we the Port of Manila vs. EDUARDO BERDIAGO
rule in Soto vs. Jareno, 144 SCRA 116: alias EDUARDO BERTIAGO; and HON.
ANDRES REYES, as Presiding Judge of Branch
Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of VI, Court of First Instance of Rizal
administrative remedies does not affect the G.R. No. L-29218 October 29, 1976
jurisdiction of the court. The only effect of non-
compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the FERNANDO, J.:
complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground
for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper Except in the case of the search of a dwelling house,
time, this ground is deemed waived and the court persons exercising police authority under the
can then take cognizance of the case and try it. customs law may affect search and seizure without
It does not appear in this case that a motion to a search warrant in the enforcement of customs
dismiss based on non-exhaustion of administrative laws.
remedies had been filed. We therefore feel, as we
did in a number of cases before this, that "where the FACTS:
equities warrant such extraordinary recourse," the
petition may be given due course. Respondent Berdiago is the owner of a Rolls Royce
car, Model 1966, which arrived in the Port of Manila
Interpreting Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 539 on January 8, 1968. However, the petitioner, Jose
(after which the City Tenants' Security Commission Viduya, then Collector of Customs of Manila,
was modelled) this Court in Santiago, et al. vs. Cruz, obtained reliable intelligence that fraudulent
et al. (98 Phil. 168, 169) stressed that "the documents were used by Berdiago in securing the
intendment of the law is to award the lots to those release of the car from the Bureau of Customs,
who may apply in the order mentioned" that is, the making it appear therein that the car was a 1961
"first choice is given to the bona fide'tenants,' the model instead of a 1966 one, thus enabling
second to the 'occupants' and the last to 'private respondent to pay a much lower customs duty.
individuals.
There was, accordingly, a formal demand for the
WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent court in CA- payment of the sum to cover the deficiency,
G.R. SP No. 16755 is hereby REVERSED and SET respondent manifesting his willingness to do so but
ASIDE. The award of Lot No. 3-A, Block 3 to the failing to live up to his promise. As the car was kept
private respondent, Alejandro Cruz, by the City in a dwelling house at the Yabut Compound, two
Tenants' Security Commission under its Resolution is officials of the Customs Police Service as duly
annulled and set aside. Petitioner Juanito A. Rosario authorized agents of petitioner, applied to
is declared to have a preferential right to purchase respondent Judge for a warrant to search said
Lot No. 3-A, and the City Tenants' Security dwelling house and to seize the Rolls Royce car found
Commission is ordered to award the sale thereof to therein.
him.
Berdiago filed a motion to quash the search warrant
Petitioner Rosario may either reimburse respondent issued by the court based on lack of probable cause
for one-half of the value of the part of Cruz's house to issue the warrant. Collector Viduya opposed,
situated on Lot 3-A and occupied by petitioner, or alleging that Berdiago could not rely on the
allow Cruz to remove his house at his own expense. constitutional right against unreasonable search and
If petitioner exercises the first option, the value of seizure because it was not shown that he owned the
the improvement shall be determined by a dwelling house which was searched. Nonetheless,
committee composed of the parties or their respondent Judge in the challenged order quashed
authorized representatives, and a representative of such search warrant.
the trial court.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Judge committed grave

abuse of discretion in quashing the warrant.
Page | 32
RULING: ships in transit through the Bureau of Customs,

thereby evading payment of the corresponding
The Court opined that except in the case of the customs duties, and were found inside the Toms
search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police electronics and Sony Merchandising after
authority under the customs law may effect search valuation, the Collector of Customs issued warrants
and seizure without a search warrant in the of seizure and detention Nos: 14925 ad 14925-A.
enforcement of customs laws. There is justification
then for the insistence on the part of private Search Warrant:
respondent that probable cause be shown. So
respondent Judge found in issuing the search Various electronics equipment like cassette tape
warrant. recorders, car stereos, phonograph needles, portable
TV sets, imported long playing records, spare parts
Apparently, he was persuaded to quash it when he of TVs and Radios and other electrical appliances.
noted that the warrant for seizure and detention
came later than its issuance. In thus acting, ISSUE:
respondent Judge apparently overlooked that long
before the search warrant was applied for, to be Whether the warrants of seizure and detention are
specific on April 15, 1968, the misdeclaration and general warrant issued in violation of Rule 126,
underpayment was already noted and that thereafter Sections 3 of Rules of Court and thus affect the
on April 24, 1968, private respondent himself agreed power of Custom as an Administrative body.
to make good the further amount due but not in the
sum demanded. RULING:
As the car was kept in a dwelling house, petitioner NO. Section 2208 (Customs) Tariff and Customs
through two of his officers in the Customs Police Code Right of Police Officer to enter in closure, a
Service applied for and was able to obtain the search warehouse, store, or other building or in closure used
warrant. Had there been no such move on the part for keeping or storage or articles does not become a
of petitioner, the duties expressly enjoined on him by dwelling house within the meaning.
law assess and collect all lawful revenues, to prevent
and suppress smuggling and other frauds and to Section 2536 (Seizure of other articles) The
enforce tariff and customs law would not have been Commissioner of Customs and Collector of Customs
performed. and or any other Customs officer, with the prior
authorization in writing by the commissioner, may
While therefore, it is to be admitted that his warrant demand evidence of payment of duties and taxes on
of seizure and detention came later than the search foreign articles.
warrant, there were indubitable facts in existence at
that time to call for its issuance. Certainly, there was Search of Dwelling House (Section 2209) Upon
probable cause. There was evidently need for the warrant issued by a Judge of the Court or such other
issuance of a search warrant. It ought not to have responsible officers as may be authorized by law,
been thereafter quashed. upon sworn application showing probable cause and
particularly describing the place to be searched and
TOMAS CHIA vs. THE ACTING COLLECTOR OF the person or thing to be seized.
CUSTOMS, HON ALFREDO T. FRANCISCO,
Port Area, Manila, and, GENER SULA ASAC,
Camp Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City The warrants issued by the Collector of Customs in
G.R. No. L-43810 September 26, 1989 this case were not general warrant, as erroneously
alleged by petitioner for they identified the stores to
GRIO-AQUINO, J.: be seized, described the articles to be seized and
specified the provision of the Tariff and Customs
FACTS: Code.
A verified report of a confidential informant that Admin law: Upon effecting the seizure of the
asserted electronic and electrical equipment and goods, the Bureau of Customs acquired exclusive
other articles illegally imported into the Philippines jurisdiction not only over the case but also over the
by a syndicate engaged in unlawful shipside goods seized for the purpose of enforcing the tariff
activities (foreign goods are unloaded form foreign and customs laws.
Page | 33
A party dissatisfied with the decision of the Collector

may appeal to the Commissioner of Customs, whose The exception is when it comes to agencies, bureaus,
decision is appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals in and other offices under the executive department,
the manner and within the period prescribed by law the president may deactivate them pursuant to
and regulations. The decision of the Court of Tax control power over such offices, unless such office is
Appeals may be elevated to the Supreme Court for created by the Constitution.
review (Secs. 2309-2316; 2401 & 2402 of the Tariff
and Customs Code; Collector of Customs vs. Torres, This is also germane to the presidents power to
et al., 45 SCRA 272). reorganize the Office of the President. Basis of such
Since petitioner did not exhaust his administrative power also has its roots in two laws i.e., PD 1772 and
remedies, his recourse to this Court is premature PD 1416.
(Acting Collector of Customs of the Port of Manila vs.
Caluag, 20 SCRA 204; Laganapan vs. Asedillo, 154 These decrees expressly grant the President of the
SCRA 377; National Development Co. vs. Hervilla, Philippines the continuing authority to reorganize the
151 SCRA 520). If for no other reason, the petition national government, which includes the power to
is dismissible on that score. group, consolidate bureaus and agencies, to abolish
offices, to transfer functions, to create and classify
BUKLOD NG KAWANING EIIB vs. functions, services and activities and to standardize
HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO B. salaries and materials. The limition to this power to
ZAMORA reorganize is that it must be pursued in good faith.
G.R. Nos. 142801-802. July 10, 2001
Also, it cannot be said that there is bad faith in the
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: abolition of EIIB. EIIB allocations has always
exceeded P100 million per year. To save the
FACTS: government some money, it needed to abolish it and
replace it with TF Aduana which has for its allocation
During the time of President Corazon Aquino, she just P50 million. Further, TYF Aduana is invested
created the Economic Intelligence and Investigation more power that EIIB never had, i.e., search and
Bureau (EIIB) to primarily conduct anti-smuggling seizure and arrest. Lastly, EEIB employees right to
operations in areas outside the jurisdiction of the security of tenure is not violated. Since there is no
Bureau of Customs. In the year 2000, President bad faith in the abolition of EIIB, such abolition is not
Estrada issued an order deactivating the EIIB. He infirm. Valid abolition of offices is neither removal nor
subsequently ordered the employees of EIIB to be separation of the incumbents. If the public office
separated from the service. Thereafter, he created ceases to exist, there is no separation or dismissal to
the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Task Force speak of. Indeed, there is no such thing as an
Aduana, which EIIB employees claim to be absolute right to hold office. Except constitutional
essentially the same as EIIB. The employees of EIIB, offices which provide for special immunity as regards
through the Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB, invoked the salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any
Supreme Courts power of judicial review in vested right in an office or its salary.
questioning the said orders. EIIB employees
maintained that the president has no power to AQUILINO T. LARIN vs. THE EXECUTIVE
abolish a public office, as that is a power solely SECRETARY
lodged in the legislature; and that the abolition G.R. No. 112745 October 16, 1997
violates their constitutional right to security of
tenure. TORRES, JR., J.:
ISSUE: FACTS:
Whether the president has the power to abolish Aquilino Larin was an Assistant Commissioner in the
office and whether petitioners were deprived of their Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). He was in charge
right to security of tenure. of the office of the Excise Tax Service. In 1992, the
Sandiganbayan convicted Larin for grave
RULING: misconduct. His conviction was reported to the Office
of the President, at the same time, an administrative
No. It is a general rule that the power to abolish a complaint was filed with the same office. The
public office is lodged with the legislature. President then, based on the Sandiganbayan
Page | 34
conviction, created a committee to investigate Larin. As a general rule, a reorganization is carried out in
Eventually, Larins removal was recommended. The "good faith" if it is for the purpose of economy or to
President dismissed Larin. make bureaucracy more efficient. In that event no
dismissal or separation actually occurs because the
ISSUE: position itself ceases to exist. And in that case the
security of tenure would not be a Chinese wall. Be
that as it may, if the abolition which is nothing else
1. Whether or not Larin was removed from office
but a separation or removal, is done for political
properly (with just cause)
reasons or purposely to defeat security of tenure, or
otherwise not in good faith, no valid abolition takes
2. Whether the reorganization in this case was place and whatever abolition is done is void ab initio.
pursued in good faith.
There is an invalid abolition as where there is merely
RULING: a change of nomenclature of positions or where
claims of economy are belied by the existence of
1. No. Larin is a presidential appointee who belongs ample funds.
to the career service of the Civil Service. Although it
is a general rule that the power to remove is inherent In this regard, it is worth mentioning that Section 2
in the power to appoint, such power to remove I with of R. A. No. 6656 lists down the circumstances
evidencing bad faith in the removal of employees as
limitations. In the case at bar, the limitation can be
a result of the reorganization, thus:
found in the fact that Larin is a career service officer
and under the Administrative Code of 1987, such
Sec. 2. No officer or employee in the career service
officers who fall under career service are
shall be removed except for a valid cause and after
characterized by the existence of security of tenure,
due notice and hearing. A valid cause for removal
as contra-distinguished from non-career service exists when, pursuant to a bona fide reorganization,
whose tenure is co-terminus with that of the
a position has been abolished or rendered redundant
appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or
or there is a need to merge, divide, or consolidate
limited to a period specified by law or to the duration positions in order to meet the exigencies of the
of a particular project for which purpose the
service, or other lawful causes allowed by the Civil
employment was made. As a career service officer,
Service Law. The existence of any or some of the
Larin enjoys the right to security of tenure. He can following circumstances may be considered as
only be removed from his office on grounds
evidence of bad faith in the removals made as a
enumerated in the Administrative Code of 1987. In
result of the reorganization, giving rise to a claim for
the case at bar, the basis for his removal was his reinstatement or reappointment by an aggrieved
conviction in the Sandiganbayan this is not one of
party:
those grounds enumerated in the Administrative
Code. Further, the Supreme Court notes that when a) Where there is a significant increase in the number
Larins conviction was appealed to the Supreme of positions in the new staffing pattern of the
Court, the Supreme Court actually absolved Larin. department or agency concerned;
2. No. It is Presidential Decree No. 1772 which b) Where an office is abolished and another
amended Presidential Decree No. 1416. These performing substantially the same functions is
decrees expressly grant the President of the created;
Philippines the continuing authority to reorganize the
national government, which includes the power to c) Where incumbents are replaced by those less
group, consolidate bureaus and agencies, to abolish qualified in terms of status of appointment,
performance and merit;
offices, to transfer functions, to create and classify
functions, services and activities and to standardize
d) Where there is a reclassification of offices in the
salaries and materials. department or agency concerned and the reclassified
offices perform substantially the same functions as
While the President's power to reorganize cannot be the original offices;
denied, this does not mean however that the
reorganization itself is properly made in accordance e) Where the removal violates the order of
with law. Well-settled is the rule that reorganization separation provided in Section 3 hereof.
is regarded as valid provided it is pursued in good
faith. Thus, in Dario vs. Mison, this Court has had the A reading of some of the provisions of the questioned
occasion to clarify that: E.O. No. 132 clearly leads the court to an inescapable
Page | 35
conclusion that there are circumstances considered constitutional law is, that the power conferred upon
as evidences of bad faith in the reorganization of the the legislature to make laws cannot be delegated by
BIR. (Example: the increase of number of that department to anybody or authority. Where the
employees.) sovereign power of the State has located the
authority, there it must remain; only by the
THE UNITED STATES vs. ANICETO BARRIAS constitutional agency alone the laws must be made
G.R. No. 4349. September 24, 1908 until the constitution itself is changed.
TRACEY, J.: The power to whose judgment, wisdom, and

patriotism this high prerogative has been entrusted
FACTS: cannot relieve itself of the responsibility by choosing
other agencies upon which the power shall be
In 1904, Congress, through a law (Act No. 1136), developed, nor can its substitutes the judgment,
authorized the Collector of Customs to regulate the wisdom, and patriotism and of any other body for
business of lighterage. Lighterage is a business those to which alone the people have seen fit to
involving the shipping of goods by use of lighters or confide this sovereign trust. This doctrine is based
cascos (small ships/boats). on the ethical principle that such a delegated power
constitutes not only a right but a duty to be
The said law also provides that the Collector may performed by the delegate by the instrumentality of
promulgate such rules to implement Act No. 1136. his own judgment acting immediately upon the
Further, Act No. 1136 provides that in case a fine is matter of legislation and not through the intervening
to be imposed, it should not exceed one hundred mind of another. The Collector cannot exercise a
dollars. Pursuant to this, the Collector promulgated power exclusively lodged in Congress.
Circular No. 397.
Hence, Barrias should be penalized in accordance to
Meanwhile, Aniceto Barrias was caught navigating the penalty being imposed by Act No. 1136. In this
the Pasig River using a lighter which is manually case, the Supreme Court determined that the proper
powered by bamboo poles (sagwan). Such is a fine is $25.00.
violation of Circular No. 397 because under said
Circular, only steam powered ships should be COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs.
allowed to navigate the Pasig River. However, in the HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. COURT OF
information against Barrias, it was alleged that the TAX APPEALS and FORTUNE TOBACCO
imposable penalty against him should be a fine not CORPORATION
exceeding P500.00 at the discretion of the court G.R. No. 119761 August 29, 1996
this was pursuant to Circular No. 397 which provides:
For the violation of any part of the foregoing VITUG, J.:
regulations, the persons offending shall be liable to
a fine of not less than P5 and not more than P500, FACTS:
in the discretion of the court. Barrias now challenged
the validity of such provision of the Circular as it is Fortune Tobacco Corporation is engaged in the
entirely different from the penal provision of Act. No. manufacture of different brands of cigarettes. On
1136 which only provided a penalty of not exceeding various dates, the Philippine Patent Office issued to
$100.00 (Note at that time the peso-dollar exchange the corporation separate certificates of trademark
was more or less equal). registration over "Champion," "Hope," and "More"
cigarettes. The CIR initially classified 'Champion,'
ISSUE: 'Hope,' and 'More' as foreign brands since they were
listed in the World Tobacco Directory as belonging to
Whether the penal provision in the Circular is valid. foreign companies. However, Fortune changed the
names of 'Hope' to Hope Luxury' and 'More' to
RULING: 'Premium More,' thereby removing the said brands
from the foreign brand category. Fortune also
No. The Commissioner cannot impose a different submitted proof the BIR that 'Champion' was an
range of penalty different from that specified by original register and therefore a local brand. Ad
Congress. If the Collector is allowed to do so, then in Valorem taxes were imposed on these brands. RA
effect, it is as if he is being delegated the power to 7654 was passed in it was provided that 55% ad
legislate penalties. One of the settled maxims in valorem tax will be imposed on local brands carrying
Page | 36
a foreign name. Two days before the effectivity of the Center, and duly covered by Tax Debit
RA 7654, the BIR issued Revenue Memorandum Memoranda (TDM) of both the Center and BIR, with
Circular No. 37-93, in which Fortune was to be the latter also issuing the corresponding Accept
imposed 55% ad valorem tax on the three brands Payment for Excise Taxes (APETs). PSPC protested
classifying them as local brands carrying a foreign the collection letter, but it was denied. Because of
name. Fortune filed a petition with the CTA which respondent inaction on a motion for reconsideration
was granted finding the RMC as defective. The CIR PSPC filed a petition for review before the CTA. In
filed a motion for reconsideration with the CTA which 1999, the CTA ruled that the use by PSPC of the TCCs
was denied, then to the CA, an appeal, which was was legal and valid, and that respondents attempt
also denied. to collect alleged delinquent taxes and penalties from
PSPC without an assessment constitutes denial of
ISSUE: due process.
Whether the RMC was valid. Respondent elevated CTA Decision to the Court of
Appeals (CA) through a petition for review.
RULING:
Despite the pendency of this case, PSPC received
NO. The RMC was made to place the three brands assessment letter from respondent for excise tax
as locally made cigarettes bearing foreign brands deficiencies, surcharges, and interest based on the
and to thereby have them covered by RA 7654. first batch of cancelled TCCs and TDM covering
Specifically, the new law would have its amendatory PSPCs use of the TCCs. All these cancelled TDM and
provisions applied to locally manufactured cigarettes TCCs were also part of the subject matter of the now
which at the time of its effectivity were not so pending before the CA. PSPC protested the
classified as bearing foreign brands. Prior to the assessment letter, but the protest was denied by the
issuance of the RMC, the brands were subjected to BIR, constraining it to file another case before the
45% ad valorem tax. In so doing, the BIR not simply CTA. Subsequently, CTA ruled in favor of PSPC and
interpreted the law but it legislated under its quasi- accordingly cancelled and set aside the assessment
legislative authority. The due observance of the issued by the respondent. Respondent motion for
requirements of notice, of hearing, and of publication reconsideration of the above decision which was
should not have been then ignored. The Court is rejected thus respondent appealed the above
convinced that the hastily promulgated RMC 37-93 decision before the CTA En Banc.
has fallen short of a valid and effective administrative
issuance. The CTA En Banc ruled in favor of respondent and
ordered PSPC to pay the amount of P570,577,401.61
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM as deficiency excise tax for the taxable years 1992
CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF and 1994 to 1997, inclusive of 25% surcharge and
INTERNAL REVENUE 20% interest.
G.R. No. 172598. December 21, 2007
ISSUE:
VELASCO, JR., J.:
1. Whether petitioner is liable for the assessment of
FACTS: deficiency excise tax after the validly issued TCCs
were subsequently cancelled for having been issued
In 1988, BIR sent a collection letter to Petitioner fraudulently.
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (PSPC) for
alleged deficiency excise tax liabilities of PhP 2. Whether petitioner was denied procedural due
1,705,028,008.06 for the taxable years 1992 and process.
1994 to 1997, inclusive of delinquency surcharges
and interest. As basis for the collection letter, the BIR RULING:
alleged that PSPC is not a qualified transferee of the
TCCs it acquired from other BOI-registered 1. No. Petitioner is not liable for the assessment of
companies. deficiency excise tax. In the instant case, with due
application, approval, and acceptance of the
These alleged excise tax deficiencies covered by the payment by PSPC of the subject TCCs for its then
collection letter were already paid by PSPC with TCCs outstanding excise tax liabilities in 1992 and 1994 to
acquired through, and issued and duly authorized by 1997, the subject TCCs have been canceled as the
Page | 37
money value of the tax credits these represented following the statutory and procedural requirements
have been used up. clearly provided under the NIRC and applicable
regulations.
Therefore, the DOF through the Center may not now
cancel the subject TCCs as these have already been What is applicable is RR 12-99, which superseded RR
canceled and used up after their acceptance as 12-85, pursuant to Sec. 244 in relation to Sec. 245
payment for PSPCs excise tax liabilities. What has of the NIRC implementing Secs. 6, 7, 204, 228, 247,
been used up, debited, and canceled cannot 248, and 249 on the assessment of national internal
anymore be declared to be void, ineffective, and revenue taxes, fees, and charges. The procedures
delineated in the said statutory provisos and RR 12-
canceled anew. Besides, it is indubitable that with
99 were not followed by respondent, depriving PSPC
the issuance of the corresponding TDM, not only is
of due process in contesting the formal assessment
the TCC canceled when fully utilized, but the
levied against it. Respondent ignored RR 12-99 and
payment is also final subject only to a post-audit on did not issue PSPC a notice for informal
computational errors. Under RR 5-2000, a TDM is a conference and a preliminary assessment notice, as
certification, duly issued by the Commissioner or his required. PSPCs November 4, 1999 motion for
duly authorized representative, reduced in a BIR reconsideration of the purported Center findings and
Accountable Form in accordance with the prescribed cancellation of the subject TCCs and the TDM was
formalities, acknowledging that the taxpayer named not even acted upon.
therein has duly paid his internal revenue tax liability
in the form of and through the use of a Tax Credit PSPC was merely informed that it is liable for the
Certificate, duly issued and existing in accordance amount of excise taxes it declared in its excise tax
with the provisions of these Regulations. The Tax returns for 1992 and 1994 to 1997 covered by the
Debit Memo shall serve as the official receipt from subject TCCs via the formal letter of demand and
the BIR evidencing a taxpayers payment or assessment notice. For being formally defective, the
satisfaction of his tax obligation. The amount shown November 15, 1999 formal letter of demand and
therein shall be charged against and deducted from assessment notice is void. Paragraph 3.1.4 of Sec. 3,
RR 12-99 pertinently provides:
the credit balance of the aforesaid Tax Credit
Certificate. Thus, with the due issuance of TDM by
the Center and TDM by the BIR, the payments made 3.1.4 Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment
Notice.The formal letter of demand and
by PSPC with the use of the subject TCCs have been
assessment notice shall be issued by the
effected and consummated as the TDMs serve as the
Commissioner or his duly authorized representative.
official receipts evidencing PSPCs payment or The letter of demand calling for payment of the
satisfaction of its tax obligation. Moreover, the BIR taxpayers deficiency tax or taxes shall state the
not only issued the corresponding TDM, but it also facts, the law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence
issued ATAPETs which doubly show the payment of on which the assessment is based, otherwise, the
the subject excise taxes of PSPC. Based on the above formal letter of demand and assessment
discussion, we hold that respondent erroneously and notice shall be void. The same shall be sent to the
without factual and legal basis levied the taxpayer only by registered mail or by personal
assessment. Consequently, the CTA En Banc erred in delivery. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
sustaining respondents assessment.
In short, respondent merely relied on the findings of
2. Yes. The facts show that PSPC was not accorded the Center which did not give PSPC ample
due process before the assessment was levied on it. opportunity to air its side. While PSPC indeed
The Center required PSPC to submit certain sales protested the formal assessment, such does not
documents relative to supposed delivery of IFOs by denigrate the fact that it was deprived of statutory
PSPC to the TCC transferors. PSPC contends that it and procedural due process to contest the
could not submit these documents as the transfer of assessment before it was issued.
the subject TCCs did not require that it be a supplier
of materials and/or component supplies to the
transferors in a letter dated October 29, 1999 which
was received by the Center on November 3, 1999.
On the same day, the Center informed PSPC of the
cancellation of the subject TCCs and the TDM
covering the application of the TCCs to PSPCs excise
tax liabilities. The objections of PSPC were brushed
aside by the Center and the assessment was issued
by respondent on November 15, 1999, without
Page | 38
PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT 1987 Constitution regarding the legal matters

CORPORATION vs. NLRC and DANILO [procedural aspect] are applicable because it is the
MERCADO law in force at the time of the decision.
G.R. No. 79182 September 11, 1991
FELICITO R. QUIMPO vs. TANODBAYAN
PARAS, J.: (OMBUDSMAN), GREG DIMAANO and DANNY
F. REMO
FACTS: G.R. No. 72553 December 2, 1986
In June 1985, Danilo Mercado was dismissed by MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

PNOC-Energy Development Corporation (PNOC-
EDC) due to serious acts of dishonesty allegedly FACTS:
committed by Mercado. Mercado then filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal against PNOC-EDC. Petitioner filed with respondent Tanodbayan a
PNOC-EDC filed a motion to dismiss on the ground complaint against private respondents for violation
that the Labor arbiter and/or the National Labor of Republic Act No. 3091 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Relations Commission (NLRC) has no jurisdiction Practices Act).
over PNOC-EDC because it is a subsidiary of the
Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC), a Petitioner alleged that Admiral Adjusters and
government owned or controlled corporation, and as Surveyors, Inc. (AASI), of which he was the
a subsidiary, it is also a GOCC and as such, the president, was engaged by Petrophil Corporation to
proper forum for Mercados suit is the Civil Service render survey services for one (1) year from March
Commission. 1, 1982 to February 28, 1983; that upon the
expiration of the contract, it was renewed for
ISSUE: another period of one (1) year, from March 1, 1983
to February 2, 1984; that sometime in October,
Whether or not PBOC-EDC is correct. 1983, private respondents Greg Dimaano and Danny
Remo, as manager and analyst, respectively, of the
RULING: Bulk Distribution Department and MPED of Petrophil
Corporation, caused the withholding of the fees due
No. The issue in this case has been decided already AASI and required AASI to submit an explanation of
in the case of PNOC-EDC vs Leogardo. It is true that the losses caused by leaking valves as reflected in
PNOC is a GOCC and that PNOC-EDC, being a AASI's survey reports; that despite AASI's
subsidiary of PNOC, is likewise a GOCC. It is also true explanation, private respondents still refused to
that under the 1973 Constitution, all GOCCs are release the payments and even threatened to forfeit
under the jurisdiction of the CSC. However, the 1987 AASI's performance bond and claim damages and
Constitution change all this as it now provides: The losses from AASI; that despite AASI's submission of
Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, several explanations, private respondents refused to
instrumentalities and agencies of the Government, release the fees amounting to P147,300.00.
including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters. (Article IX-B, Private respondents moved to dismiss the Complaint
Section 2 [1]) Hence, the above provision sets the alleging lack of jurisdiction of the Tanodbayan, which
rule that the mere fact that a corporation is a GOCC Motion was opposed by the petitioner.
does not automatically place it under the CSC. Under
this provision, the test in determining whether a ISSUE:
GOCC is subject to the Civil Service Law is the
manner of its creation such that government Whether PETROPHIL Corporation, a subsidiary of the
corporations created by special charter are subject Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC), is a
to its provisions while those incorporated under the government-owned or controlled corporation, whose
general Corporation Law are not within its coverage. employees fall under Tanodbayan jurisdiction, or
In the case at bar, PNOC-EDC, even though it is a not.
GOCC, was incorporated under the general
Corporation Law it does not have its own charter, RULLING:
hence, it is under the jurisdiction of the MOLE. Even
though the facts of this case occurred while the 1973 Employees of PETROPHIL Corporation fall under
Constitution was still in force, the provisions of the Tanodbayan jurisdiction.
Page | 39
It has to be conceded that PETROPHIL was not TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND
created by special law. As the incumbent Solicitor ALLIED SERVICES vs.
General has pointed out, it was originally created as NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION and
a private corporation under the Corporation Law with ATTY. VIRGILIO SY, as Officer-in-Charge of
the name Standard Vacuum Oil Company the Bureau of Labor Relations
(STANVAC). STANVAC was taken over by Esso G.R. No. L-49677 May 4, 1989
Philippines, which was, in turn, bought by Esso
Eastern Standard. Eventually, Esso Eastern Standard REGALADO, J.:
was purchased by the Philippine National Oil
Corporation (PNOC), and its corporate name was FACTS:
changed to Petrophil Corporation.
On July 13, 1977, TUPAS filed a petition for the
While it may be that PETROPHIL was not originally conduct of a certification election with Regional
"created" as a government-owned or controlled Office No. IV of the Department of Labor in order to
corporation, after it was acquired by PNOC, which is determine the exclusive bargaining representative of
a government-owned or controlled corporation, the workers in NHC. It was claimed that its members
PETROPHIL became a subsidiary of PNOC and thus comprised the majority of the employees of the
shed-off its private status. It is now funded and corporation. The petition was dismissed by med-
owned by the government as, in fact, it was acquired arbiter Eusebio M. Jimenez in an order, dated
to perform functions related to government November 7, 1977, holding that NHC "being a
programs and policies on oil, a vital commodity in the government-owned and/or controlled corporation its
economic life of the nation. It was acquired not employees/workers are prohibited to form, join or
temporarily but as a permanent adjunct to perform assist any labor organization for purposes of
essential government or government-related collective bargaining pursuant to Section 1, Rule II,
functions, as the marketing arm of PNOC to assist Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing
the latter in selling and distributing oil and petroleum the Labor Code."
products to assure and maintain an adequate and
stable domestic supply. From this order of dismissal, TUPAS appealed to the
Bureau of Labor Relations where, acting thereon in
It should make no substantial difference that it was BLR Case No. A-984-77 (RO4-MED-1090-77),
not originally "created" as a government-owned or Director Carmelo C. Noriel reversed the order of
controlled corporation. What is decisive is that it has dismissal and ordered the holding of a certification
since been acquired by the Government to perform election. This order was, however, set aside by
functions related to government programs and Officer-in-Charge Virgilio S.J. Sy in his resolution of
policies on oil. November 21, 1978 6 upon a motion for
reconsideration of respondent NHC.
The meaning thus given to "government-owned or
controlled corporations" for purposes of the civil In the instant petition for certiorari, TUPAS seeks the
service provision should likewise apply for purposes reversal of the said resolution and prays that a
of the Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan provisions, certification election be held among the rank and file
otherwise, incongruity would result, and a employees of NHC.
government-owned corporation could create as
many subsidiary corporations under the Corporation ISSUE:
Code as it wishes, which would then be free from
strict accountability and could escape the liabilities Whether the employees of NHC have the right to
and responsibilities provided for by law. This device form union being employees of the GOCC.
was liberally made use of during the past regime to
the detriment of budgetary restraints and of fiscal RULING:
accountability by "private" corporations thus created.
With respect to other civil servants, that is,
employees of all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities and agencies of the government
including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters and who are,
therefore, covered by the civil service laws, the
guidelines for the exercise of their right to organize
Page | 40
is provided for under Executive Order No. 180. ARTICLE IX-D

Chapter IV thereof, consisting of Sections 9 to 12,
regulates the determination of the "sole and Section 2 (1)
exclusive employees representative"; Under Section
12, "where there are two or more duly registered The Commission on Audit shall have the power,
employees' organizations in the appropriate authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all
organization unit, the Bureau of Labor Relations accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of,
shall, upon petition order the conduct of certification and expenditures or uses of funds and property,
election and shall certify the winner as the exclusive owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the
representative of the rank-and-file employees in said Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
organizational unit." instrumentalities, including government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters, and on
Parenthetically, note should be taken of the specific a post- audit basis:
qualification in the Constitution that the State "shall
guarantee the rights of all workers to self- a. constitutional bodies, commissions and
organization, collective bargaining, and peaceful offices that have been granted fiscal
concerted activities, including the right to strike in autonomy under this Constitution;
accordance with law" and that they shall also
participate in policy and decision-making processes b. autonomous state colleges and universities;
affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided
by law." c. other government-owned or controlled
ON THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the corporations and their subsidiaries; and
assailed resolution of the Bureau of Labor Relations, d. such non-governmental entities receiving
dated November 21, 1978, is ANNULLED and SET subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from
ASIDE and the conduct of a certification election or through the Government, which are
among the affected employees of respondent required by law or the granting institution
National Housing Corporation in accordance with the to submit to such audit as a condition of
rules therefor is hereby GRANTED. subsidy or equity. However, where the
internal control system of the audited
NOTES: agencies is inadequate, the Commission
may adopt such measures, including
ARTICLE IX-A: temporary or special pre-audit, as are
necessary and appropriate to correct the
Section 2. No member of a Constitutional deficiencies. It shall keep the general
Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other accounts of the Government and, for such
office or employment. Neither shall he engage in the period as may be provided by law, preserve
practice of any profession or in the active the vouchers and other supporting papers
management or control of any business which, in any pertaining thereto.
way, may be affected by the functions of his office,
nor shall he be financially interested, directly or
indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or
privilege granted by the Government, any of its
subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or
their subsidiaries.
ARTICLE IX-B
Section 5. The Congress shall provide for the

standardization of compensation of government
officials and employees, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporations with
original charters, taking into account the nature of
the responsibilities pertaining to, and the
qualifications required for, their positions.
Page | 41
LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS (4) Career officers other than those in the Career
Executive Service, who are appointed by the
Classifications of Positions under CSC Law President, such as the Foreign Service Officers in the
Department of Foreign Affairs;
READ AND MASTER
(5) Commission officers and enlisted men of the
CHAPTER 2,, SEC. 7, SUB A, TITLE I, BOOK 5 Armed Forces which shall maintain a separate merit
OF EO 292 (Career and non-career position of system;
CSC)
(6) Personnel of government-owned or controlled
Chapter 2 Coverage of the Civil Service corporations, whether performing governmental or
proprietary functions, who do not fall under the non-
SEC. 6. Scope of the Civil Service. career service; and
(1) The Civil Service embraces all branches, (7) Permanent laborer, whether skilled, semi-skilled,
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the or unskilled.
Government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters. SEC. 9. Non-Career Service.
(2) Positions in the Civil Service shall be classified
into career service and noncareer service. The Non-Career Service shall be characterized by
SEC. 7. Career Service. (1) entrance on bases other than those of the usual
tests of merit and fitness utilized for the career
The Career Service shall be characterized by service; and
(1) entrance based on merit and fitness to be (2) tenure which is limited to a period specified by
determined as far as practicable by competitive law, or which is coterminous with that of the
examination, or based on highly technical appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or
qualifications; which is limited to the duration of a particular project
for which purpose employment was made.
(2) opportunity for advancement to higher career
positions; and The Non-Career Service shall include:
(3) security of tenure. (1) Elective officials and their personal or confidential
staff;
The Career Service shall include:
(2) Secretaries and other officials of Cabinet rank
(1) Open Career positions, appointment to which who hold their positions at the pleasure of the
prior qualification in an appropriate examination is President and their personal or confidential staff(s);
required;
(3) Chairman and members of commissions and
(2) Closed Career position which are scientific or boards with fixed terms of office and their personal
highly technical in nature; these include the faculty or confidential staff;
and academic staff of state colleges and universities,
and scientific and technical positions in scientific or (4) Contractual personnel or those who employment
research institutions which shall establish and in the government is in accordance with a special
maintain their own merit systems; contract to undertake a specific work or job,
requiring special or technical skills not available in
(3) Positions in the Career Executive Service, namely, the employing agency, to be accomplished within a
Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary, Bureau specific period, which in no case shall exceed one
Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional year, and performs or accomplishes the specific work
Director, Assistant Regional Director, Chief of or job, under his own responsibility with a minimum
Department Service and other officers of equivalent of direction and supervision form the hiring agency;
rank as may be identified by the Career Executive and
Service Board, all of whom are appointed by the
President; (5) Emergency and seasonal personnel.
Page | 42
AS TO THE NATURE OF APPOINTMENT AND nature of the appointments given to him. Rather, it
DEFINITION is used to denote the manner in which said
appointments were made, that is, done by the
PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA vs. President of PLM in the meantime, while the Board
HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT of Regents, which is originally vested by the
G.R. No. L-65439 November 13, 1985 University Charter with the power of appointment, is
unable to act.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
Not only is the appointment in question an ad interim
FACTS: appointment, but the same is also a confirmed ad
interim appointment. In its Resolution No. 485, dated
Dr. Esteban had been a permanent employee in the June 20, 1973, the PLM Board of Regents verified Dr.
government for 25 years. Until May 20, 1973, he was Esteban's appointment without condition nor
officially connected with the Philippine College of limitation as to tenure. As of that moment, it became
Commerce (PCC) as its Vice President for Academic a regular and permanent appointment.
Affairs. However, the position he held was abolished
due to PCC Board of Director's move to streamline In other words, if the Board is in session, the PLM
the college organization. Dr. Estaban was given by President merely nominates while the Board issues
PCC an option to continue teaching therein which he the appointment. But when the Board is not in
accepted until his transfer to the Pamantasan ng session, the President is authorized to issue ad
Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) upon the invitation of its interim appointment. Such appointments are
President Dr. Consuelo Blanco. permanent but their terms are only until the Board
disapproves them. If confirmed, the appointee's term
At PLM, Dr. Esteban was initially extended an ad is converted into the regular term inherent in the
interim temporary appointment as Vice President for position.
Administration by Dr. Blanco and from that Dr.
Esteban received his "Notification of Confirmation of DEFINITION OF APPOINTMENT
Temporary Appointment from the PLM's Secretary on
June 28, 1973. Appointment is one of the means by which a person
may claim a right to a public office. It means the
The temporary appointments of Dr. Esteban as Vice selection by the authority vested with the power of
President for Administration was renewed and an individual who is to exercise the functions of a
extended several times and it continuous for almost given office. It is an act of designation by the
two and half years until he discovered that he was executive officer, board or body to whom that power
not included in the list of employees recommended has been delegated, of the person who is to exercise
for permanent appointments. He requested Dr.
the duties and responsibilities of the given position.
Blanco to convert his temporary appointment into a
It is also equivalent to filling a vacancy.
permanent one but it was not granted.
On August 7, 1975, Dr. Consuelo Blanco issued a ROBERTO A. FLORES ET. AL, v. HON.
memorandum circular terminating Dr. Esteban's FRANKLIN M. DRILON
appointment as VP for Administration. Dr. Esteban G.R. No. 104732 June 22, 1993
appealed to CSC for the protection of his tenure in
the Pamantasan. BELLOSILLO, J.:
ISSUE: FACTS:
The constitutionality of Sec. 13, par. (d) of RA 7227
Whether Dr. Esteban holds the position in a otherwise known as the Bases Conversion and
permanent capacity as to guarantee a security of Development Act of 1992 is challenged in this
tenure. original petition.
RULING: Under Section 13, par. (d) RA 7227:
Yes. "The President shall appoint a professional manager

as the Administrator of the Subic Authority with a
Dr Esteban hadbeen extended several "ad compensation to be determined by the Board subject
interim appointments which PLM mistakenly to the approval of the Secretary of Budget, who shall
understands the term ad interim as appointments be the ex-officio chairman of the Board and who shall
temporary in nature. In referring to Dr. Esteban's serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the Subic
appointment, the term is not descriptive of the Authority. Provided, however, that for the first year
Page | 43
of its operations from the effectivity of this act, the capacity to any public office or position during his
Mayor of the City of Olongapo shall be appointed as tenure. Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the
the Chairman and Chief executive officer of the Subic primary functions of his position, no appointive
Authority." official shall hold any other office or employment in
the Government or any subdivision, agency or
Respondent Franklin Drilon was then the incumbent instrumentality thereof, including government-
Mayor of the City of Olongapo.
owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries. The subject proviso directs the
With this petitioner, who claims to be taxpayers,
employees of the US Facility at the Subic Zambales President to appoint an elective official i.e. the Mayor
and officers and members of the Filipino Civilian of Olongapo City, to other government post (as
Employees Association in US Facilities in the Chairman and CEO of SBMA). This is precisely what
Philippines, maintain that the provision in par (d) of the Constitution prohibits. It seeks to prevent a
Section 13 infringes the following constitutional and situation where a local elective official will work for
statutory provisions: his appointment in an executive position in
government, and thus neglect his constitutents.
(a) Sec. 7 (1) Art. IX-B of the Constitution, which
states that "no elective official shall be eligible for (2) NO, Congress did not contemplate making the
appointment or designation in any capacity to any SBMA posts as automatically attached to the Office
public office or position during his tenure."
of the Mayor without need of appointment. The
phrase shall be appointed unquestionably shows
(b) Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution, which
the intent to make the SBMA posts appointive and
provides that the President shall appoint all other
officers of the Government whose appointments are not merely adjunct to the post of Mayor of Olongapo
not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom City.
he may be authorized by law to appoint.
(3) NO, Sec. 8 does not affect the constitutionality of
(c) Sec. 261 par. (g) of the Omnibus Election Code the subject proviso. In any case, the Vice-President
which provides Prohibition on Appointments within for example, an elective official who may be
prohibited 45-day period prior to the May 11, 1992 appointed to a cabinet post, may receive
Elections. the compensation attached to the cabinet position if
specifically authorized by law.
ISSUE:
(4) YES, although Section 13(d) itself vests in the
1. Whether the proviso violates the constitutional
President the power to appoint the Chairman of
proscription against appointment or designation of
SBMA, he really has no choice but to appoint the
elective officials to other government posts.
Mayor of Olongapo City. The power of choice is the
heart of the power to appoint. Appointment involves
2. Whether or not the SBMA posts are merely ex
an exercise of discretion of whom to appoint. Hence,
officio to the position of Mayor of Olongapo City and
when Congress clothes the President with the power
thus an excepted circumstance.
to appoint an officer, it cannot at the same time limit
the choice of the President to only one candidate.
3. Whether or not the Constitutional provision
Such enactment effectively eliminates the discretion
allowing an elective official to receive
of the appointing power to choose and constitutes
double compensation (Sec. 8, Art. IX-B) would be
an irregular restriction on the power of appointment.
useless if no elective official may be appointed to
While it may be viewed that the proviso merely sets
another post.
the qualifications of the officer during the
first year of operations of SBMA, i.e., he must be the
4. Whether there is legislative encroachment on the
Mayor of Olongapo City, it is manifestly an abuse of
appointing authority of the President.
congressional authority to prescribe qualifications
5. Whether Mayor Gordon may retain any and all per
where only one, and no other, can qualify. Since the
diems, allowances and other emoluments which he
ineligibility of an elective official
may have received pursuant to his appointment.
for appointment remains all throughout his tenure or
during his incumbency, he may however resign first
HELD:
from his elective post to cast off the constitutionally-
attached disqualification before he may be
(1) YES, Sec. 7 of Art. IX-B of
considered fit for appointment. Consequently, as
the Constitution Provides: No elective official shall be
long as he is an incumbent, an elective official
eligible for appointment or designation in any
Page | 44
remains ineligible for appointment to another public This provision must not be construed as a mandatory
office. requirement of prior recommendation by the Justice
Secretary. There is no fast rule in ascertaining
(5) YES, as incumbent elective official, Gordon is whether the language in a statute should be
ineligible for appointment to the position of considered mandatory or directory. More often than
Chairman and CEO of SBMA; hence, not, it is addressed on a case to case basis taking
into consideration and determining the nature,
his appointment thereto cannot be sustained. He
structure and aim of the law itself by looking at the
however remains Mayor of Olongapo City, and his
legislative intent.
acts as SBMA official are not necessarily null and
void; he may be considered a de facto officer, and In this case, the provision is not mandatory in
in accordance with jurisprudence, is entitled to such character. The power to appoint is, in essence a
benefits. discretionary one.
An appointment to public office is the unequivocal

OSCAR BERMUDEZ ET. AL. vs. EXECUTIVE act of designating or selecting by one having the
SECRETARY RUBEN TORRES ET. AL authority therefor of an individual to discharge and
G.R. No. 131429. August 4, 1999 perform the duties and functions of an office or trust.
Appointment necessarily calls for an exercise of
VITUG, J.: discretion on the part of the appointing authority.
The appointing power has the right of choice which
FACTS: he may exercise freely according to his judgment,
deciding for himself who is best qualified among
There occurred a vacancy in the Office of the those who have the necessary qualifications and
Provincial Prosecutor of Tarlac. Justice Sec. Teofisto eligibility.
Guingona, Jr. recommended First Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor of Tarlac and OIC of Office of the The Constitution clothed the President with the
Provincial Prosecutor Oscar Bermudez while Conrado power to appoint a subordinate officer. Being the
Quiaoit on the otherhand was supported by then head of the government, his authority includes the
Rep. Jose Yap of the Second Legislative District of power of control over all executive departments,
Tarlac. bureaus and offices, and the power to assume
directly the functions of the latter. Hence, the
On June 30, 1997, Quiaoit emerged the victor when President can interfere in the exercise of discretion
he was appointed by then President Ramos to the of officials under him or altogether ignore their
coveted office. Quiaoit assumed office upon receipt recommendations.
of his certified xerox copy of appointment and after
taking an oath. However, Bermudez still refuse to Applying this, the phrase "upon recommendation of
vacate the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. the Secretary should be interpreted as a mere
Bermudez contends that the provision under Book advice, exhortation or indorsement, which is
IV, Title III, Chapter II, Section 9 of the Revised essentially persuasive in character and not binding or
Administrative Code (RAC) of 1987 is not complied obligatory upon the party whom it is made.
for the appointment of Quiaoit lacks
recommendation from Justice Secretary. NOTES:
ISSUE: An appointment to a public office is the unequivocal

act of designating or selecting by one having the
Whether there is a need for recommendation from authority therefor of an individual to discharge and
Justice Secretary to make respondent's appointment perform the duties and functions of an office or trust.
effective. The appointment is deemed complete once the last
act required of the appointing authority has been
RULING: complied with and its acceptance thereafter by the
appointee in order to render it effective.
No, the provision given in Section 9 of RAC of 1987 Appointment necessarily calls for an exercise of
must not be misunderstood. Under the said discretion on the part of the appointing authority.
provision:
The Constitution or law clothes the President with
"All provincial and City Prosecutors and their the power to appoint a subordinate officer, such
assistants shall be appointed by the President upon conferment must be understood as necessarily
the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice" carrying with it an ample discretion of whom to
appoint. The President is the head of government
Page | 45
whose authority includes the power of control over The CSC is the single arbiter of all contests relating
all executive departments, bureaus and offices. to Civil Service; as such its judgement are
Control means the authority of an empowered officer unappealable and subject only to certiorari
to alter or modify, or even nullify or set aside, what jurisdiction of the Court.
a subordinate officer has done in the performance of
his duties, as well as to substitute the judgment of CSC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in the
the latter, as and when the former deems it to be exercise of its jurisdiction in attesting to the
appropriate. Expressed in another way, the President appointment of Roque. As long as the appointee is
has the power to assume directly the functions of an qualified, the CSC has no choice but to attest and to
executive department, bureau and office. respect the appointment even if it be proved that
there are others with superior credentials. The law
NULLIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT (Is it valid limits the Commissions authority only to whether or
on the ground that someone is better? not the appointees possess the legal qualifications
and the appropriate civil service eligibility, nothing
DANILO F.C. RIMONTE vs. else.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, OFFICE OF
In this case, CSC founds out that Roque possesses
THE OMBUDSMAN and HENRIETTA F. ROQUE
all qualifications to the position. Now the discretion
G.R. No. 112045 May 29, 1995
to appoint her leaves to the appointing authority.
BELLOSILLO, J.: 2. No. The power of appointment is essentially
discretionary provided the appointee is qualified.
FACTS: Even though someone is said to be better or proved
to have superior credentials, the head of the agency
Petitioner was the incumbent Planning Officer III in who is the appointing power is the one most
the Office of the Ombudsman. Ombudsman Conrado knowledgeable to decide who can best perform the
M. Vasquez issued Office Order No. 90-32 directing functions of the office.
the implementation of the "performance appraisal
system" as a basis for evaluation of providing for the
"General Policy and Procedural Guidelines in the NEXT IN RANK: Is it Necessary?
Placement of Personnel for the New Staffing
Pattern".
ALEX A. ABILA vs. CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION and FLORENTINA E. ELERIA
Petitioner applied to different positions including any
G.R. No. 92573 June 3, 1991
of the positions of Records Officer V of the Central
Records Division. Petitioner was appointed to the
position of Associate Graft Investigation Officer III FELICIANO, J.:
while Henrietta F. Roque was appointed Records
Officer V. FACTS:
Petitioner filed a protest on Roque's appointment to Alex A. Abila, Acting Assistant Civil Security Officer of
CSC and assailed that he has the better qualifications Civil Intelligence and Security Department of the
than her. However, CSC denied his protest, the same Quezon City Government was appointed by then
with his motion for reconsideration. Officer-in-Charge Brigido Simon Jr. to the vacant
position of Admin Officer IV in the Health
ISSUE: Department due to the retirement of Amado
Villafuerte.
1. Whether CSC commits grave abuse of discretion.
Florentina Eleria, Administrative Officer III of Health
2. Whether the appointment made by the appointing
authority may be disregarded on the ground that Department filed a protest with the Merit System
someone has better qualification than the appointed Protection Board (Board) in respect of Abilas
officer. appointment. The Board dismissed her protest but
later on appeal to the same Board. The latter
RULING: promulgated a decision revoking Abilas appointment
and directed the OIC or Mayor of Quezon City to
1. No. CSC is correct in ruling that the appointment appiont Eleria in lieu of Abila. They ruled that
of Roque to the position is proper and that she is although both Abila and Eleria met the minimum
qualified to the disputed position. elgibility and education, Eleria had the edge in terms
of rank and experience as an Adiministrative Officer
Page | 46
and Eleria actually held the position next-in-rank to 2. No. the Commission had no authority to revoke
that of the vacancy that gave her promotional petitioner's appointment because the Commission
priority over Abila. believed that private respondent Eleria was better
qualified for the position involved; the Commission's
ISSUE: acts in this respect constituted an encroachment
upon a discretionary authority vested by law in the
Quezon City Mayor and not in the Commission.
1. Whether CSC has authority to substitute its own
The Court notes that a vacant position in the Civil
judgment for that of the official authorized by law to
Service may be filled by promotion, transfer of
make an appointment to the government service. present employees, reinstatement and re-
employment or appointment of outsiders who have
2. Whether the appointment made by appointing the necessary eligibility. The next-in-rank rule
authority may be disregarded by following the next- invoked by respondent Commission to justify its
in-rank rule. choice of respondent Eleria over petitioner Abila,
applies only where a vacancy is filled by promotion,
RULING: a process which denotes a scalar ascent of an officer
to another position higher either in rank or salary. A
1. No.The respondent Commission has no such promotion involves a situation quite different from
authority, the power of appointment, which is the situation in the case at bar where the
appointment of petitioner Abila was effected through
essentially discretionary, being vested by law in the
lateral transfer from a position in one department of
head of the office concerned. The head of the office
the city government to a position of greater
is the person on the spot. He occupies the ideal
responsibility in another department of the same
vantage point from which to identify and designate government.
the individual who can best fill the post and The appointing authority, under the Civil Service
discharge its functions in the government agency he Law, is allowed to fill vacancies by promotion,
heads. The choice of an appointee from among those transfer of present employees, reinstatement,
who possess the required qualifications is a political reemployment, and appointment of outsiders who
and administrative decision calling for considerations have appropriate civil service eligibility, not
of wisdom, convenience, utility and the interests of necessarily in that order. There is no legal fiat that a
service which can best be made by the head of the vacancy must be filled only by promotion; the
office concerned, the person most familiar with the appointing authority is given wide discretion to fill a
organizational structure and environmental vacancy from among the several alternatives
provided for by law. The rule is not mandatory.
circumstances within which the appointee must
Hence, the Civil Service Law provides is that if a
function.
vacancy is filled by a promotion, the person holding
the position next in rank thereto "shall be considered
for promotion.
In Lapinid vs. Civil Service Commission, the Court
through Mr. Justice Cruz, stressed that the Civil HON. ALMA G. DE LEON, Chairman, HON.
Service Commission has no power of appointment GAMINDE, HON. ERENETA,
except over its own personnel. Neither does it have JR., Commissioners, CSC, and SECRETARY
the authority to review the appointments made by ALUNAN, III, DILG, vs. CA and JACOB F.
other offices except only to ascertain if the appointee MONTESA
possesses the required qualifications. The G.R. No. 127182, January 22, 2001
determination of who among aspirants with the
minimum statutory qualifications should be preferred YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
belongs to the appointing authority and not the Civil
Service Commission. It cannot disallow an FACTS:
appointment because it believes another person is
better qualified and much less can it direct the Respondent Atty. Jacob F. Montesa, who is not a
appointment of its own choice. Career Executive Service Officer (CESO) or a
In the case at bar, the respondent Commission itself member of the Career Executive Service, was
acknowledged that both petitioner Abila and appointed as "Ministry Legal Counsel - CESO IV in
respondent Eleria are legally qualified for the position the Ministry of Local Government" (now DILG), by
in question. Having made the determination, the then Minister Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. Private
Commission had exhausted its powers and may not respondent's appointment was approved as
act any further except to affirm the validity of permanent by the Civil Service Commission.
petitioner's appointment.
Page | 47
On July 25, 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino

promulgated EO 262, reorganizing the DILG. On April RULING:
8, 1988, then Secretary Luis T. Santos, who
succeeded Minister Pimentel, designated Nicanor M. No. It must be stressed that the position of Ministry
Patricio as chief, Legal Service in place of Montesa Legal Counsel CESO IV is embraced in the Career
who, in turn, was directed to report to the office of Executive Service. Under the Integrated
the Secretary to perform special assignments. Reorganization Plan, appointment thereto shall be
made as follows:
Montesa filed a petition for quo warranto against
then Secretary Luis T. Santos and Nicanor Patricio Appointment to appropriate classes in the
and the court ruled in favor of Montesa and ordered Career Executive Service shall be made by
his reinstatement to his former position. the President from a list of career executive
eligible recommended by the Board. Such
Meanwhile, the Salary Standardization Law took appointments shall be made on the basis of
effect on July 1, 1989. Pursuant thereto, the position rank
of "Department Service Chiefs," which include the
Department Legal Counsel, was reclassified and The President may, however, in
ranked with "Assistant Bureau Directors" under the exceptional cases, appoint any person who
generic position title of "Director III". is not a Career Executive Service eligible;
provided that such appointee shall
In 1994, then Secretary Alunan III, citing as reasons subsequently take the required Career
the interest of public service and the smooth flow of Executive Service examination and that he
operations in the concerned offices, issued DO No. shall not be promoted to a higher class until
94-370, relieving private respondent of his current qualifies in such examination.
duties and responsibilities and reassigning him as
"Director III (Assistant Regional Director), Region At the initial implementation of this Plan, an
XI," Private respondent, however, did not report to incumbent who holds a permanent
his new assigned position. Instead, he filed a 90-day appointment to a position embraced in the
sick leave, and upon the expiration thereof, he Career Executive Service shall continue to
submitted a memorandum for then acting Secretary hold his position, but may not advance to a
Aguirre, signifying his intention to re-assume his higher class of position in the Career
position as Department Legal Counsel/Chief, Legal Executive Service unless or until he qualifies
Services. The memorandum was denied the same for membership in the Career Executive
with his motion for reconsideration. Service.
Private respondent appealed to the Civil Service Corollarily, the required Career Executive Service
Commission but the latter sustained his eligibility may be then acquired by passing the CES
reassignment to Region XI, on the ground that the examination that will entitle the examinee to a
subject reassignment was not violative of the due conferment of a CES eligibility and the inclusion of
process clause of the Constitution or of Montesa's his name in the roster of CES eligible
right to security of tenure; the reassignment did not In the case at bar, there is no question that Montesa
entail any reduction in rank or status and that as he admits does not have the required CES
Montesa could be reassigned from one station to eligibility.
another without his consent as the rule against
unconsented transfer applies only to an officer who The court ruled by citing the case of Achacoso v.
is appointed to a particular station, and not merely Macaraig, et al., which provides that:
assigned thereto.
It is settled that a permanent appointment
Montesa on the otherhand still did not comply. can be issued only 'to a person who meets
President Fidel V. Ramos, upon the recommendation all the requirements for the position to
of the Department, issued Administrative Order No. which he is being appointed, including the
235, dropping Montesa, Director III. Legal Service, appropriate eligibility prescribed.
from the roster of public servants for serious neglect
of duty and absences without leave (AWOL). The mere fact that a position belongs to the
Career Service does not automatically
ISSUE: confer security or tenure on its occupant
even if he does not possess the required
Whether a person who lacks the necessary qualifications. Such right will have to
qualification (eligibility) for a public position be depend on the nature of his appointment,
appointed to it in a permanent capacity? which in turn depends on his eligibility or
Page | 48
lack of it. A person who does not have the ISSUE:

requisite qualifications for the position
cannot be appointed to it in the first place Whether Career Executive Service (CES) Eligibility is
or, only as an exception to the rule, may be enough and the appointment to a CES rank is not
appointed to it merely in an acting capacity necessary to acquire security of tenure.
in the absence of appropriate eligible. The
appointment extended to him cannot be
RULING:
regarded as permanent even if it may be so
designated.
No. Section 27 (1), of the Civil Service Law (Subtitle
Evidently, private respondent's appointment did not A, Tittle I, Book V of E.O. No. 292), provides that:
attain permanency. Not having taken the necessary
Career Executive Service examination to obtain (1) Permanent status. - A permanent appointment
requisite eligibility, he did not at the time of his shall be issued to a person who meets all the
appointment and up to the present, possess the requirements for the position to which he is being
needed eligibility for a position in the Career appointed, including the appropriate eligibility
Executive Service. Consequently, his appointment as prescribed, in accordance with the provisions of law,
Ministry Legal Counsel CESO IV/ Department Legal rules and standards promulgated in pursuance
Counsel and/or Director III, was merely temporary. thereof.
Such being the case, he could be transferred or
reassigned without violating the constitutionally In the career executive service, the acquisition of
guaranteed right to security of tenure. security of tenure which presupposes a permanent
appointment is governed by the rules and regulations
promulgated by the CES Board, thus:
APPOINTMENT IN THE CAREER EXECUTIVE
Career Executive Service Eligibility
LUIS MARIO M. GENERAL vs. RAMON S.
ROCO Passing the CES examination entitles the
G.R. No. 143366. January 29, 2001 examinee to a conferment of a CES eligibility
350 SCRA 528 and the inclusion of his name in the roster of
CES eligibles. Conferment of CES eligibility is done
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: by the Board through a formal Board Resolution after
an evaluation is done of the examinees performance
FACTS: in the four stages of the CES eligibility examinations.
Respondent Roco was appointed by then President Appointment to CES Rank

Ramos in 1996 as Regional Director of the LTO in
Region V, a position equivalent to CES rank level V Upon conferment of a CES eligibility and compliance
and later reappointed by then President Estrada to with the other requirements prescribed by the Board,
the same position in 1999. an incumbent of a CES position may qualify for
At the time Rocos appointment in 1996 and 1999, appointment to a CES rank. Appointment to a CES
he was not a CES eligible. However, during his rank is made by the President upon the
incumbency in 1999, he was conferred CES eligibility recommendation of the Board. This process
by the CESB. completes the officials membership in the CES
On September 7, 1999, petitioner Luis Mario General, and most importantly, confers on him security
who is not a CES eligible, was appointed by President of tenure in the CES.
Estrada as Regional Director of the LTO in Region V,
the same position being occupied by Roco. Pursuant As clearly set forth in the foregoing provisions, two
thereto, DOTC Undersecretary Coloma as OIC issued requisites must concur in order that an employee in
the career executive service may attain security of
a Memorandum directing General to assume the said
tenure, to wit:
office immediately and for Roco to report to the
Office of the Secretary for further instructions. a) CES eligibility; and
b) Appointment to the appropriate CES
Roco filed before the CA a petition for quo warranto rank.
which was affirmed by the latter and ordered the In addition, it must be stressed that the security of
nullification of Generals appointment. From this tenure of employees in the career executive service
decision General filed a petition for review against pertains only to rank and not to the office or to the
Roco. The latter contends that CES eligibility is position to which they may be appointed. Thus, a
enough to acquire security of tenure which grants career executive service officer may be transferred
him the right to hold the position disputed. or reassigned from one position to another without
Page | 49
losing his rank which follows him wherever he is CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION vs. THE EXECUTIVE
transferred or reassigned. SECRETARY
G.R. No. 83896. February 22, 1991
In the case at bar, there is no question that
respondent Ramon S. Roco, though a CES eligible, FERNAN, C.J.:
does not possess the appropriate CES rank, which is
- CES rank level V, for the position of Regional FACTS:
Director of the LTO (Region V). Falling short of one
of the qualifications that would complete his The two petitions in this case sought to declare
membership in the CES, respondent cannot unconstitutional Executive Order No. 284 issued by
successfully interpose violation of security of President Corazon C. Aquino. The assailed law
tenure. Accordingly, he could be validly reassigned provides that:
to other positions in the career executive service.
Sec. 1. Even if allowed by law or by the ordinary
__________*************________ functions of his position, a member of the Cabinet,
undersecretary or assistant secretary or other
NOTES: appointive officials of the Executive Department
may, in addition to his primary position, hold not
May an elective public official be validly
more than two positions in the government and
appointed or designated to any public office or
government corporations and receive the
position during his tenure?
corresponding compensation therefor; Provided,
that this limitation shall not apply to ad hoc bodies
Ans.: No elective official shall be eligible for
or committees, or to boards, councils or bodies of
appointment or designation in any capacity to any
which the President is the Chairman.
public office or position during his tenure. (Sec. 7, 1
st par., Art. IX-B, 1987 Constitution)
The petitioners alleged that the cited provision of EO
284 contravenes the provision of Sec. 13, Article VII
May an appointive public official hold any
which declares:
other office or employment?
The President, Vice-President, the Members of the

Ans.: Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the
Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall
primary functions of his position, no appointive
not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution,
official shall hold any other office or employment in
hold any other office or employment during their
the Government or any subdivision, agency or
tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or
instrumentality thereof, including government-
indirectly practice any other profession, participate in
owned or controlled corporation.
any business, or be financially interested in any
(Sec. 7, 2 nd par., Art. IX-B, 1987 Constitution)
contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege
granted by the Government or any subdivision,
May the President, Vice-President, Members
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
of the Cabinet, their deputies or assistants
government-owned or controlled corporations or
hold any other office or employment?
their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of
interest in the conduct of their office.
Ans.: The President, Vice-President, the Members of
the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall
The petitioners maintained that the phrase unless
not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution,
otherwise provided in this Constitution used in
hold any other office or employment during their
Section 13 of Article VII meant that the exception
tenure. (Sec. 13, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
must be expressly provided in the Constitution.
Public respondents, on the other hand, maintain that

READ WELL : Case of Civil Liberties the phrase unless otherwise provided in the
Constitution in Section 13, Article VII makes
PROHIBITION: HOLDS DUAL OFFICE reference to Section 7, par. (2), Article I-XB insofar
as the appointive officials mentioned therein are
concerned. The provision relied upon by the
respondents provides:
Page | 50
Sec. 7. . . . . . Constitution itself. In other words, Section 7, Article

I-XB is meant to lay down the general rule applicable
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary to all elective and appointive public officials and
functions of his position, no appointive official shall employees, while Section 13, Article VII is meant to
hold any other office or employment in the be the exception applicable only to the President, the
government or any subdivision, agency or Vice- President, Members of the Cabinet, their
instrumentality thereof, including government- deputies and assistants.
owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries. The phrase unless otherwise provided in this
Constitution must be given a literal interpretation to
ISSUE No. 1: refer only to those particular instances cited in the
Constitution itself, to wit: the Vice-President being
Does the prohibition in Section 13, Article VII of the appointed as a member of the Cabinet under Section
1987 Constitution insofar as Cabinet members, their 3, par. (2), Article VII; or acting as President in those
deputies or assistants are concerned admit of the instances provided under Section 7, pars. (2) and
broad exceptions made for appointive officials in (3), Article VII; and, the Secretary of Justice
general under Section 7, par. (2), Article I-XB? being ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar
Council by virtue of Section 8 (1), Article VIII.
ISSUE No. 2:
Number 2:
Does the prohibition apply to positions held in ex
officio capacity? The prohibition against holding dual or multiple
offices or employment under Section 13, Article VII
ISSUE No. 3: of the Constitution must not, however, be construed
as applying to posts occupied by the Executive
Can the respondents be obliged to reimburse the officials specified therein without additional
perquisites they have received from the offices they compensation in an ex-officio capacity as provided
have held pursuant to EO 284? by law and as required by the primary functions of
said officials office. The reason is that these posts
HELD: do no comprise any other office within the
contemplation of the constitutional prohibition but
Number 1: are properly an imposition of additional duties and
functions on said officials. The term ex-officio means
No. The intent of the framers of the Constitution was from office; by virtue of office. Ex-officio likewise
to impose a stricter prohibition on the President and denotes an act done in an official character, or as a
his official family in so far as holding other offices or consequence of office, and without any other
employment in the government or elsewhere is appointment or authority than that conferred by the
concerned. office. The additional duties must not only be
closely related to, but must be required by the
Although Section 7, Article I-XB already contains a officials primary functions. If the functions required
blanket prohibition against the holding of multiple to be performed are merely incidental, remotely
offices or employment in the government subsuming related, inconsistent, incompatible, or otherwise
both elective and appointive public officials, the alien to the primary function of a cabinet official,
Constitutional Commission should see it fit to such additional functions would fall under the
formulate another provision, Sec. 13, Article VII, purview of any other office prohibited by the
specifically prohibiting the President, Vice-President, Constitution.
members of the Cabinet, their deputies and
assistants from holding any other office or Number 3:
employment during their tenure, unless otherwise
provided in the Constitution itself. While all other During their tenure in the questioned positions,
appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to respondents may be considered de facto officers and
hold other office or employment in the government as such entitled to emoluments for actual services
during their tenure when such is allowed by law or rendered. It has been held that in cases where
by the primary functions of their positions, members there is no de jure officer, a de facto officer, who, in
of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants may do good faith has had possession of the office and has
so only when expressly authorized by the discharged the duties pertaining thereto, is legally
Page | 51
entitled to the emoluments of the office, and may in service laws, rules and regulations. During the
an appropriate action recover the salary, fees and pendency of her complaint before the Law
other compensations attached to the office. Any per Department, petitioner filed the instant petition
diem, allowances or other emoluments received by questioning the appointment and the right to remain
the respondents by virtue of actual services rendered in office of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason, as Chairman
in the questioned positions may therefore be and Commissioners of the COMELEC, respectively.
retained by them. Petitioner claims that the ad interim appointments of
Benipayo, Borra and Tuason violate the
Overall, Executive Order No. 284 is unconstitutional constitutional provisions on the independence of the
as it actually allows a member of the cabinet, COMELEC.
undersecretary or assistant secretary or other
appointive officials of the Executive Department to ISSUE:
hold multiple offices or employment in direct
contravention of the express mandate of Section 13, Whether or not the assumption of office by Benipayo,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting them Borra and Tuason on the basis of the ad interim
from doing so, unless otherwise provided in the 1987 appointments issued by the President amounts to a
Constitution itself. temporary appointment prohibited by Section 1 (2),
Article IX-C of the Constitution.
MA. ANGELINA G. MATIBAG vs. ALFREDO L.
BENIPAYO RULING:
G.R. No. 149036. April 2, 2002
We find petitioners argument without merit. An ad
CARPIO, J.: interim appointment is a permanent appointment
because it takes effect immediately and can no
FACTS: longer be withdrawn by the President once the
appointee has qualified into office. The fact that it is
On February 1999, petitioner Matibag was appointed subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Acting Director IV of the Comelecs EID by then Appointments does not alter its permanent
Comelec Chairperson Harriet Demetriou in a character.
temporary capacity. On March 2001, respondent
Benipayo was appointed Comelec Chairman together The Constitution itself makes an ad interim
with other commissioners in an ad interim appointment permanent in character by making it
appointment. While on such ad interim appointment, effective until disapproved by the Commission on
respondent Benipayo in his capacity as Chairman Appointments or until the next adjournment of
issued a Memorandum address transferring Congress. In the instant case, the President did in
petitioner to the Law Department. Petitioner fact appoint permanent Commissioners to fill the
requested Benipayo to reconsider her relief as vacancies in the COMELEC, subject only to
Director IV of the EID and her reassignment to the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
Law Department. Benipayo, Borra and Tuason were extended
permanent appointments during the recess of
She cited Civil Service Commission Memorandum Congress. They were not appointed or designated in
Circular No. 7 dated April 10, 2001, reminding heads a temporary or acting capacity, unlike Commissioner
of government offices that "transfer and detail of Haydee Yorac in Brillantes vs. Yorac34 and Solicitor
employees are prohibited during the election period. General Felix Bautista in Nacionalista Party vs.
Benipayo denied her request for reconsideration on Bautista. 35 The ad interim appointments of
April 18, 2001, citing COMELEC Resolution No. 3300 Benipayo, Borra and Tuason are expressly allowed
dated November 6, 2000, exempting Comelec from by the Constitution which authorizes the President,
the coverage of the said Memo Circular. Petitioner during the recess of Congress, to make
appealed the denial of her request for appointments that take effect immediately.
reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc. She also
filed an administrative and criminal complaint16 with While the Constitution mandates that the COMELEC
the Law Department17against Benipayo, alleging "shall be independent"36, this provision should be
that her reassignment violated Section 261 (h) of the harmonized with the Presidents power to extend ad
Omnibus Election Code, COMELEC Resolution No. interim appointments. To hold that the
3258, Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 07, s. independence of the COMELEC requires the
001, and other pertinent administrative and civil Commission on Appointments to first confirm ad
Page | 52
interim appointees before the appointees can The SC also emphasized that the protest must be "for
assume office will negate the Presidents power to cause". It is defined as follows: "It means for reasons
make ad interim appointments. This is contrary to which the law and sound public policy recognized as
the rule on statutory construction to give meaning sufficient warrant for removal, that is legal cause,
and effect to every provision of the law. It will also and not merely causes which the appointing power
run counter to the clear intent of the framers of the in the exercise of discretion may deem sufficient. It
Constitution. is implied that officers may not be removed at the
mere will of those vested with the power of removal,
VICTOR A. AQUINO vs. CSC and LEONARDA or without any cause. Moreover, the cause must
DELA PAZ relate to and affect the administration of the office,
G.R. NO. 92403. April 22, 1992 and must be restricted to something of a substantial
nature directly affecting the rights and interests of
MEDIALDEA, J.: the public."
FACTS: Aquino's protest that he is more qualified than de la

Paz does not fall within the meaning of "for cause"
Private respondent de la Paz was appointed as contemplated by Article IX-B, Section 2 par. (3) of
Supply Officer I by the Division Superintendent of the 1987 Constitution, neither under Section 19 par.
City Schools, and the Civil Service Regional Office (6) of the Civil Service Law (P.D. 807), namely: (1)
approved her appointment as permanent. Victor that the appointee is not qualified; (2) that the
Aquino questioned her appointment with a appointee is not the next-in-rank; and (3) in case of
contention that he is more qualified and more appointment by transfer, reinstatement, or by
competent in terms of education, experience and original appointment, that the protestant is not
training. The DECS (Dept of Educ, Culture, and satisfied with the written special reason or reasons
Sports) sustained the protest, appointed Aquino as given by the appointing authority.
the Supply Officer I, and was thereupon issued a
permanent appointment. De la Paz appealed to the
CSC which revoked the appointment of Aquino. CITY MAYOR ROGELIO DEBULGADO and
Aquino now seeks to nullify the decision of CSC VICTORIA DEBULGADO vs. CSC
revoking his appointment and restoring de la Paz to G.R. No. 111471. September 26, 1994
her position as Supply Officer I.
FELICIANO, J.:
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Whether the CSC committed a grave abuse of
Petitioner Mayor Rogelio Debulgado is the incumbent
discretion in revoking Aquino's appointment as it
Mayor of the City of San Carlos, Negros Occidental.
found de la Paz better qualified
He promoted his wife, petitioner Victoria Debulgado,
as General Services Officer, that is, as head of the
RULING:
Office of General Services of the City Government of
San Carlos. Before her promotion, petitioner Victoria
No. The SC ruled that although it in the previous
had been in the service of the City Government for
cases that ruled that the CSC has no authority to
about thirty-two (32) years and she rose from the
revoke an appointment simply because it (CSC)
ranks by successively occupying different
believed that another person is better qualified than
government offices.
the appointee for it would constitute an
encroachment on the discretion solely vested on the
Public respondent CSC received a letter from
appointing authority.
Congressman Tranquilino Carmona of the First
District of Negros Occidental, calling attention to the
BUT the situation is different in this case. CSC did not
promotional appointment issued by petitioner Mayor
direct the appointment of a substitute of its choice.
in favor of his wife. After investigation, the CSC
It merely restored the appointment of private
disapproved the promotion of petitioner Victoria to
respondent who was first appointed to the contested
the position upon the ground that that promotion
position. The permanent appointment of de la Paz is
violated the statutory prohibition against nepotic
deemed complete. As such, she is entitled to the
appointments. Petitioners moved for
protection of the law against unjust approval.
reconsideration, contending that the statutory
prohibition against nepotism was not applicable to
Page | 53
the appointment of Victoria as General Services transfer, reinstatement, reemployment, etc., must
Officer since the prohibition applies only to original comply with the Implementing Rules including, of
appointments and not to promotional appointments. course, the prohibition against nepotism
Petitioners believe that because petitioner Victoria
was already in the service of the City Government The prohibitory norm against nepotism in the public
before she married petitioner Mayor, the reason service is set out in Section 59, Book V of the Revised
behind the prohibition no longer applied to her Administrative Code of 1987 (also known as EO 292)
promotional appointment. Petitioners also affirm that under Section 59:
petitioner Victoria deserves to be promoted to
General Services Officer, considering her long and All appointments in the national, provincial, city and
faithful service to the City Government. The CSC had municipal governments or in any branch or
deprived petitioner Victoria of her right to due instrumentality thereof, including government-
process by unilaterally revoking her appointment. owned or controlled corporations, made in favor of a
Petitioners assert that Victoria can no longer be relative of the appointing or recommending
removed from the position of General Services authority, or of the chief of the bureau or office, or
Officer without giving her an opportunity to be heard of the persons exercising immediate supervision over
and to answer the charged of nepotism. him, are hereby prohibited.
Petitioner Mayor denies that he had been motivated The following are exempted from the operation of
by personal reasons when he appointed his wife to the rules on nepotism: (a) persons employed in a
the new post. He states that his wife was the most confidential capacity, (b) teachers, (c) physicians,
qualified among the candidates for appointment to and (d) members of the Armed Forces of the
that position, she having worked for the City Philippines: Provided, however, that in each
Government for thirty-two (32) years and being particular instance full report of such appointment
highly recommended by the OIC-Treasurer of San shall be made to the Commission.
Carlos City. It is also claimed by petitioner Mayor that
his choice of his wife for the position was concurred It is essential to stress, however, that the prohibition
in by the Sangguniang Panglungsod. He further applies quite without regard to the actual merits of
avers that he had consulted the Field and Regional the proposed appointee and to the good intentions
Officers of the CSC in Bacolod City, and raised the of the appointing or recommending authority, and
question of applicability of the prohibition against that the prohibition against nepotism in
nepotism to the then proposed promotion of his wife appointments whether original or promotional, is not
in one of the seminars conducted by the intended by the legislative authority to penalize
Commission's Regional Office held in San Carlos City. faithful service. The purpose of Section 59 is
According to petitioner Mayor, one Gregorio C. precisely to take out of the discretion of the
Agdon, a supervising personnel specialist in the appointing and recommending authority the matter
Commission's Bacolod Office, informed him that the of appointing or recommending for appointment a
promotional appointment was not covered by the relative.
prohibition.
The promotional appointment of petitioner Victoria
ISSUE: as formerly approved by the CSC did not vest in her
a right to that position, therefore, she was not
Whether prohibition against nepotism apply to deprived of due process when she was terminated.
promotional appointments. Victoria was not deprived due process as there were
no administrative charges in respect of which she
HELD: would have been entitled to notice and hearing. The
CSC, in approving or disapproving an appointment,
The prohibition against nepotism applies to BOTH only examines the conformity of the appointment
original and promotional appointments. Both an with applicable provisions of law and whether the
original appointment and a promotion are particular appointee possesses all the minimum qualifications
species of personnel action, which must comply with and none of the disqualifications. At all events, as the
the prohibition against nepotism. Solicitor General has noted, petitioner Victoria was
afforded an opportunity to be heard when she filed
The original appointment of a civil service employee an MR with the CSC and there challenged the
and all subsequent personnel actions undertaken by disapproval by the Commission.
or in respect of that employee such as promotion,
Page | 54
Since the promotional appointment in favor of appointments validly followed by CSC are that (1) the
petitioner Victoria was a violation of Section 59, it rules on screening of applicants based on adopted
was null and void from the beginning. A void criteria were not followed; (2) there was no proper
appointment cannot give rise to security of tenure on posting of notice of vacancy; and (3) the merit and
the part of the holder of such appointment. fitness requirements set by the civil service rules
The CSC is empowered to take appropriate action on were not observed. However, such were not
presented by the petitioner.
all appointments and other personnel actions, e.g.,
promotions. Such power includes the authority to
The court, furthermore upheld, that upon the
recall an appointment initially approved in disregard issuance of an appointment and the
of applicable provisions of Civil Service law and appointees assumption of the position in the
regulations. civil service, he acquires a legal right which
cannot be taken away either by revocation of
CONRADO L. DE RAMA VS. COURT OF the appointment or removal except for cause
APPEALS and with previous notice and hearing.
G.R. NO. 131136, February 28, 2001 Moreover, it is well-settled that the person assuming
a position in the civil service under a completed
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: appointment acquires a legal, not just an equitable
right to the position. This right is protected not only
FACTS: by statute, but by the Constitution as well, which
cannot be taken away by either revocation or
Petitioner Conrado De Rama, upon his assumption of removal unless a valid cause provided there is a
office to the position of Mayor of Pagbilao Quezon, previous notice and hearing.
wrote a letter dated July 13, 1995 to the Civil Service
Commission seeking to recall the appointments of BALTAZAR CAMPOREDONDO V. NLRC
fourteen municipal employees. The contention of GR. NO. 129049, AUGUST 6, 1999
petitioner was that the appointments of said
employees were midnight appointments of the PARDO, J.:
former mayor, Ma. Evelyn Abeja. De Rama contends
that the former mayor violated Article VII, Section 15
FACTS:
of the 1987 Constitution. The Civil Service
Commission then denied the petitioners request for
Petitioner was the administrator of the Surigao del
lack of merit. Further, the CSC upheld the validity of
Norte Chapter, Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC)
the appointments on the ground that they are
until his early retirement. Petitioner alleged that his
already approved by the Head of CSC Field Office in
retirement was forced after he was required to
Lucena City, and for petitioners failure to present
restitute shortages and unremitted collections in the
evidence that would warrant the revocation or recall
total sum of P135,927.78 as determined by the field
of the said appointed employees. Consequently,
auditor of the PNRC.
petitioner filed a petition for review before the CA
arguing that CSC arrive at erroneous conclusions
Petitioner filed with the NLRC, Sub-Regional
after it ignored his supplemental to the consolidated
Arbitration Branch X, Butuan City, a complaint for
appeal. CA then ruled that no abuse of power of
illegal dismissal, damages and underpayment of
appointment on the part of outgoing mayor, and
wages against the PNRC and its key officials.
affirming the decision of CSC in its quasi-judicial
capacity. Hence, the instant petition for review to the
PNRC moved for the dismissal of the complaint for
Supreme Court`
lack of Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
case because PNRC is a Government Corporation
ISSUE:
whose employees are members of the GSIS and
embraced within the Civil Service Law and
WON CSC erred in not upholding the petitioners
Regulations.
recall of the appointments of private respondents?
ISSUE:
RULING:
Whether PNRC is a Government Owned and
No. The court ruled that when petitioner brought the
Controlled Corporation.
matter of recalling the appointments of the fourteen
employees before the CSC, the only reason he cited
was that they were midnight appointments that are
forbidden within the contemplation of Article VII,
Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution. Accordingly, the
court provides that the ground for recall of the
Page | 55
RULING: b. 2 polygraph tests show corroborative and

unfavorable results.
Yes, PNRC is a government owned and controlled 3. Salas submitted a letter of appeal to the Chairman
corporation, with an original charter under Republic and the Board of Directors of PAGCOR requesting for
Act No. 95, as amended. reinvestigation since he was not given an opportunity
to be heard. It was DENIED.
The test to determine whether a corporation is 4. The appeal with the Merit Systems Protection
government owned or controlled, or private in nature Board was denied on the ground that as a
is simple. Is it created by its own charter for the confidential employee, respondent was not
exercise of a public function, or by incorporation dismissed from service but his term of office expired.
under the general corporation law? Those with CSC affirmed the decision of MSPB.
special charters are government corporations subject 5. CA- Salas is not a confidential employee, hence he
to its provisions, and its employees are under the may not be dismissed on the ground of loss of
jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, and are confidence.
compulsory members of the Government Service a. CA applied proximity rule
Insurance System. The PNRC was not "impliedly b. Sec. 16 of PD 1869 has been superseded and
converted to a private corporation" simply because repealed by Section 2(1), Article IX-B of the
its charter was amended to vest in it the authority to Constitution.
secure loans, be exempted from payment of all
duties, taxes, fees and other charges of all kinds on ISSUE/S:
all importations and purchases for its exclusive use,
on donations for its disaster relief work and other WON respondent Salas is a confidential employee.
services and in its benefits and fund raising drives, NO.
and be allotted one lottery draw a year by the
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office for the support RATIO:
of its disaster relief operation in addition to its
existing lottery draws for blood program. 1. The power to declare a position as policy
determining, primarily confidential or highly technical
Having served in the Philippine National Red as defined therein has subsequently been codified
Cross for a number of years since his initial and incorporated in Section 12(9), Book V of
employment, he must know that it is a government Executive Order No. 292 or the Administrative Code
corporation with its own charter and that he was of 1987. a. Serves to bolster the validity of the
covered by compulsory membership in the categorization made under Section 16 of Presidential
Government Service Insurance System, which is why Decree No. 1869. Such classification is not absolute
he could apply, as he did, for "early" retirement from and all encompassing.
the service under Presidential Decree No. 1146 or
Republic Act No. 1616. 2. Two recognized instances when a position may be
considered primarily confidential: a. When the
CSC AND PAGCOR VS. RAFAEL M. SALAS President, upon recommendation of the CSC, has
GR NO. 123708, June 19, 1997 declared the position to be primarily confidential; b.
In the absence of such declaration, when by the
REGALADO, J.: nature of the functions of the office there exists
close intimacy between the appointee and the
DOCTRINE: The nature of the position, as may be appointing power which insures freedom of
ascertained by the court in case of conflict, which intercourse without embarrassment or freedom of
finally determines whether a position is primarily misgivings of betrayals of personal trust or
confidential, policy-determining or highly technical. confidential matters of state.
FACTS: 3. It would seem that the case falls under the first
category by virtue of Sec. 16 of PD 1869, but the
1. Respondent Salas was appointed by PAGCOR second category shows otherwise.
Chairman as Internal Security Staff [ISS] member
and assigned to the casino at Manila Pavilion Hotel. 4. Since the enactment of Civil Service Act of 1959,
2. His employment was terminated for loss of it is the nature of the position which finally
confidence after a covert investigation of the determines whether a position is primarily
Intelligence division of PAGCOR. confidential, policy determining, or highly technical.
a. From affidavits of 2 customers of PAGCOR who Executive pronouncements [like PD 1869] are merely
were used as gunners by the respondent, the latter initial determinations that are not conclusive in case
was allegedly engaged in proxy betting. of conflict.
Page | 56
5. Piero doctrine -- notwithstanding any statutory Regional Office found a prima facie case against
classification to the contrary, it is still the nature of respondent. Accordingly, the Civil Service
the position, as may be ascertained by the court in Commission conducted a formal investigation, and,
case of conflict, which finally determines whether a promulgated its resolution finding no substantial
position is primarily confidential, policy-determining evidence to support the charge of habitual
or highly technical -- is still controlling with the drunkenness and misconduct. However, the
advent of the 1987 Constitution and the
Commission found respondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy
Administrative Code of 1987, Book V of which deals
guilty of nepotism on two counts as a result of the
specifically with the Civil Service Commission,
considering that from these later enactments, in appointment of his two sons, Rito and Ped Dacoycoy,
defining positions which are policy-determining, as driver and utility worker, respectively, and their
primarily confidential or highly technical, the phrase assignment under his immediate supervision and
"in nature" was deleted control as the Vocational School Administrator
Balicuatro College of Arts and Trades, and imposed
a. Submission that PAGCOR employees have been on him the penalty of dismissal from the service.The
declared confidential appointee by operation of law Court of Appeals promulgated its decision reversing
must be rejected. and setting aside the decision of the Civil Service
Commission, ruling that respondent did not appoint
6. The primary purpose of the framers of the or recommend his two sons Rito and Ped, and,
Constitution in providing for declaration of a position
hence, was not guilty of nepotism.
as policy determining, highly confidential, or highly
technical is to exempt these categories from
ISSUE #1:
competitive examination as a means for determining
merit and fitness. a. These positions are covered by
security of tenure although they are considered Whether the service of the respondent should have
noncompetitive only un the sense that appointees do dismissed.
not have to undergo examinations to determine
merit and fitness. RULING:
7. CA Correctly applied proximity rule. Where the Yes. Under the definition of nepotism, one is guilty
position occupied is remote from that of the of nepotism if an appointment is issued in favor of a
appointing authority, the element of trust between relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity
them is no longer predominant. a. Position of the or affinity of any of the following: a) appointing
private respondent does not involve such close
authority; b) recommending authority; c) chief of the
intimacy between him and the appointing authority.
bureau or office, and d) person exercising immediate
FACTORS: supervision over the appointee. To constitute a
violation of the law, it suffices that an appointment
i. Routine duties of Salas [check full text] ii. ISS is extended or issued in favor of a relative within the
members do not directly report to the office of the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of the
chairman in the performance of their official duties. chief of the bureau or office, or the person exercising
Subject to the control and supervision of an Area immediate supervision over the appointee.While It is
Supervisor. iii. Position of ISS belongs to the bottom true that he did not appoint or recommend his two
level salary scale of the corporation, being in pay sons to the positions of driver and utility worker in
class 2 level only [pay class 12 being the highest] the Balicuatro College of Arts and Trades, However,
DISPOSITIVE: CA order affirmed. Salas not a it was respondent Dacoycoy who certified that funds
confidential employee. are available for the proposed appointment of Rito
Dacoycoy and even rated his performance as very
CSC vs. PEDRO O. DACOYCOY
satisfactory. On the other hand, his son Ped stated
G.R. No. 135805. April 29, 1999
in his position description form that his father was
his next higher supervisor. The circumvention of the
PARDO, J.:
ban on nepotism is quite obvious. Unquestionably,
Mr. Daclag was a subordinate of respondent Pedro
FACTS:
O. Dacoycoy, who was the school administrator. He
authorized Mr. Daclag to recommend the
George P. Suan, a Citizens Crime Watch Vice-
appointment of first level employees under his
President, filed with the Civil Service Commission,
immediate supervision. Then Mr. Daclag
Quezon City, a complaint against Pedro O. Dacoycoy,
recommended the appointment of respondents two
for habitual drunkenness, misconduct and nepotism.
sons and placed them under respondents immediate
After the fact-finding investigation, the Civil Service
Page | 57
supervision serving as driver and utility worker of the promotional appointment is covered by the
school. Both positions are career positions. Thus, the prohibition against nepotism or the prohibition
unseen but obvious hand of respondent Dacoycoy applies only to original appointments to the civil
was behind the appointing or recommending service, and whether the Commission had gravely
authority in the appointment of his two sons. Clearly, abused its discretion in recalling and disapproving
he is guilty of nepotism. the promotional appointment given to petitioner
after the Commission had earlier approved that
ISSUE #2: appointment. Debulgado never even impliedly
limited the coverage of the ban on nepotism to only
Whether the Civil Service Law does not contemplate the appointing or recommending authority for
a review of decisions exonerating officers or appointing a relative. Precisely, in Debulgado, the
employees from administrative charges. Court emphasized that Section 59 means exactly
what it says in plain and ordinary language: x x x The
RULING: public policy embodied in Section 59 is clearly
fundamental in importance, and the Court had
No. As an aggrieved party, The Civil Service neither authority nor inclination to dilute that
Commission may appeal the decision of the Court of important public policy by introducing a qualification
Appeals to the Supreme Court. When the Court of here or a distinction there.
Appeals reversed the decision of the Civil Service
Commission and held respondent not guilty of FIDENCIO Y. BEJA, SR. vs. CA
nepotism. Who now may appeal the decision of the G.R. No. 97149. March 31, 1992
Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court? Certainly not
the respondent, who was declared not guilty of the ROMERO, J.:
charge. Nor the complainant George P. Suan, who
was merely a witness for the government. FACTS:
Consequently, the Civil Service Commission has
become the party adversely affected by such ruling, Fidencio Beja Sr. an employee of Philippine ports
authority, hired as Arrastre supervisor in 1975 and
which seriously prejudices the civil service system.
later on appointed as terminal supervisor in 1988. On
By this ruling, the Court expressly abandon and
October 21, 1988, the General Manager, Rogelio A.
overrule extant jurisprudence that the phrase party Dayan filed administrative case against Beja Sr. and
adversely affected by the decision refers to the Villaluz for grave dishonesty. Grave misconduct
government employee against whom the willful violation of reasonable office rules and
administrative case is filed for the purpose of regulations and conduct prejudicial to the best
disciplinary action which may take the form of interest of the service.
suspension, demotion in rank or salary, transfer,
removal or dismissal from office and not included are Consequently, they were preventively suspended for
cases where the penalty imposed is suspension for the charges. After preliminary investigation
not more then thirty (30) days or fine in an amount conducted by the district attorney for region X,
not exceeding thirty days salary or when the administrative case was considered closed for lack of
merit.
respondent is exonerated of the charges, there is no
occasion for appeal. In other words, the Court
On December 13, 1988 another administrative case
overrule prior decisions holding that the Civil Service was filed against Beja by the PPA manager also for
Law does not contemplate a review of decisions dishonesty grave misconduct violation of office rules
exonerating officers or employees from and regulations, conduct prejudicial to the best
administrative charges. interest of the service and for being notoriously
undesirable. Beja was also placed under preventive
ISSUE #3: suspension pursuant to sec. 412 of PD No. 807. The
case was redocketed and thereafter, the PPA
Whether the Court of Appeals reliance on Debulgado indorsed it to the AAB for appropriate action. The
case may prosper. AAB proceeded to hear the case and gave Beja an
opportunity to present evidence. However, on
RULING: February 20, 1989, Beja filed petition for certiorari
with preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial
Court of Misamis Oriental. Two days later, he filed
No. The Court of Appeals reliance on Debulgado vs.
with the ABB a manifestation and motion to suspend
Civil Service Commission, to support its ruling is the hearing of administrative case on account of the
misplaced. The issues in Debulgado are whether a pendency of the certiorari proceeding before the
Page | 58
court. AAB denied the motion and continued with the the attached agency. The attachment is merely for
hearing of the administrative case. Thereafter, Beja policy and program coordination. With respect to
moved for the dismissal of the certiorari case and administrative matters, the independence of an
proceeded to file before the Court for a petition for attached agency from the department control and
certiorari with preliminary injunction and/or supervision is furthermore reinforced by the fact that
temporary restraining order. even an agency under a Departments administrative
supervision is free from Departmental interference
ISSUE:
with respect to appointments and other personnel
Whether or not the Administrative Action Board of actions in accordance with the decentralization of
DOTC has jurisdiction over administrative cases personnel functions under the administrative Code
involving personnel below the rank of Assistant of 1987. The Law impliedly grants the general
General Manager of the Philippine Ports Authority, an Manager with the approval of the PPA board of
attached agency of DOTC Directors the power to investigate its personnel
below the rank of Assistant Manager who may be
RULING: charged with an administrative offense. During such
investigation, the PPA General Manager, may subject
The PPA General Manager is the disciplining the employee concerned to preventive suspension.
authority who may, by himself and without the The investigation should be conducted in accordance
approval of the PPA Board of Directors, subject a with the procedure set out in Sec. 38 of PD no. 807.
respondent in an administrative case to preventive
suspension. His disciplining powers are sanctioned RICARDO T. GLORIA vs. CA
not only by Sec.8 of PD no. 857 but also by Sec. 37 GR No. 131012, April 21, 1999
of PD no. 807 granting the heads of agencies the
Jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters MENDOZA, J.:
involving disciplinary actions against officers and
employees in the PPA. With respect to the issue, the FACTS:
Court qualifiedly rules in favor of the petitioner. The
PPA was created through PD no. 505 dated July Private respondents are public school teachers. On
1974. Under the Law, the corporate powers of the various dates, during the teachers strikes, they did
PPA were vested in a governing Board of Directors not report for work. For this reason, they were
known as the Philippine Ports Authority Council. Sec. administratively charged with (1) grave misconduct,
5(i) of the same decree gave the council the power (2) gross neglect of duty, (3) gross violation of Civil
to appoint, discipline and remove, and determine Service Law Rules and Regulations and reasonable
the composition of the technical staff of the authority office regulations, (4) refusal to perform official duty,
and other personnel. On December 23, 1975, PD (5) gross insubordination, (6) conduct prejudicial to
no. 505 was substituted by PD no. 857 sec. 4(a) the best interest of the service, and (7) absence
thereof created the Philippine Ports Authority which without leave (AWOL), and placed under preventive
would be attached to the then Department of Public suspension. The investigation was concluded before
Works, Transportation and Communication. When the lapse of their 90-day suspension and private
Executive order no. 125 dated January 30, 1987 respondents were found guilty as charged.
reorganizing the Ministry of Transportation and Respondent Nicanor Margallo was ordered dismissed
Communication was issued, the PPA retained its from the service, while respondents Amparo Abad,
attached status. Administrative Code of 1987 Virgilia Bandigas, and Elizabeth Somebang were
classified PPA as an attached agency to the DOTC. ordered suspended for 6 months.
Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, the
other two being supervision and control and On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
administrative supervision, Attachment is defined affirmed the decision of the MSPB with respect to
as the lateral relationship between the department Margallo, but found the other three (Abad, Bandigas,
or its equivalent and the attached agency or and Somebang) guilty only of violation of reasonable
corporation for purposes of policy and program office rules and regulations by failing to file
coordination. An attached agency has a larger applications for leave of absence and, therefore,
measure of independence from the Department to reduced the penalty imposed on them to reprimand
which it is attached than one which is under and ordered them reinstated to their former
departmental supervision and control or positions.
administrative supervision. This is borne out by the
lateral relationship between the Department and
Page | 59
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule preventive suspension during the pendency of the
65 in this Court. Pursuant to Revised Administrative appeal in the event he wins. On the other hand, if
Circular No. 1-95, the case was referred to the Court his conviction is affirmed, i.e., if he is not exonerated,
of Appeals which, on September 3, 1996, rendered a the period of his suspension becomes part of the final
decision reversing it insofar as the CSC ordered the penalty of suspension or dismissal.
suspension of Nicanor Margallo. The appellate court
found him guilty of violation of reasonable office Private respondents were exonerated of all charges
rules and regulations only and imposed on him the against them for acts connected with the teachers
penalty of reprimand. strike of September and October 1990. Although
they were absent from work, it was not because of
the Court of Appeals, while maintaining its finding the strike. For being absent without leave, they were
that private respondents were guilty of violation of held liable for violation of reasonable office rules and
reasonable office rules and regulations for which regulations for which the penalty is a reprimand.
they should be reprimanded, ruled that private
respondents were entitled to the payment of salaries NOTES:
during their suspension beyond ninety (90) days.
Discuss the kinds of preventive suspension under the
Petitioner contends that the administrative Civil Service Law. When may a civil service employee
investigation of respondents was concluded within placed under preventive suspension be entitled to
the 90-day period of preventive suspension, implying compensation? Held: There are two kinds of
that the continued suspension of private respondents preventive suspension of civil service employees who
is due to their appeal, hence, the government should are charged with offenses punishable by removal or
not be held answerable for payment of their salaries. suspension:
Moreover, petitioner lays so much store by the fact
that, under the law, private respondents are (1) preventive suspension pending investigation
considered under preventive suspension during the (Sec. 51, Civil Service Law, EO No. 292) and
period of their appeal and, for this reason, are not (2) preventive suspension pending appeal if the
entitled to the payment of their salaries during their penalty imposed by the disciplining authority is
suspension. suspension or dismissal and, after review, the
respondent is exonerated (Section 47, par. 4, Civil
ISSUE: Service Law, EO No. 292).
Whether the teachers are entitled to backwages for Preventive suspension pending investigation is not a
the period pending their appeal if they are penalty. It is a measure intended to enable the
subsequently exonerated? disciplining authority to investigate charges against
respondent by preventing the latter from intimidating
HELD: or in any way influencing witnesses against him. If
the investigation is not finished and a decision is not
Yes, they are entitled to backwages. rendered within that period, the suspension will be
lifted and the respondent will automatically be
The court ruled that there are thus two kinds of reinstated. If after investigation respondent is found
preventive suspension of civil service employees who innocent of the charges and is exonerated, he should
are charged with offenses punishable by removal or be reinstated. However, no compensation was due
suspension: (1) preventive suspension pending for the period of preventive suspension pending
investigation (51) and (2) preventive suspension investigation. The Civil Service Act of 1959 (R.A. No.
pending appeal if the penalty imposed by the 2260) providing for compensation in such a case
disciplining authority is suspension or dismissal and, once the respondent was exonerated was revised in
after review, the respondent is exonerated (47(4)). 1975 and the provision on the payment of salaries
during suspension was deleted. But although it is
preventive suspension pending appeal is actually held that employees who are preventively suspended
punitive although it is in effect subsequently pending investigation are not entitled to the payment
considered illegal if respondent is exonerated and of their salaries even if they are exonerated, they are
the administrative decision finding him guilty is entitled to compensation for the period of their
reversed. Hence, he should be reinstated with full suspension pending appeal if eventually they are
pay for the period of the suspension. Thus, 47(4) found innocent. Preventive suspension pending
states that respondent shall be considered as under investigation x x x is not a penalty but only a means
Page | 60
of enabling the disciplining authority to conduct an ISSUES:

unhampered investigation. On the other hand,
preventive suspension pending appeal is actually 1. Whether Garcia may be held administratively
punitive although it is in effect subsequently liable.
considered illegal if respondent is exonerated and
the administrative decision finding him guilty is 2. Whether the Ombudsman was stripped of its
reversed. Hence, he should be reinstated with full powers by virtue of the Local Government Code.
pay for the period of the suspension.
RULING:
REPUBLIC ACT 3019 (ANTI-GRAFT AND
CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT) Section 13 (See 1. No. As previously held, a reelected local official
Aguinaldo and Mojica Case) may not be held administratively accountable for
misconduct committed during his prior term of
Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. Any office. The rationale is that when the electorate put
public officer against whom any criminal prosecution him back into office, it is presumed that it did so with
under a valid information under this Act or under the full knowledge of his life and character, including his
provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is past misconduct. If, armed with such knowledge, it
pending in court, shall be suspended from office. still reelects him, then such is considered a
Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall condonation of his past misdeeds.
lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law,
but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to However, in the present case, respondents point out
reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which that the contract entered into by petitioner with F.E.
he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the Zuellig was signed just 4 days before the date of the
meantime administrative proceedings have been elections. It was not made an issue during the
filed against him. election, and so the electorate could not be said to
have voted for petitioner with knowledge of this
MAYOR ALVIN B. GARCIA vs. ARTURO C. particular aspect of his life and character.
MOJICA
G.R. No. 139043. September 10, 1999 Petitioner can no longer be held administratively
liable for an act done during his previous term. The
QUISUMBING, J.: agreement between petitioner and F.E. Zuellig was
perfected on the date the contract was signed,
FACTS: during petitioners prior term. At that moment,
petitioner already acceded to the terms of the
On May 7, 1998, petitioner, in his capacity as Cebu contract, including stipulations now alleged to be
City mayor, signed a contract with F.E. Zuellig for the prejudicial to the city government. Thus, any
supply of asphalt to the city. The contract covers the culpability petitioner may have in signing the
period 1998-2001, which was to commence on contract already became extant on the day the
September 1998 upon F.E. Zuelligs first delivery. contract was signed. It hardly matters that the
Sometime in March 1999, news reports came out deliveries under the contract are supposed to have
regarding the alleged anomalous purchase of asphalt been made months later.
by Cebu City, through the contract signed by
petitioner. This prompted the Office of the While petitioner can no longer be held
Ombudsman (Visayas) to conduct an inquiry into the administratively liable for signing the contract with F.
matter. E. Zuellig, this should not prejudice the filing of any
case, other than administrative, against petitioner.
Respondent Jesus Rodrigo T. Tagaan, special The ruling does not mean the total exoneration of
prosecution officer of the Office of the Ombudsman, petitioners wrongdoing, if any, that might have been
was assigned to conduct the inquiry, docketed as committed in signing the subject contract. The ruling
INQ-VIS-99-0132. After investigation, he is now limited to the question of his administrative
recommended that the said inquiry be upgraded to liability therefore, and it is our considered view that
criminal and administrative cases against petitioner he may not.
and the other city officials involved. Respondent
Arturo C. Mojica, Deputy Ombudsman for the 2. No. There is nothing in the LGC to indicate that it
Visayas, approved this recommendation has repealed, whether expressly or impliedly, the
pertinent provisions of the Ombudsman Act. The two
Page | 61
statutes on the specific matter in question are not so CA, et al., G.R. No. 131012, April 21, 1999, p. 7, 306
inconsistent, let alone irreconcilable, as to compel us SCRA 287) or to tamper with records that might be
to only uphold one and strike down the other. The vital to the prosecution of the case against him
decision of the Ombudsman (6 month suspension) (Yasay, Jr. v. Desierto, et al., G.R. No. 134495,
will prevail over the LGC (60day suspension) if the December 28, 1998, p. 9, 300 SCRA 494). In our
evidence of guilt is strong. The power to preventively view, the present controversy simply boils down to
suspend is available not only to the Ombudsman but this pivotal question: Given the purpose of
also to the Deputy Ombudsman. preventive suspension and the circumstances of this
case, did respondent Deputy Ombudsman commit a
Discuss the power of Ombudsman to conduct grave abuse of discretion when he set the period of
administrative investigations, and to impose preventive suspension at six months? Preventive
preventive suspension. suspension under Sec. 24, R.A. 6770 x x x may be
imposed when, among other factors, the evidence of
Worth stressing, to resolve the present controversy, guilt is strong. The period for which an official may
we must recall that the authority of the Ombudsman be preventively suspended must not exceed six
to conduct administrative investigations is mandated months. In this case, petitioner was preventively
by no less than the Constitution. x x x R.A. 6770, the suspended and ordered to cease and desist from
Ombudsman Law, further grants the Office of the holding office for the entire period of six months,
Ombudsman the statutory power to conduct which is the maximum provided by law. The
administrative investigations. X x x Section 21 of R.A. determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt
6770 names the officials subject to the is strong as to warrant preventive suspension rests
Ombudsmans disciplinary authority x x x. Petitioner with the Ombudsman (Nera v. Garcia, 106 Phil. 1031
is an elective local official accused of grave [1960]; others omitted.). The discretion as regards
misconduct and dishonesty. That the Office of the the period of such suspension also necessarily
Ombudsman may conduct an administrative belongs to the Ombudsman, except that he cannot
investigation into the acts complained of, appears extend the period of suspension beyond that
clear from the foregoing provisions of R.A. 6770. provided by law (Castillo-Co v. Barbers, supra.). But,
However, the question of whether or not the in our view, both the strength of the evidence to
Ombudsman may conduct an investigation over a warrant said suspension and the propriety of the
particular act or omission, is different from the length or period of suspension imposed on petitioner
question of whether or not petitioner, after are properly raised in this petition for certiorari and
investigation, may be held administratively liable. prohibition. X x x X x x Given these findings, we
This distinction ought here to be kept in mind, even cannot say now that there is no evidence sufficiently
as we must also take note that the power to strong to justify the imposition of preventive
investigate is distinct from the power to suspend suspension against petitioner. But considering its
preventively an erring public officer. Likewise worthy purpose and the circumstances in the case brought
of note, the power of the Office of the Ombudsman before us, it does appear to us that the imposition of
to preventively suspend an official subject to its the maximum period of six months is unwarranted.
administrative investigation is provided by specific X x x [G]ranting that now the evidence against
provision of law. X x x We have previously petitioner is already strong, even without conceding
interpreted the phrase under his authority to mean that initially it was weak, it is clear to us that the
that the Ombudsman can preventively suspend all maximum six-month period is excessive and
officials under investigation by his office, regardless definitely longer than necessary for the Ombudsman
of the branch of government in which they are to make its legitimate case against petitioner. We
employed (Buenaseda v. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645, 654 must conclude that the period during which
[1993]), excepting of course those removable by petitioner was already preventively suspended, has
impeachment, members of Congress and the been sufficient for the lawful purpose of preventing
Judiciary. The power to preventively suspend is petitioner from hiding and destroying needed
available not only to the Ombudsman but also to the documents, or harassing and preventing witnesses
Deputy Ombudsman. This is the clear import of who wish to appear against him
Section 24 of R.A. 6770 above cited. There can be
no question in this case as to the power and authority
of respondent Deputy Ombudsman to issue an order
of preventive suspension against an official like the
petitioner, to prevent that official from using his
office to intimidate or influence witnesses (Gloria v.
Page | 62
RODOLFO AGUINALDO VS. LUIS SANTOS a landslide margin in the elections, the resolution
G.R. No. 94115 August 21, 1992 paved the way for his eventual proclamation as
Governor of Cagayan.
NOCON, J.:
ISSUES:
FACTS:
1. WON petitioner's re-election to the position of
Aguinaldo was the duly elected Governor of the Governor of Cagayan has rendered the
province of Cagayan. After the December 1989 coup administration case moot and academic
dtat was crushed, DILG Secretary Santos sent a 2. WON the Secretary has the power to suspend or
telegram & letter to Governor Aguinaldo requiring remove local government officials as alter ego of the
him to show cause why he should not be suspended President
or removed from office for disloyalty to the Republic.
A sworn complaint was also filed by Mayors of RULING:
several municipalities in Cagayan against Aguinaldo
for acts committed during the coup. Aguinaldo 1. Yes. Aguinaldos re-election to the position of
denied being privy to the planning of the coup or Governor of Cagayan has rendered the
actively participating in its execution, though he administrative case pending moot and academic. It
admitted that he was sympathetic to the cause of the appears that after the canvassing of votes, petitioner
rebel soldiers. garnered the most number of votes among the
The Secretary suspended petitioner from office for candidates for governor of Cagayan province. The
60 days from notice, pending the outcome of the rule is that a public official cannot be removed for
formal investigation. Later, the Secretary rendered a administrative misconduct committed during a prior
decision finding petition guilty as charged and term, since his re-election to office operates as a
ordering his removal from office. Vice-Governor condonation of the officer's previous misconduct to
Vargas was installed as Governor. Aguinaldo the extent of cutting off the right to remove him
appealed. therefor. The foregoing rule, however, finds no
application to criminal cases pending against
Aguinaldo filed a petition for certiorari and petitioner for acts he may have committed during the
prohibition with preliminary mandatory injunction failed coup.
and/or restraining order with the SC, assailing the
decision of respondent Secretary of Local 2. Yes. The power of the Secretary to remove local
Government. Petitioner argued that: (1) that the government officials is anchored on both the
power of respondent Secretary to suspend or remove Constitution and a statutory grant from the
local government official under Section 60, Chapter legislative branch. The constitutional basis is
IV of B.P. Blg. 337 was repealed by the 1987 provided by Articles VII (17) and X (4) of the 1987
Constitution; (2) that since respondent Secretary no Constitution which vest in the President the power of
longer has power to suspend or remove petitioner, control over all executive departments, bureaus and
the former could not appoint respondent Melvin offices and the power of general supervision over
Vargas as Governor; and (3) the alleged act of local governments. It is a constitutional doctrine that
disloyalty committed by petitioner should be proved the acts of the department head are presumptively
by proof beyond reasonable doubt, and not be a the acts of the President unless expressly rejected by
mere preponderance of evidence, because it is an act him. Furthermore, it cannot be said that BP337 was
punishable as rebellion under the Revised Penal repealed by the effectivity of the present Constitution
Code. as both the 1973 and 1987 Constitution grants to the
legislature the power and authority to enact a local
While the case was pending before the SC, Aguinaldo government code, which provides for the manner of
filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of removal of local government officials. Moreover, in
Governor of Cagayan. Three petitions for Bagabuyo et al. vs. Davide, Jr., et al., this court had
disqualification were filed against him on the ground the occasion to state that B.P. Blg. 337 remained in
that he had been removed from office. force despite the effectivity of the present
Constitution, until such time as the proposed Local
The Comelec granted the petition. Later, this was Government Code of 1991 is approved. The power
reversed on the ground that the decision of the of the DILG secretary to remove local elective
Secretary has not yet attained finality and is still government officials is found in Secs. 60 and 61 of
pending review with the Court. As Aguinaldo won by BP 337.
Page | 63
What is the doctrine of forgiveness or On 10 June 1993, President Ramos issued

condonation? Does it apply to pending memorandum approving privatization of PNOC
criminal cases? subsidiaries. Accordingly, respondent implemented a
Manpower Reduction Program wherein under this
Held: program, retrenched employees shall receive a two
month pay for every tear of service. Petitioner
requested to be included in the next retrenchment
1. A public official cannot be removed for
schedule but it was denied for a reason that he was
administrative misconduct committed during a prior
holding a permanent position and that he was
term, since his re-election to office operates as a already due for mandatory retirement under his
condonation of the officers previous misconduct to retirement plan.
the extent of cutting off the right to remove him
therefor. The foregoing rule, however, finds no Eventually, petitioner retired after serving
application to criminal cases pending against respondent for 17 years and 4 months upon reaching
petitioner. (Aguinaldo v. Santos, 212 SCRA 768, 60 yrs old. However, upon approval of two
permanent employees retrenchment, petitioner now
773 [1992])
filed a complaint at NLRC for the full payment of his
retirement benefits arguing that his service with the
2. A reelected local official may not be held DOH should have been included in the computation
administratively accountable for misconduct of his years of service. Hence, with an accumulated
committed during his prior term of office. The service of 32 years and should have been paid a two
rationale for this holding is that when the electorate month pay for every year of service per the
put him back into office, it is presumed that it did so retirement plan.
with full knowledge of his life and character,
ISSUE:
including his past misconduct. If, armed with such
knowledge, it still reelects him, then such reelection
is considered a condonation of his past misdeeds. Whether petitioners service rendered in DOH will be
credited and will be added to his creditable service
(Mayor Alvin B. Garcia v. Hon. Arturo C.
later acquired in PNOC-Shipping and Transport, a
Mojica, et al., G.R. No. 139043, Sept. 10, 1999
[Quisumbing]) GOCC w/o original charter.
HELD:
SECOND SET OF CASES LAW ON PUBLIC
We cannot uphold petitioners contention that his
OFFICERS
fourteen years of service with the DOH should be
considered because his last two employers were
government-owned and controlled corporations, and
CAYO G. GAMOGAMO vs. PNOC SHIPPING
fall under the Civil Service Law.Article IX(B), Section
AND TRANSPORT CORP.
2 paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution states --
G.R. No. 141707. May 7, 2002
Sec. 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches,
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
Government, including government-owned or
FACTS: controlled corporations with original charters.
Petitioner was first employed with the DOH as Dental It is not at all disputed that while Respondent and
Aide and later on promoted to the position of Dentist LUSTEVECO are government-owned and controlled
1. He remained employed at the DOH for fourteen corporations, they have no original charters; hence
years until he resigned on 2 November 1977. they are not under the Civil Service
On 9 November 1977, petitioner was hired as Law. In Philippine National Oil Company-Energy
company dentist by Luzon Stevedoring Corporation Development Corporation v. National Labor Relations
(LUSTEVECO), a private domestic Commission, we ruled:
corporation. Subsequently, Respondent PNOC
acquired and took over the shipping business of xxx Thus under the present state of the law, the test
LUSTEVECO, and on 1 August 1979, petitioner was in determining whether a government-owned or
among those who opted to be absorbed by the controlled corporation is subject to the Civil Service
Respondent. Thus, he continued to work as company Law are [sic] the manner of its creation, such that
dentist and assumed without interruption petitioners government corporations created by special
service credits with LUSTEVECO, but it did not
charter(s) are subject to its provisions while those
assume petitioners service credits with the DOH.
Page | 64
incorporated under the General Corporation Law are In any case, petitioners fourteen years of service
not within its coverage. with the DOH may not remain uncompensated
Consequently, Respondent was not bound by the because it may be recognized by the GSIS pursuant
opinion of the Civil Service Commission of 18 May to the aforequoted Section 12, as may be determined
1993. by the GSIS. Since petitioner may be entitled to
some benefits from the GSIS, he cannot avail of the
Petitioners contention that the principle of tacking of benefits under R.A. No. 7699.
creditable service is mandated by Republic Act No.
7699 is baseless. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7699 LUZ LUMANTA, ET AL. vs. NLRC and FOOD
reads: TERMINAL, INC.
G.R. No. 82819 February 8, 1989
SEC 3. Provisions of any general or special law or
rules and regulations to the contrary FELICIANO, J.:
notwithstanding, a covered worker who transfer(s)
employment from one sector to another or is FACTS:
employed in both sectors, shall have his creditable
services or contributions in both systems credited to Petitioners file a complaint against FTI for unpaid
his service or contribution record in each of the retrenchment/separation pay and underpayment of
Systems and shall be totalized for purposes of old- wages and non-payment of ECOLA with the DOLE.
age, disability, survivorship, and other benefits in FTI moved for the dismissal of the case for lack of
case the covered employee does not qualify for such jurisdiction contending that employees of
benefits in either or both Systems without government owned and controlled corporation is not
totalization: Provided, however, That overlapping governed by the Labor Code but the Civil Service Law
periods of membership shall be credited only once and hence, fall within jurisdiction of the CSC and not
for purposes of totalization. the DOLE.
Obviously, totalization of service credits is only Petitioners on the other hand contends that FTI has
resorted to when the retiree does not qualify for still a mark of a private corporation for it directly
benefits in either or both of the Systems. Here, hires its employees without seeking approval from
petitioner is qualified to receive benefits granted by CSC and that its employees are covered by SSS and
the Government Security Insurance System (GSIS), not GSIS.
if such right has not yet been exercised. The
pertinent provisions of law are: ISSUE:
SEC. 12 Old Age Pension. -- (a) xxx Whether labor law claim against GOCC without
(b) A member who has rendered at least three years original charter like FTI falls within the jurisdiction of
but less than fifteen years of service at the time of DOLE.
separation shall, upon reaching sixty years of age or
upon separation after age sixty, receive a cash HELD:
payment equivalent to one hundred percent of his
average monthly compensation for every year of Yes. The 1987 Constitution which took effect on 2
service with an employer (Presidential Decree No, February 1987, governs and which reads:
1146, as amended, otherwise known as the
Government Service Insurance Act of 1977). The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government,
SEC. 4. All contributions paid by such member including government-owned or controlled
personally, and those that were paid by his corporations with original charter.
employers to both Systems shall be considered in the (Article IX-B, Section 2 [1])
processing of benefits which he can claim from either
or both Systems: Provided, however, That the The jurisdiction is determined as of the time of the
amount of benefits to be paid by one System shall filing of the complaint. At the time the complaint
be in proportion to the number of contributions against private respondent FTI was filed (i.e., 20
actually remitted to that System (Republic Act No. March 1987), and at the time the decisions of the
7699). respondent Labor Arbiter and National Labor
Relations Commission were rendered (i.e., 31 August
1987 and 18 March 1988, respectively), the 1987
Page | 65
Constitution had already come into effect. latter of HELD:

Instruction No. 1013, dated 19 April 1980, included
Food Terminal, Inc. in the category of "government- Yes. Petitioner's voluntary acceptance of the position
owned or controlled corporations." Since then, FTI of judge-at-large consequent upon his taking of the
served as the marketing arm of the National Grains oath of office on February 16, 1946, amounted to a
Authority (now known as the National Food waiver of his right to hold the position of cadastral
Authority). The pleadings show that FTI was judge during the term fixed and guaranteed by the
previously a privately-owned enterprise, created and Constitution. But it is maintained that an ad interim
organized under the general incorporation law, with appointment is merely temporary and the petitioner
the corporate name "Greater Manila Food Terminal cannot be said to have vacated the office of cadastral
judge in view of the rejection of said appointment by
Market, Inc." The record does not indicate the
the Commission on Appointments. This point has to
precise amount of the capital stock of FM that is
be resolved adversely to the petitioner, if we are to
owned by the government; the petitioners' claim, be consistent with the decision in Zandueta vs. De la
and this has not been disputed, that FTl is not Costa, supra, wherein it was held that "when a judge
hundred percent (100%) government-owned and of first instance, presiding over a branch of a Court
that it has some private shareholders. of First Instance of a judicial district by virtue of a
legal and valid appointment, accepts another
We conclude that because respondent FTI is appointment to preside over the same branch of the
government-owned and controlled same Court of First Instance, in addition to another
corporation without original charter, it is the court of the same category, both of which belong to
Department of Labor and Employment, and not the a new judicial district formed by the addition of
Civil Service Commission, which has jurisdiction over another Court of First Instance to the old one, enters
the dispute arising from employment of the into the discharge of the functions of his new office
and receives the corresponding salary, he abandons
petitioners with private respondent FTI, and that
his old office and cannot claim to be entitled to
consequently, the terms and conditions of such
repossess it or question the constitutionality of the
employment are governed by the Labor Code and law by virtue of which his new appointment has been
not by the Civil Service Rules and Regulations. issued; and, said new appointment having been
disapproved by the commission on Appointments of
RICARDO SUMMERS vs. ROMAN OZAETA, the National Assembly, neither can he claim to
Secretary of Justice, and MANUEL continue occupying the office conferred upon him by
AGREGADO, Auditor General said new appointment, having ipso jure ceased in the
G.R. No. L-1534. October 25, 1948 discharge of the functions thereof.
PARAS, J.:
Moreover, an ad interim appointment is one made in
pursuance of paragraph (4), section 10, Article VII,
FACTS:
of the Constitution, which provides that the "
President shall have the power to make
Petitioner was a Cadastral Judge who qualified for
appointments during the recess of the Congress, but
and assumed the position of Judge-at-arge of CFI
such appointments shall be effective only until
upon receiving an ad interim appointment. However,
disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or
such appointment was later on disapproved by
until the next adjournment of the Congress." It is an
Commission on Appointment as a result thereof, the
appointment permanent in nature, and the
Secretary of Justice informed him of his separation
circumstance that it is subject to confirmation by the
from service.
Commission on Appointments does not alter its
permanent character. An ad interim appointment is
Petitioner contend that he is entitles to continue as a
disapproved certainly for a reason other than that its
Cadastral Judge pursuant to Sec. 9, Art. VIII of the
provisional period has expired. Said appointment is
Constitution because the latter position does not
of course distinguishable from an "acting"
cease upon his acceptance of the position as judge-
appointment which is merely temporary, good until
at-large.
another permanent appointment is issued.
ISSUE:
In the case at bar, the petitioner accepted and
Whether the acceptance of a position of Judge-at- qualified for the position of judge-at-large by taking
the oath of office of judge-at-large, and not merely
large amounts to a waiver of petitioners right to hold
of an "acting" judge-at-large. He cannot argue that
the position as Cadastral Judge.
said acceptance was conditioned upon the approval
Page | 66
of the appointment by the Commission on and all the other legal requirements have been
Appointments, for, as stated in Zandueta vs. De la satisfied, it has no choice but to attest to the
Costa, supra, the petitioner "knew, or at least he appointment. Thereafter, its participation in the
should know, that his ad interim appointment was appointment process. Indeed, the determination of
subject to the approval of the Commission on who among several candidates for a vacant position
Appointments of the National Assembly and that if has the best qualifications is vested in the sound
said commission were to disapprove the same, it discretion of the Department Head or appointing
would become ineffective and he would cease authority and not in the Commission. This is because
discharging the office. the appointing authority occupies the ideal vantage
point from which to identify and designate the
individual who can best fill the post and discharge its
RICARDO L. MEDALLA, JR. vs. functions in the government agency he heads.
Consequently, when the appointing authority has
HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, in her
already exercised his power of appointment, the
capacity as Chairman of the Civil Service
Commission cannot revoke the same on the ground
Commission that another employee is better qualified for that
G.R. No. 94255 May 5, 1992 would constitute an encroachment on the decision
vested in the appointing authority. The Commission
PARAS, J.: may not and should not substitute its judgment for
that of the appointing authority.
FACTS:
In fine, the Court has categorically ruled:
There occured a vacancy in the position of Division
Manager in the B P and G Division of MIAA. We declare once again, and let us hope for the last
Consequently, Engr. Singson was designated as the time, that the Civil Service Commission has no power
Acting Division Manager thereof. However, in the of appointment except over its own personnel.
meeting conducted by MIAA Selection/Promotion Neither does it have the authority to review the
Board, Engr. Ricardo Medalla, then Supervising appointments made by other offices except only to
Engineer A of the same Division was issued formal ascertain if the appointee possesses the required
qualifications. The determination of who among
appointment by then MIAA General Manager. With
aspirants with the minimum statutory qualifications
this, Singson protest the appointment of Medalla to
should be preferred belongs to the appointing
MSPB of the CSC. authority and not the Civil Service Commission. It
cannot disallow an appointment because it believes
Pending resolution of his protest in MSPB, MIAA another person is better qualified and much less can
underwent a reorganization. Pursuant to its new it direct the appointment of its own choice.
staffing pattern, MIAA reappointed Medalla and
Singson as Division Manager D and Principal Appointment is a highly discretionary act that even
Engineer C respectively of the New Civil Works this Court cannot compel. While the act of
Division, which replace the B P and G Division. appointment may in proper cases be the subject
of mandamus, the selection itself of the appointee
Notwithstanding the reorganization, MSP still taking into account the totality of his qualifications,
rendered its decision revoking Medallas appointment including those abstract qualities that define his
personality is the prerogative of the appointing
and replace Singson in his stead having the position
authority. This is a matter addressed only to the
next in rank to that of the vacant position.
discretion of the appointing authority. It is a political
question that the Civil Service Commission has no
ISSUE: power to review under the Constitution and the
applicable laws.
Whether MSPB of the CSC may revoke appointment
made by the MIAA.
HELD:
No. The Court has already repeatedly ruled that the

Commission has no such authority to do so. Its only
function is limited to approving or reviewing
appointments to determine their accordance with the
requirements of the Civil Service Law. Thus, when
the Commission finds the appointee to be qualified
Page | 67
NAB OF THE NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION Section 45, a disciplinary action is appealable only if
(NAPOLCOM) vs. P/INSP. JOHN A. it involves either a demotion or dismissal from the
MAMAUAG, SPO2 EUGENE ALMARIO, SPO4 service. If the disciplinary action is less than a
ERLINDA GARCIA and SPO1 VIVIAN FELIPE demotion or dismissal from the service, the
[G.R. No. 149999. August 12, 2005] disciplinary action shall be final and executory as
Section 45 of RA 6975 expressly mandates. Thus, a
CARPIO, J.: decision imposing suspension on a PNP member is
not subject to appeal to a higher authority.
FACTS:
Administrative disciplinary action connotes
A criminal case for child abuse was filed against administrative penalty. If the decision exonerates
Judge Angeles due to the complaint of two minors the respondents or otherwise dismisses the charges
Gaspan and Pacay recorded in the police blotter in against the respondents, there is no disciplinary
QC CPDC attended by herein respondents. On the
action since no penalty is imposed. The provision
otherhand, Judge Angeles filed an administrative
that a penalty less than demotion or dismissal from
case against respondent police herein relative to the
criminal charge against her. service is final and executory does not apply to
dismissal of charges or exoneration because they are
Upon investigation of the administrative case, QC not disciplinary actions.
CPDC dismissed the case. Judge Angeles moved for
the reinvestigation of the case before PNP Chief Before the case of CSC v. Dacoycoy. case law held
Sarmiento where the latter ordered the dismissal of that dismissal of the charges or exoneration of the
Ganias, BIlledo and Cario; the suspension of respondents in administrative disciplinary
Mamauag and Almario for 90 days and the proceedings is final and not subject to appeal even
exoneration of Garcia and Felipe. by the government. Thus, in Del Castillo v. CSC, et
al., the Court held:
Judge Angeles filed a motion for Partial
Reconsideration of the decision. PNP Chief modified
his decision and ordered the dismissal of Mamauag, Section 37, paragraph (a), of PD 807, the Philippine
Almario, Garcia and Felipe (Mamauag et., al.). Civil Service Law, provides:
Mamauag et., al. petition to court for the injunction (a) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all
of PNP Chiefs Resolution but the case was dismissed administrative disciplinary cases involving
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more
Hence, they filed an appeal to NAB which however, than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding
dismissed their petition as well as the MR for late thirty days salary, demotion in rank or salary or
filing. Mamauag et., al. appealed to CA, where the transfer, removal or dismissal from office xxx (Italics
latter ordered to Set Aside PNP Chiefs Resolution for supplied).
excess of jurisdiction.
Interpreting the above provision, we held in Mendez
ISSUE: v. CSC that:
1. Whether Section 45 of Republic Act No. 6975 (RA It is axiomatic that the right to appeal is merely a
6975) allows the filing of a motion for statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the
reconsideration; (This refers to the PNP Chiefs acts manner and in accordance with the provision of law.
of modifying its previous decision where it only
suspends and exonerate respondents) A cursory reading of P.D. 807, otherwise
known as The Philippine Civil Service Law
2. Whether the private complainant (Judge Angeles) shows that said law does not contemplate a
in an administrative case has the legal personality to review of decisions exonerating officers or
move for reconsideration, or appeal an adverse employees from administrative charges.
decision of the disciplining authority.
Section 37 paragraph (a) thereof, provides:
HELD:
Said provision must be read together with Section 39
1. Section 45 of RA 6975 provides that paragraph (a) of P.D. 805 which contemplates:
a disciplinary action imposed upon a member
of the PNP shall be final and executory. Under
Page | 68
Appeals, where allowable, shall be made by the party government. Consequently, the Civil Service
adversely affected by the decision. Commission has become the party adversely
affected by such ruling, which seriously
The phrase party adversely affected by the decision prejudices the civil service system. Hence, as
refers to the government employee against whom an aggrieved party, it may appeal the decision
the administrative case is filed for the purpose of of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.
disciplinary action which may take the form of By this ruling, we now expressly abandon and
suspension, demotion in rank or salary, transfer, overrule extant jurisprudence that the phrase party
removal or dismissal from office. In the instant case, adversely affected by the decision refers to the
Coloyan who filed the appeal cannot be considered government employee against whom the
an aggrieved party because he is not the respondent administrative case is filed for the purpose of
in the administrative case below. disciplinary action which may take the form of
suspension, demotion in rank or salary, transfer,
removal or dismissal from office and not included are
Finally, pursuant to Section 37 paragraph (b) of P.D.
cases where the penalty imposed is suspension for
807, the city mayor, as head of the city government,
not more than thirty (30) days or fine in an amount
is empowered to enforce judgment with finality on
not exceeding thirty days salary or when the
lesser penalties like suspension from work for one
respondent is exonerated of the charges, there is no
month and forfeiture of salary equivalent to one
occasion for appeal. In other words, we overrule
month against erring employees.
prior decisions holding that the Civil Service
Law does not contemplate a review of
By inference or implication, the remedy of decisions exonerating officers or employees
appeal may be availed of only in a case where from administrative charges.
the respondent is found guilty of the charges
files against him. But when the respondent is Subsequent decisions of the Court
exonerated of said charges, as in this case, affirmed Dacoycoy.
there is no occasion for appeal.
Dacoycoy allowed the Civil Service Commission to
appeal dismissals of charges or exoneration of
2. In Dacoycoy, the Court modified the rule in Del
respondents in administrative disciplinary
Castillo and earlier cases by allowing the Civil
proceedings.
Service Commission to appeal dismissals of charges
or exoneration of respondents in administrative However, Dacoycoy maintained the rule that the
disciplinary proceedings. In Dacoycoy, the Court private complainant is a mere government witness
ruled: without a right to appeal. Thus, case law holding that
the private complainant has no right to appeal the
decision of the disciplining authority remains good
At this point, we have necessarily to resolve the
law. As explained by Justice Jose Melo in his
question of the party adversely affected who may
concurring opinion in Floralde v. Court of
take an appeal from an adverse decision of the
Appeals:
appellate court in an administrative civil service
disciplinary case. There is no question that
respondent Dacoycoy may appeal to the Court of However, in Civil Service Commission v.
Appeals from the decision of the Civil Service Dacoycoy which incidentally is another ponencia of
Commission adverse to him. He was the respondent Mr. Justice Pardo, the majority, with
official meted out the penalty of dismissal from the undersigned ponente dissenting, modified the above
service. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the court doctrine by allowing the CSC to appeal in cases
required the petitioner therein, here respondent where the respondent is exonerated of the
Dacoycoy, to implead the Civil Service Commission charges. Nevertheless, in both cases, the Court
as public respondent as the government agency did not deviate from the doctrine that the
tasked with the duty to enforce the constitutional complainant, being a mere witness for the
and statutory provisions on the civil service. government, cannot appeal the decision
rendered in the administrative case.
In Paredes, we declared that the complainant is not
Subsequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the
the party adversely affected by the decision so that
decision of the Civil Service Commission and held
she has no legal personality to interpose an appeal
respondent not guilty of nepotism. Who now may
to the CSC. In an administrative case, the
appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals to
complainant is a mere witness. No private interest is
the Supreme Court? Certainly not the
involved in an administrative case as the offense is
respondent, who was declared not guilty of
committed against the government.
the charge. Nor the complainant George P.
Suan, who was merely a witness for the
Page | 69
LUZVIMINDA DE LA CRUZ, Et. Al. vs. IN RE FIRST INDORSEMET FROM

COURT OF APPEALS, CSC and THE HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ
SECRETARY OF THE DECS REQUESTING HONORABLE JUSTICE
G.R. No. 126183 March 25, 1999 MARCELO B. FERNAN TO COMMENT ON AN
ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT.
BELLOSILLO, J.: A.M. No. 88-4-5433 April 15, 1988
FACTS: RESOLUTION
Petitioners are public school teachers who were PER CURIAM:

simultaneously charged, preventively suspended,
and eventually dismissed by Sec. Carino in Oct. 1990. FACTS:
It was alleged that the teachers participated in the
mass action/ illegal strike on Sept. 1990. The The Court CONSIDERED the 1st Indorsement dated
teachers also violated the return-to-work order 16 March 1988 from Mr. Raul M. Gonzalez,
issued by the DECS. Respondents failed to explain to "Tanodbayan/Special; Prosecutor" forwarding to Mr.
the DECS despite the 5-day period given. Hence, Justice Marcelo B. Fernan a "letter-complaint, dated
they were found guilty as charged, and subsequently 14 December 1987 with enclosure of the Concerned
dismissed from office by Sec. Carino of the Employees of the Supreme Court," together with a
DECS. The Civil Service Commission, upon appeal, telegram of Miguel Cuenco, for "comment within ten
found the teachers guilty of conduct prejudicial to (10) days from receipt hereof." Mr. Justice Fernan
the best interest of service, and imposed upon them had brought this 1st Indorsement to the attention of
the reduced penalty of six months suspension. the Court en banc in view of the important
However, in view of the length of time that the implications of policy raised by said 1st Indorsement.
teachers had been out of service due to the dismissal
issued by Sec. Carino, the CSC likewise ordered their Gonzales was the Tanodbayan or Special Prosecutor.
immediate reinstatement without back wages. He forwarded to Mr. Justice Marcelo B. Fernan a
letter-complaint. The letter was said to be from
ISSUE: concerned employees of the SC (an anonymous
letter).
1. Whether the teachers conducts are prejudicial to
the best interest of service. The letter was originally addressed to Gonzales
referring to the charges for disbarment sought by Mr.
2. Whether or not the teachers are entitled to back Miguel Cuenco against Justice Fernan, and asking
wages for the period of 3 years pending their appeal him (Gonzales) to do something about it.
deducting the 6 months suspension eventually The Court furnished to Mr. Raul M. Gonzales a copy
meted out to them. of the per curiam Resolution in which, the Court
Resolved to dismiss the charges made by complaint
HELD: Cuenco against Mr.Justice Fernan for utter lack of
merit. In the same Resolution, the Court Resolved to
1. YES, the mass actions amounted to a prohibited require complainant Cuenco to show cause why he
strike of civil service servants. Although the right to should not be administratively dealt with for making
peaceably assemble and petition the government for unfounded serious accusations against Mr. Justice
redress of grievances is guaranteed by Fernan. Upon request of Mr. Cueco, the Court had
the Constitution, this liberty must be exercised granted him an extension of up to 30 March 1988,
within reasonable limits. The public-school teachers Mr. Cuenco filed a pleading which appears to be an
committed acts prejudicial to the interest of the omnibus pleading relating to, inter alia,
service by staging the mass protests on regular Administrative Case No. 3135. Insofar as
school days, abandoning their classes and failing to Administrative Case No. 3135 is concerned, the Court
return despite the return to work order. treated this pleading as a Motion for
Reconsideration. By a per curiam Resolution dated
2. NO, they are not entitled to back wages. The 15 April 1988, the Court denied with finality Mr
teachers were neither exonerated nor unjustifiably Cuenco's Motion for Reconsideration.
suspended, the 2 circumstances necessary for the
grant of back wages in
administrative disciplinary cases.
Page | 70
ISSUE: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

vs.
Whether or not a Supreme Court justice can be GERTRUDES MADRIAGA and ANA MARIE
disbarred during his term of office. BERNARDO
G.R. No. 164316. September 27, 2006
HELD:
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
A public officer (such as Justice Fernan) who under
the Constitution is required to be a Member of the The Ombudsmans authority to impose
Philippine Bar as a qualification for the office held by administrative penalty and enforce
him and who may be removed from office only by compliance therewith is not merely
impeachment, cannot be charged with disbarment recommendatory but mandatory within the
during the incumbency of such public officer. bounds of the law.
Further, such public officer, during his incumbency,
cannot be charged criminally before the FACTS:
Sandiganbayan, or any other court, with any offense
which carries with it the penalty of removal from The San Juan School Club filed a letter-complaint
office. filed before the Office of the Ombudsman charging
Gertrudes Madriaga, school principal of San Juan
Another reason why the complaint for disbarment Elementary School and Ana Marie Bernardo, Canteen
should be dismissed is because under the Manager of the same school, with violation of Section
Constitution, members of the SC may be removed 1 of Rule IV and Section 1 of Rule VI of the Rules
only by impeachment. The above provision Implementing Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713
proscribes removal from office by any other method. otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Otherwise, to allow such public officer who may be Standards for Public Officials and Employees. They
removed solely by impeachment to be charged were subsequently found guilty of the offense
criminally while holding his office with an office that charged. Consequently, they were meted out the
carries the penalty of removal from office, would be penalty of six (6) months suspension.
violative of the clear mandate of the Constitution.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals declared that the
The effect of impeachment is limited to the loss of six-month suspension meted out by the Office of the
position and disqualification to hold any office of Ombudsman to Madriaga and Bernardo (Gertrudes)
honor, trust or profit under the Republic. Judgment is merely recommendatory to the Department of
in cases of impeachment shall not extend further Education, the Office of the Ombudsman filed the
than removal from office and disqualification to hold present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
any office. But the party convicted shall nevertheless
be held liable and subject to prosecution, trial and ISSUE:
punishment according to law.
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman has
The court is not saying that its Members or other the authority to impose administrative sanctions over
constitutional officers are entitled to immunity from public officials
liability for possibly criminal acts or for alleged
violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics or other HELD:
supposed misbehavior. What the court is saying is
that there is a fundamental procedural requirement Article XI, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution grants
that must be observed before such liability may be the Ombudsman administrative disciplinary power to
determined and enforced. A member of the Supreme direct the officer concerned to take appropriate
Court must first be removed from office, via the action against a public official or employee at fault,
constitutional route of impeachment, and then only and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion,
may he be held liable either criminally or fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance
administratively (that is, disbarment), for any wrong therewith.
or misbehavior that may be proven against him in
appropriate proceedings. Section 15(3) of R.A. No. 6770 echoes the
constitutional grant to the Ombudsman of the power
to recommend the imposition of penalty on erring
Page | 71
public officials and employees and ensure to reorganize UP Manila including PGH and
compliance therewith. recommended that certain key positions of UP
Manila, including that of the plaintiff be declared
The Court notes that the proviso above qualifies the vacant.
"order" "to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure,
or prosecute" an officer or employee akin to the ISSUES:
questioned issuances in the case at bar. That the
refusal, without just cause, of any officer to comply 1. Whether Dr. Estrella's security of tenure was
with such an order of the Ombudsman to penalize an violated due to reorganization. YES
erring officer or employee is a ground for disciplinary
action, is a strong indication that the Ombudsman's 2. Whether UP has authority to abolish office. NO
"recommendation" is not merely advisory in nature
but is actually mandatory within the bounds of law. HELD:
This should not be interpreted as usurpation by the
Ombudsman of the authority of the head of office or 1. The whole reorganization set-up under our law
any officer concerned. It has long been settled that cannot or should not have the effect of abolishing
the power of the Ombudsman to investigate and the position of the plaintiff unless legal requirements
prosecute any illegal act or omission of any public are complied with. If the reorganization plan results
official is not an exclusive authority but a shared or in abolishing the position of the plaintiff and in
concurrent authority in respect of the offense putting in his place another one, with substantially
charged. By stating therefore that the Ombudsman the same duties, not to say qualifications, in the
"recommends" the action to be taken against an name of leadership, it will surely be considered a
erring officer or employee, the provisions in the device to unseat the incumbent and to circumvent
Constitution and in R.A. 6770 intended that the the constitutional and statutory prohibition of
implementation of the order be coursed through the removal from office of a civil service officer even
proper officer, which in this case would be the head without cause provided by law. Plaintiffs position
of the BID. should not therefore be deemed abolished by mere
implication If the abolition of office is made to
The word "recommend" in Sec. 15(3) must thus be circumvent the constitutional security of tenure of
read in conjunction with the phrases "ensure civil service employees, our Supreme Court, has
compliance therewith" or "enforce its disciplinary ruled that such abolition is null and void.
authority as provided in Section 21" of R.A. No. 6770.
In fine, the Ombudsman's authority to impose
administrative penalty and enforce compliance Respondent Dr. Estrella was appointed Director of
therewith is not merely recommendatory. It is PGH on 1986 by the LTP Board of Regents. His
mandatory within the bounds of the law. The appointment was to be effective September 1, 1986
implementation of the order imposing the penalty is, until April 30, 1992 or unless sooner terminated.
however, to be coursed through the proper officer. Appointees of the LTP Board of Regents enjoy
security of tenure during their term of office.
Petitioners argue, however, that the abolition of the
U.P. BOARD OF REGENTS, DR. JOSE V.
position of respondent Dr. Estrella Jr. negates his
ABUEVA vs. HON. JAINAL D. RASUL, in his claim to security of tenure. The argument is devoid
capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 69 of the of merit.
Regional Trial Court, Pasig, Metro Manila, and
DR. FELIPE A. ESTRELLA, JR., It is clear from the record that the PGH itself was not
G.R. No. 91551. August 16, 1991 abolished in the reorganization plan approved by the
UP Board of Regents. The PGH was merely renamed
GANCAYCO, J.: "UP-PGH Medical Center" and some of it functions
and objectives were expanded or consolidated.
FACTS: There is no substantial distinction, in terms of
functions, between PGH and the proposed UP-PGH
Medical Center.
Dr. Felipe Estrada Jr. was the Director of PGH
appointed by the UP Board of Regents which
It is true that a valid and bona fide abolition of an
intended to have him serve his full term as a Director. office denies to the incumbent the right to security
of tenure. However, in this case, the renaming and
President Abueva, the new president of UP, upon restructuring of the PGH and its component units
assuming position submitted a memorandum to BOR cannot give rise to a valid and bona fide abolition of
Page | 72
the position of PGH Director. This is because where the latter refused. She then occupied the property.
the abolished office and the offices created in its Housing and Land Use Arbitrator modified the
place have similar functions, the abolition lacks good previous decision and require Azarcon to pay the
faith.We hereby apply the principle enunciated balance of 3k rental per month said amount of rental
in Cesar Z. Dalio vs. Hon. Salvador M. Mison that shall form part of the purchase price of the premises.
abolition which merely changes the nomenclature of SAGANA received the payment but refused to
positions is invalid and does not result in the removal
execute Deed of Sale on the ground that Azarcon had
of the incumbent.
yet to pay rentals. SAGANA filed to HLA to compel
2. The UP Board of Regents acted within the scope AZARCON to pay rentals. The Board issued Writ of
and limitations of its charter, Act No. 1870, as Execution in accordance with its previous modified
amended when it approved the reorganization plan order. Azarcon petition to CA that the order is
renaming the PGH and expanding and consolidating different, it varies from the previous order.
some of its functions and objectives. The UP Board
of Regents did not and could not have abolished ISSUE: Whether HLA decisions vary thus CA erred
PGH. And rightly so. The PGH and one of its in affirming HLA decision.
component units, the Cancer Institute, are creations
of special laws, the old Administrative, Code HELD: Writ of Execution in question varied to the
(Chapter 29, Secs. 706-707) and Commonwealth Act terms of HLURB previous decision.
No. 398, respectively. The authority of the UP under
Act No. 1870 as amended, to combine two or more
The dispute thus arises from the parties conflicting
colleges in the interest of economy and efficiency
understanding or interpretation of the phrase the
does not empower UP to abolish offices created by
special laws. said amount of rental shall form part of the purchase
price as adjusted found in the fallo, Azarcon
contending that the payment of rentals is an
It is therefore clear that the authority of the UP is alternative to the payment of the balance of the
limited to what is expressly provided in Act No. 1870 purchase price, and SAGANA contending that the
as amended, that is, to combine or merge colleges. rental payments shall be in addition to the balance
That is all the law speaks of in such instance. of the purchase price.
On the other hand, the power to create and abolish Of the partys interpretations, SAGANAs is contrary
offices carries with it the power to fix the number of to their agreement. They agreed upon the purchase
positions, salaries, emoluments, and to provide price of the subject property in 1995 when they
funds for the operation of the office created. This
entered into the contract to sell. The amount agreed
power is inherently legislative in character. The UP
upon became the law between them.
Board of Regents does not have such power. Hence,
the abolition of the position of respondent Dr.
Estrella is not valid. To follow the interpretation proffered by SAGANA
would allow the Board to alter the parties agreement
on the purchase price.
WENONAH L. MARQUEZ AZARCON
vs. HOUSING AND LAND USE ARBITER Upon the other hand, Azarcons interpretation is more
CHARITO BUNAGAN, BOARD OF in accord with the finding of the Board that
COMMISSIONERS (SPECIAL DIVISION), the delay in the payment of the purchase price was
EQUITY HOMES, INC., SAGANA not due to her fault, precisely on account of which
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. finding it deleted the order for the payment of
and J. M. BUILDERS, INC., interest by Azarcon. Held the Board:
[G. R. No. 124611. March 20, 2003]
[SAGANA] has failed to convincingly refute
CARPIO-MORALES, J.: [AZARCONs] argument that the non-release of the
loan was due to its non-submission of certain
FACTS: requirements.
SAGANA and JIM Builders entered into a contract to Hence, for this reason, the issue [of whether or not
sell the house and lot with Wenonah Azarcon located Azarcon is liable for the payment of interest] is
in QC the balance to be paid through SSS loan. The resolved in the negative.
loan was disapproved partly for failure of SAGANA to
submit certain requirements. She offered cash but
Page | 73
We are convinced that [Azarcon] should not be held tender of payment of the balance which was,
responsible for the delay in the release of the loan a however, rejected by SAGANA. It would thus ignore
nd consequently for the non- the interest of justice and equity which underlies all
payment of the purchase price. systems of justice.
Such being the case, we believe that a recall of our
previous ruling ordering [Azarcon] to pay interest by PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING
way of damages is in order. COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS vs. HON.
ANIANO A. DESIERTO as Ombudsman
If Azarcon had been spared by the Board of paying G.R. No. 130140 October 25, 1999
interest by way of damages because she was not
responsible for the delay in the release of the loan DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
and consequently for the non-payment of [the
balance] of the purchase price, why should the Board FACTS:
have intended to make her liable to pay rentals over
and above the balance of the purchase President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order
price, especially given her tender of payment of suc No. 13, creating the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding
h Committee on Behest Loans,
balance after the loan applicationwas not approved,
which tender SAGANA refused to accept without In its FOURTEENTH (14TH) REPORT ON BEHEST
interest being paid thereon? That the Board had no LOANS to President Ramos, dated 15 July 1993, the
such intention, the following portion of its May 10, COMMITTEE reported that the Philippine, Seeds,
1993 decision instructs: Inc., (hereafter PSI) of which the respondents in
OMB-0-96-0968 were the Directors, was one of the
In the absence of payment through housing loan, the twenty-one corporations which obtained behest
buyershould effect payment through other means w loans.
ithin a reasonable period. The seller should also
extend all support and assistance to make it possible President Ramos directed COMMITTEE Chairman
for the buyer to find such means, particularly if it Magtanggol C. Gunigundo to, inter alia, "proceed
contributed to the non-release of the loan. If parties with administrative and judicial actions against the
cannot agree on the substitute method of payment twenty-one firms. The COMMITTEE filed with the
on the period for effecting the same, then the Board OMBUDSMAN a sworn complaint against the
may step to fix the same. Meantime we believe Directors of PSI and the BDM who approved the
that until this matter can be resolved, complainant s loans for violation of RA No. 3019.
hould pay rentals as equitable payment for use of t
he premises, which can be applied to the balance of In the resolution OMBUDSMAN dismissed the
the purchase price. complaint on the ground of prescription. Relying
on People v. Dinsay, a case decided by the Court of
From the immediately foregoing disquisition of the Appeals, he ratiocinated that since the questioned
Board, it is clear that the payment of rentals was transactions were evidenced by public instruments
devised by it merely as an interim scheme, until a and were thus open for the perusal of the public, the
substitute method of payment [of the balance of the prescriptive period commenced to run from the time
purchase price] was agreed upon by the parties. of the commission of the crime, not from the
discovery thereof.
Since Azarcon fully paid the balance of the purchase
price on July 22, 1993, less than three months after The COMMITTEE argues that the right of the
the Board decision was promulgated on May 10, Republic of the Philippines to recover behest loans as
1993, that part of the decision respecting payment ill-gotten wealth is imprescriptible pursuant to the
through other means devised by the Board for mandate of Section 15 of Article XI of the
Azarcon to, in the meantime, pay rentals as equitable Constitution, which provides:
payment for the use of the premises, which can be
applied to the balance of the purchase price, had The right of the State to recover properties
become functus oficio. To hold otherwise would be unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees,
to fault Azarcon in whom none was, as reflected from them or from their nominees as transferees,
above, found by the Board. It would also gloss over shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or
Azarcons initial payment of a substantial amount estoppel.
when they entered into the contract to sell and her
Page | 74
The ruling in Dinsay is not applicable to the case at ADDITIONAL CASES FOR FINALS
bar. First, it is a decision of the Court of Appeals;
hence, it does not establish a doctrine and can only
PERLA A. SEGOVIA, REYNALDO C. SANTIAGO,
have a persuasive value.
and WINIFREDO SM. PANGILINAN vs.
The OMBUDSMAN takes a different view. For one, he
SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE
asserts that Section 15 of Article XI of the
PHILIPPINES, and the PRESIDENT of the NPC
Constitution is not applicable, since what the
G.R. No. 124067 March 27, 1998
COMMITTEE seeks is not to recover the unlawfully
acquired wealth from the respondents therein but to
NARVASA, C.J.:
hold them criminally liable for violation of R.A. No.
3019.
FACTS:
According to him, the computation of the prescriptive

Petitioner, who are the officers composing the
period from the date of discovery would only be
Contracts Committee of the NPC was accused to
resorted to if the commission of the crime be not
have violated RA 3019 for having extended undue
known at the day of the commission. The phrase "if
advantage to Joint Venture (one of the bidders in its
the same be not known" does not mean "lack of
project).
actual knowledge
The complaint against petitioner was filed in the
ISSUE:
Ombudsman where the latter conducted preliminary
investigation and release its resolution charging
Whether the OMBUDSMAN gravely abused its
petitioners the violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019.
discretion in holding that offenses had already
prescribed
Consequently, an information was filed with the
Sandiganbayan against petitioners. On the
HELD:
otherhand, the People filed a motion to suspend
accused pendent lite invoking Sec. 13 of RA 3019, as
We agree with the OMBUDSMAN that Section 15 of
amended and alleged that the information is valid.
Article XI of the Constitution applies only to civil
The court resolved in favor of the People and
actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, and not to
suspend the petitioners for a period of 90 days.
criminal cases. It is just the imprescriptibily of the
Petitioners questioned the said suspension,
civil action, it does not cover imprescriptibility of
contending that suspension by Sandiganbayan by SB
criminal action.The prescription shall begin to run
under RA 3019 is not mandatory.
again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons
not constituting double jeopardy.
ISSUE:
In the present case, it was well-nigh impossible for

Whether the preventive suspension under Sec. 13,
the State, to have known the violations of R.A. No.
RA 3019 is mandatory.
3019 at the time the questioned transactions were
made because, as alleged, the public officials
HELD:
concerned connived or conspired with the
"beneficiaries of the loans." Thus, the prescriptive
period for that should be computed from the Yes. Upon a proper determination of the validity of
the information, it becomes mandatory for the court
discovery of the commission thereof and not from
to immediately issue the suspension order. The rule
the day of such commission.
on the matter is specific and categorical. It leaves no
room for interpretation. It is not within the court's
OMBUDSMAN forthwith dismissed the complaint discretion to hold in abeyance the suspension of the
without even requiring the respondents to submit accused officer on the pretext that the order denying
their counter-affidavits and solely on the basis of the the motion to quash is pending review before the
dates the alleged behest loans were granted. It appellate courts. Its discretion lies only during the
should have first received from the complainant and pre-suspension hearing where it is required to
the respondents to resolve the case on merits and ascertain whether or not (1) the accused had been
on the issue of the date of discovery of the offense. afforded due preliminary investigation prior to the
Ombudsman is directed to proceed with the filing of the information against him, (2) the acts for
preliminary investigation. which he was charged constitute a violation of the
provisions of Republic Act No. 3019 or of the
provisions of Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal
Page | 75
Code, or (3) the informations against him can be As a result thereof, an information was filed by
quashed, under any of the grounds provided in Ombudsman with the Sandiganbayan where the
Section 2, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. (People vs. latter orders preventive suspension of Santiago from
Albano, etc., et al. supra, fn. 26) her position as Senator and from any other
government position she may be holding at present
Once the information is found to be sufficient in form or hereafter for 90 days effective immediately.
and substance, then the court must issue the order
of suspension as a matter of course. There are no ifs ISSUE:
and buts about it. This is because a preventive
suspension is not a penalty. It is not imposed as a
Whether Sandiganbayan has authority to decree 90
result of judicial proceedings. In fact, if acquitted,
days preventive suspension from any other
the official concerned shall be entitled to
government position.
reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which
he failed to receive during suspension. In view of this
latter provision, the accused elective public officer HELD:
does not stand to be prejudiced by the immediate
enforcement of the suspension order in the event Yes. The petition assails the authority of the
that the information is subsequently declared null Sandiganbayan to decree a ninety-day preventive
and void on appeal and the case dismissed as against suspension of Mme. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, a
him. Taking into consideration the public policy Senator of the Republic of the Philippines, from any
involved in preventively suspending a public officer government position, and furnishing a copy thereof
charged under a valid information, the protection of to the Senate of the Philippines for the
public interest will definitely have to prevail over the implementation of the suspension order. The
private interest of the accused.
authority of the Sandiganbayan to order the
preventive suspension of an incumbent public official
To further emphasize the ministerial duty of the court charged with violation of the provisions of Republic
under Section 13 of Republic Act No.3019, it is said Act No. 3019 has both legal and jurisprudential
that the court trying the case has neither discretion
support.
nor duty to determine whether or not a preventive
Xxx
suspension is required to prevent the accused from
using his office to intimidate witnesses or frustrate In the relatively recent case of Segovia v.
his prosecution or continue committing malfeasance Sandiganbayan (288 SCRA 328 [1998]), the Court
in office. The presumption is that unless the accused reiterated: The validity of Section 13, R.A. 3019, as
is suspended, he may frustrate his prosecution or amended treating of the suspension pendente lite
commit further acts of malfeasance or do both, in the of an accused public officer may no longer be put
same way that upon a finding that there is probable at issue, having been repeatedly upheld by this
cause to believe that a crime has been committed Court. X x x The provision of suspension pendente
and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, the lite applies to all persons indicted upon a valid
law requires the judge to issue a warrant for the information under the Act, whether they be
arrest of the accused. The law does not require the appointive or elective officials; or permanent or
court to determine whether the accused is likely to
temporary employees, or pertaining to the career or
escape or evade the jurisdiction of the court.
non-career service. (At pp. 336-337) It would
appear, indeed, to be a ministerial duty of the court
MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO
to issue an order of suspension upon determination
vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
of the validity of the information filed before it. Once
[G.R. No. 128055. April 18, 2001]
the information is found to be sufficient in form and
substance, the court is bound to issue an order of
VITUG, J.:
suspension as a matter of course, and there seems
to be no ifs and buts about it.
FACTS:
Explaining the nature of the preventive suspension,

A group of employees from CID filed complaint to the
the Court in the case of Bayot v. Sandiganbayan (128
Ombudsman against then CID Commissioner
SCRA 383 [1984]) observed: x x x It is not a penalty
Santiago, a Senator of the Philippines at the time this
because it is not imposed as a result of judicial
complaint was filed, for alleged violation of RA 3019
proceedings. In fact, if acquitted, the official
by approving the application for legalization of the
concerned shall be entitled to reinstatement and to
stay of some disqualified aliens.
the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive
during suspension. (At p. 386) In issuing the
Page | 76
preventive suspension of petitioner, the challenge to the validity of the criminal proceeding,
Sandiganbayan merely adhered to the clear and on such ground, should be limited to an inquiry
unequivocal mandate of the law, as well as the whether the facts alleged in the information, if
jurisprudence in which the Court has, more than hypothetically admitted, constitute the elements of
once, upheld Sandiganbayans authority to decree an offense punishable under Rep. Act 3019 or the
the suspension of public officials and employees provisions on bribery of the Revised Penal Code.
indicted before it. Section 13 of Republic Act No.
3019 does not state that the public officer concerned The law does not require that the guilt of the accused
must be suspended only in the office where he is must be established in a pre-suspension proceeding
alleged to have committed the acts with which he before trial on the merits proceeds. Neither does it
has been charged. Thus, it has been held that the contemplate a proceeding to determine (1) the
use of the word office would indicate that it applies strength of the evidence of culpability against him,
to any office which the officer charged may be (2) the gravity of the offense charged, or (3) whether
holding, and not only the particular office under or not his continuance in office could influence the
which he stands accused. (Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity
supra; Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, supra.) of the records and other evidence before the court
could have a valid basis in decreeing preventive
En passant, while the imposition of suspension is not suspension pending the trial of the case. All it
automatic or self-operative as the validity of the secures to the accused is adequate opportunity to
information must be determined in a pre-suspension challenge the validity or regularity of the proceedings
hearing, there is no hard and fast rule as to the against him, such as, that he has not been afforded
conduct thereof. It has been said that the right to due preliminary investigation, that the
xxx acts imputed to him do not constitute a specific crime
No specific rules need be laid down for such warranting his mandatory suspension from office
presuspension hearing. Suffice it to state that the under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019, or that
accused should be given a fair and adequate the information is subject to quashal on any of the
opportunity to challenge the VALIDITY OF THE grounds set out in Section 3, Rule 117, of the Revised
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS against him, e.g., that he Rules on Criminal Procedure (Segovia v.
has not been afforded the right of due preliminary Sandiganbayan, supra; Resolution of the Supreme
investigation; that the acts for which he stands Court in A.M. No. 00-05-03-SC, dated 03 October
charged do not constitute a violation of the 2000, which became effective on 01 December
provisions of Republic Act 3019 or the bribery 2000)
provisions of the Revised Penal Code which would Xxx
warrant his mandatory suspension from office under The pronouncement, upholding the validity of the
Section 13 of the Act; or he may present a motion to information filed against petitioner, behooved
quash the information on any of the grounds Sandiganbayan to discharge its mandated duty to
provided for in Rule 117 of the Rules of Court forthwith issue the order of preventive suspension.
x x x. x x x The order of suspension prescribed by Republic Act
Likewise, he is accorded the right to challenge the No. 3019 is distinct from the power of Congress to
propriety of his prosecution on the ground that the discipline its own ranks under the Constitution which
acts for which he is charged do not constitute a provides that each x x x house may determine the
violation of Rep. Act 3019, or of the provisions on rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for
bribery of the Revised Penal Code, and the right to disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of
present a motion to quash the information on any two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a
other grounds provided in Rule 117 of the Rules of Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed,
Court. However, a challenge to the validity of the shall not exceed sixty days. (Section 16[3], Article
criminal proceedings on the ground that the acts for VI, 1987 Constitution) The suspension contemplated
which the accused is charged do not constitute a in the above constitutional provision is a punitive
violation of the provisions of Rep. Act No. 3019, or measure that is imposed upon determination by the
of the provisions on bribery of the Revised Penal Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case
Code, should be treated only in the same manner as may be, upon an erring member. Thus, in its
a challenge to the criminal proceeding by way of a resolution in the case of Ceferino Paredes, Jr. v.
motion to quash on the ground provided in Sandiganbayan, et al. (G.R. No. 118364, 08 August
Paragraph (a), Section 2 of Rule 117 of the Rules of 1995), the Court affirmed the order of suspension of
Court, i.e., that the facts charged do not constitute Congressman Paredes by the Sandiganbayan,
an offense. In other words, a resolution of the despite his protestations on the encroachment by the
Page | 77
court on the prerogatives of Congress. The Court 3019 does not exclude from its coverage the
ruled: x x x. Petitioners invocation of Section 16 (3), members of Congress and that, therefore, the
Article VI of the Constitution which deals with the Sandiganbayan did not err in thus decreeing the
power of each House of Congress inter alia to punish assailed preventive suspension order. Attention
its Members for disorderly behavior, and suspend or might be called to the fact that Criminal Case No.
expel a Member by a vote of two-thirds of all its 16698 has been decided by the First Division of the
Members subject to the qualification that the penalty Sandiganbayan on 06 December 1999, acquitting
of suspension, when imposed, should not exceed herein petitioner. The Court, nevertheless, deems it
sixty days in unavailing, as it appears to be quite appropriate to render this decision for future
distinct from the suspension spoken of in Section 13 guidance on the significant issue raised by petitioner.
of RA 3019, which is not a penalty but a preliminary, (Sandoval Notes)
preventive measure, prescinding from the fact that
the latter is not being imposed on petitioner for HOLD OVER DOCTRINE: CONCEPT AND
misbehavior as a Member of the House of PURPOSE
Representatives. The doctrine of separation of
powers by itself may not be deemed to have FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ and LENLIE
effectively excluded Members of Congress from LECAROZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE
Republic Act No. 3019 nor from its sanctions. The OF THE PHILIPPINES
maxim simply recognizes each of the three co-equal G.R. No. 130872 March 25, 1999
and independent, albeit coordinate, branches of the
government the Legislative, the Executive and the BELLOSILLO, J.:
Judiciary has exclusive prerogatives and
cognizance within its own sphere of influence and FACTS:
effectively prevents one branch from unduly
intruding into the internal affairs of either branch. In the 1985 election, Jowl Red on as KB
Parenthetically, it might be well to elaborate a bit. Chairman of Brgy. Matalaba Sta. Cruz where
Section 1, Article VIII, of the 1987 Constitution, petitioners Francisco Lecaroz was the
empowers the Court to act not only in the settlement municipal mayor and his son Lenlie Lecaroz
of actual controversies involving rights which are was the outgoing Chairman of KB of Sta. Cruz
legally demandable and enforceable, but also in the and concurrently a member of its
determination of whether or not there has been a Sangguniang Bayan (SB) representing
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or Federation of Kabataang Barangays.
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government. The provision Red filed a complaint to Ombudsman alleging
allowing the Court to look into any possible grave that despite appointment as member of the SB
abuse of discretion committed by any government by then President Marcos, the confirmation
instrumentality has evidently been couched in letter from Imee Marcos, then National
general terms in order to make it malleable to judicial Chairperson of the Organization, and his prior
interpretation in the light of any emerging milieu. In oath takng, Mayor Lecaroz still not allowed
its normal concept, the term has been said to imply him to sit as sectoral representative in the SB.
an arbitrary, despotic, capricious or whimsical He further alleged that petitioners falsified the
exercise of judgment amounting to lack or excess of payroll to appear that Lenlie was reinstated in
jurisdiction. When the question, however, pertains to the position in the SB and still received its
an affair internal to either of Congress or the salary despite the expiration of his tenure in
Executive, the Court subscribes to the view that office.
unless an infringement of any specific Constitutional
proscription thereby inheres the Court should not ISSUE:
deign substitute its own judgment over that of any
of the other two branches of government. It is an Whether the outgoing public officer may hold
impairment or a clear disregard of a specific over position beyond his term.
constitutional precept or provision that can unbolt
the steel door for judicial intervention. If any part of HELD:
the Constitution is not, or ceases to be, responsive
to contemporary needs, it is the people, not the The concept of holdover when applied to a public
Court, who must promptly react in the manner officer implies that the office has a fixed term and
prescribed by the Charter itself. Republic Act No. the incumbent is holding onto the succeeding
Page | 78
term. It is usually provided by law that officers katipunan ng mga barangay, nevertheless abolished
elected or appointed for a fixed term shall remain in the katipunan ng mga barangay, thereby a new set
office not only for that term but until their successors of officers have to be appointed by the President of
have been elected and qualified. Where this the Philippines.
provision is found, the office does not become vacant
upon the expiration of the term if there is no ISSUE:
successor elected and qualified to assume it, but the
present incumbent will carry over until his successor
Whether Galarosa can continue to serve as a
is elected and qualified, even though it be beyond
the term fixed by law. member of Sangguniang Bayan beyond the term of
his office.
In the instant case, although BP Blg. 51 does not say
that a Sanggunian member can continue to occupy HELD:
his post after the expiration of his term in case his
successor fails to qualify, it does, not also say that Yes. The rule is settled that unless holding over be
he is proscribed from holding over. Absent an expressly or impliedly prohibited, the incumbent may
express or implied constitutional or statutory continue to hold over until someone else is elected
provision to the contrary, an officer is entitled to stay and qualified to assume the office. This rule is
in office until his successor is appointed or chosen demanded by the most obvious requirements of
and has qualified. The legislative intent of not
public policy, for without it there must frequently be
allowing holdover must be clearly expressed or at
cases where, from a failure to elect or a refusal or
least implied in the legislative enactment, otherwise
neglect to qualify, the office would be vacant and the
it is reasonable to assume that the law-making body
favors the same. public service entirely suspended. Otherwise stated,
the purpose is to prevent a hiatus in the government
Indeed, the law abhors a vacuum in public pending the time when the successor may be chosen
offices, and courts generally indulge in the strong and inducted into office. (Sandoval Notes)
presumption against a legislative intent to create, by
statute, a condition which may result in an executive HON. JUAN M. HAGAD, in his capacity as
or administrative office becoming, for any period of Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas vs.
time, wholly vacant or unoccupied by one lawfully HON. MERCEDES GOZO-DADOLE, Presiding
authorized to exercise its functions. This is founded Judge, Branch XXVIII, Regional Trial Court,
on obvious considerations of public policy, for the G.R. No. 108072 December 12, 1995
principle of holdover is specifically intended to
prevent public convenience from suffering because VITUG, J.:
of a vacancy and to avoid a hiatus in the
performance of government functions. FACTS:
RAUL A. GALAROSA vs. HON. EUDARLIO B. Respondents, who are all public officials of Mandaue
VALENCIA City were complained crimall and administratively
G.R. No. 109455 November 11, 1993 before the Ombudsman by Mandaue City Councilors
Dionson and Bercedo for alleged Alteration and/or
DAVIDE, JR., J.: falsification of an Ordinance by increasing the
allocated appropriation without authority from the
FACTS: Sanguniang Panlungsod of Mandaue City.
Raul Galarosa is a president of the Katipunang Bayan Councilors Dionson and Bercede also moved for the
of the municipality of Sorsogon. Like the LGC of respondents preventive suspension which the latter
1991, the(old) LGC of 1983 or BP 337 grants opposed and prayed for the dismissal of the case on
Galarosa the right to serve as ex-officio member of the ground that Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to
the sangguniang bayan. However,when the new LGC try, hear and decide the administrative case against
of 1991 finally took effect, Rodolfo Lasay filed a case them since Sec. 63 of LGC of 1991 granted the power
against Galarosa in his capacity as taxpayer to investigate and impose Administrative sanctions
questioning the right of Galarosa to remain as an ex- against said local officials, as well as to effect their
officio member of the Sangguniang Bayan. Lasay Preventive Suspension had now been vested with the
claimed that the new LGC of 1991 provided for the Office of the President.
liga ng mga barangay, which, although admittedly
was structurally and functionally the same as
Page | 79
ISSUE: on the specific matter in question are not so

inconsistent, let alone irreconcilable, as to compel us
Whether Ombudsman has been divested of his to only uphold one and strike down the other.
authority to conduct administrative investigation
over local elective officials by virtue LGC of 1991 SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF SAN ANDRES,
granting such authority to the Office of the President. CATANDUANES vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
AUGUSTO T. ANTONIO
HELD: [G.R. No. 118883. January 16, 1998]
No. We reach the foregoing conclusion, however, PANGANIBAN, J.:

without necessarily subscribing to petitioners claim
that the Local Government Code, which he averred FACTS:
should apply to this case of an elective local official,
has been violated. True, under said Code, preventive Antonio, priate respondent, was elected barangay
suspension may only be imposed after the issues are captain of Sapang Palay Catanduanes on March
joined, and only for a maximum period of sixty days. 1989. He was later elected president of the
Here, petitioner was suspended without having had Association of Barangay Council (ABC) for the
the chance to refute first the charges against him, Municiplity of San Andres Catanduanes. Pursuant to
and for the maximum period of six months provided the Local Government Code of 1983, he was
by the Ombudsman Law. But as respondents argue, appointed by the President as Member of the
administrative complaints commenced under the Sanguniang Bayan of the sid municipality.
Ombudsman Law are distinct from those initiated Meanwhile, DILG Sec. declared the election for the
under the Local Government Code. Respondents president of the Federation of the Association of
point out that the shorter period of suspension under Barangay Council (FABC) void for lack of quorum. As
the Local Government Code is intended to limit the a result, the provincial council was reorganized.
period of suspension that may be imposed by a
mayor, a governor, or the President, who may be DILG Sec then designated private respondent as a
motivated by partisan political considerations. In temporary member of the Sanguniang Panlalawigan
contrast the Ombudsman, who can impose a longer of Catanduanes effective on 15 June 1990. Because
period of preventive suspension, is not likely to be of his designation, private respondent tendered his
similarly motivated because it is a constitutional resignation as a member of the Sanguniang Bayan
body. The distinction is valid but not decisive, in our dated 14 June 1990 to the Mayor of San Andres
view, of whether there has been grave abuse of Catanduanes. Copies of his letters were also
discretion in a specific case of preventive suspension. forwarded to the provincial governor, DILG and the
municipal treasurer. Subsequently, Aquino then the
Xxx Vice President of ABC was appointed by the
provincial governor as member of the Sanguniang
Respondents may be correct in pointing out the Bayan in place of private respondent.
reason for the shorter period of preventive
suspension imposable under the Local Government Aquino assumed office on 18 July 1980 after taking
Code. Political color could taint the exercise of the his oath. Subsequently, the ruling of the DILG
power to suspend local officials by the mayor, annulling the election of the FABC president was
governor, or Presidents office. In contrast the reversed by the Supreme Court and declared
Ombudsman, considering the constitutional origin of the appointment of private respondent void for
his Office, always ought to be insulated from the lacking the essential qualification of being the
vagaries of politics, as respondents would have us president of FABC. On 31 March 1992, private
believe. respondent wrote to the Sanguniang Bayan (SB) of
San Andres regarding his re-assumption of his
original position. SB refused.
On the matter of whether or not the Ombudsman
has been stripped of his power to investigate local ISSUE:
elective officials by virtue of the Local Government
Code, we said: Indeed, there is nothing in the Local Whether Antonios resignation was complete and
Government Code to indicate that it has repealed, whether respondent abandoned his membership in
whether expressly or impliedly, the pertinent the SB.
provisions of the Ombudsman Act. The two statutes
Page | 80
HELD: (1) private respondents failure to perform his

function as SB;
The resignation was not complete for lack of (2) his failure to collect the corresponding
acceptance thereof of the proper authority however, remuneration for the position,
an office may still be deemed relinquished through (3)his failure to object to the appointment of Aquino
voluntary abandonment which needs no acceptance. as his replacement to SB and
In Ortiz vs Comelec, resignation is defined as the act (4) his prolonged failure to initiate any act to
of giving up of an officer by which he declines his reassume his post in the SB after SC had nullified his
office and renounces the further right to use it. designation as member of Sanguniang Panlalawigan.
It can be express or implied. To constitute a The second element was demonstrated by the
complete and operative resignation the following:
following must be present. (1) his letter of resignation,
(2) his assumption of office as member of the
(a) an intention to relinquish a part of the term; Sanguniang Panlalawigan,
(b) an act of relinquishment; and (3) his faithful discharge of his duties and functions
(c) an acceptance by the proper authority. of SP and
(4) his receipt of remuneration for such post.
In the case at bar, there was no evidence that the
private respondents resignation was accepted by the It is the act of giving up or the act of an officer by
proper authority. Although the Local Government which he declines his office and renounces the
Code of 1983 was silent as to who specifically should further right to use it. It is an expression of the
accept the resignation it provides that the position incumbent in some form, express or implied, of the
shall be deemed vacated only upon acceptance of intention to surrender, renounce, and relinquish the
resignation and should be acted upon by the office and the acceptance by competent and lawful
Sangunian concerned. authority. To constitute a complete and operative
resignation from public office, there must be: (a) an
The resignation letter was tendered to the mayor and intention to relinquish a part of the term; (b) an act
copies were sent to the governor, DILG and the of relinquishment; and (c) an acceptance by the
municipal treasurer but none of them expressly acted proper authority. The last one is required by reason
on it. Furthermore, under established jurisprudence, of Article 238 of the Revised Penal Code.
resignations, in the absence of statutory provisions
as to whom it should be submitted, should be Abandonment of an office has been defined as the
submitted to the appointing power. voluntary relinquishment of an office by the holder,
with the intention of terminating his possession and
Therefore, the resignation should have been control thereof. Indeed, abandonment of office is a
submitted to the president or to the DILG as the species of resignation; while resignation in general is
presidents alter ego. Tackling the second issue, a formal relinquishment, abandonment is a voluntary
abandonment has been defined as the voluntary relinquishment through nonuser. Abandonment
relinquishment of an office by the holder, with the springs from and is accompanied by deliberation and
intention of terminating his possession and control freedom of choice. Its concomitant effect is that the
thereof. It is a species of resignation. While former holder of an office can no longer legally
resignation is the formal relinquishment, repossess it even by forcible re-occupancy. Clear
abandonment is the voluntary relinquishment by intention to abandon should be manifested by the
non-user. officer concerned. Such intention may be express or
inferred from his own conduct. Thus, the failure to
There are 2 essential elements of perform the duties pertaining to the office must be
abandonment: with the officers actual or imputed intention to
abandon and relinquish the office. Abandonment of
(1) an intention to abandon and an office is not wholly a matter of intention; it results
(2) an overt act by which intention is carried on. from a complete abandonment of duties of such
continuance that the law will infer a relinquishment.
In the case at bar, the first element Therefore, there are two essential elements of
was manifested on the following instances: abandonment; first, an intention to abandon and,
second, an overt or external act by which the
intention is carried into effect. (Sandoval Notes)
Page | 81
JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. ANIANO June 20 was the day of surrender. At around 12:20
DESIERTO, in his capacity as Ombudsman AM, negotiations started for the peaceful transition
[G.R. Nos. 146710-15. March 2, 2001] of power. But at around 12 noon, respondent took
oath as the 14th president of the Philippines. At 2:30
PUNO, J.: PM, petitioner and his family left Malacanang. He
issued the following Press Statement:
FACTS:
20 January 2001
The case basically revolves around the series of STATEMENT FROM
events that happened prior and subsequent to the PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA
event we know as EDSA II. During the 1998
elections, Joseph E. Estrada and Gloria Macapagal At twelve oclock noon today, Vice President Gloria
Arroyo were elected as president and vice-president Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath as President of the
respectively. The downfall of the Estrada Republic of the Philippines. While along with many
administration began when For. Gov. Luis Chavit other legal minds of our country, I have strong and
Singson went to the media and released his expos serious doubts about the legality and
that petitioner was part of the Jueteng scandal as constitutionality of her proclamation as President, I
having received large sums of money. After this do not wish to be a factor that will prevent the
expose, a lot of different groups and many restoration of unity and order in our civil society.
personalities had asked for the resignation of the
petitioner. Some of which are the Catholic Bishops It is for this reason that I now leave Malacaang
Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), Sen. Nene Palace, the seat of the presidency of this country, for
Pimentel, Archbishop of Manila, Jaime Cardinal Sin, the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing
For. Pres. Fidel Ramos, and For. Pres. Corazon process of our nation. I leave the Palace of our
Aquino who asked petitioner to make the supreme people with gratitude for the opportunities given to
self-sacrifice. Respondent also resigned as me for service to our people. I will not shirk from
Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and any future challenges that may come ahead in the
Services and also asked petitioner for his resignation. same service of our country.
4 senior economic advisers of the petitioner resigned I call on all my supporters and followers to join me
and then Speaker Manny Villar, together with 47 in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of
representatives, defected from Lapian ng Masang reconciliation and solidarity.
Pilipino.
May the Almighty bless our country and beloved
By November, an impeachment case was to be held people.
as Speaker Manny Villar had transmitted the Articles
of Impeachment to the senate. On November 20, the MABUHAY!
21 senators took oath as judges to the impeachment (Sgd.) JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA
trial with SC CJ Hilario Davide, Jr., presiding. The
impeachment trial was one for the ages. It was a It also appears that on the same day, January 20,
battle royal of well-known lawyers. But then came 2001, he signed the following letter:
the fateful day, when by the vote of 11-10, the
judges came to a decision to not open the second Sir:
envelop allegedly containing evidence showing that
the petitioner had a secret bank account under the By virtue of the provisions of Section 11, Article VII
name Jose Velarde containing P3.3 billion. The not of the Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this
opening of the 2nd envelop resulted to the people declaration that I am unable to exercise the powers
going to the streets and the public prosecutors and duties of my office. By operation of law and the
withdrawing from the trial. On January 19, AFP Chief Constitution, the Vice-President shall be the Acting
of Staff Angelo Reyes marched to EDSA shrine and President.
declared on behalf of your Armed Forces, the
130,000 strong members of the Armed Forces, we (Sgd.) JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA
wish to announce that we are withdrawing our
support to this government. PNP Chief, Director On January 22, this Court issued the following
General Panfilo Lacson together with some Cabinet Resolution in Administrative Matter No. 01-1-05-SC.
members made the same announcement. The said resolution confirmed the authority given by
the 12 SC justices to the CJ during the oath taking
Page | 82
that happened on January 20. Soon, other countries answer to the aforementioned complaints against
accepted the respondent as the new president of the him.
Philippines. The House then passed Resolution No.
175 expressing the full support of the House of Thus, the stage for the cases at bar was set. On
Representatives to the administration of Her February 5, petitioner filed with this Court GR No.
Excellency Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the 146710-15, a petition for prohibition with a prayer
Philippines. It also approved Resolution No. 176 for a writ of preliminary injunction. It sought to
expressing the support of the House of enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from
Representatives to the assumption into office by Vice conducting any further proceedings in Case Nos.
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of OMB 0-00-1629, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757 and 1758
the Republic of the Philippines, extending its or in any other criminal complaint that may be filed
congratulations and expressing its support for her in his office, until after the term of petitioner as
administration as a partner in the attainment of the President is over and only if legally warranted. Thru
nations goals under the Constitution. another counsel, petitioner, on February 6, filed GR
No. 146738 for Quo Warranto. He prayed for
On February 6, respondent recommended Teofisto judgment confirming petitioner to be the lawful and
Guingona to be the vice president. On February 7, incumbent President of the Republic of the
the Senate adopted Resolution 82 which confirmed Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the
the nomination of Senator Guingona. On the same duties of his office, and declaring respondent to have
day, the Senate passed Resolution No. 83 declaring taken her oath as and to be holding the Office of the
that the impeachment court is functus officio and President, only in an acting capacity pursuant to the
has been terminated. Several cases were filed provisions of the Constitution. Acting on GR Nos.
against the petitioner which are as follows: (1) OMB 146710-15, the Court, on the same day, February 6,
Case No. 0-00-1629, filed by Ramon A. Gonzales on required the respondents to comment thereon
October 23, 2000 for bribery and graft and within a non-extendible period expiring on 12
corruption; (2) OMB Case No. 0-00-1754 filed by the February 2001. On February 13, the Court ordered
Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption on the consolidation of GR Nos. 146710-15 and GR No.
November 17, 2000 for plunder, forfeiture, graft and 146738 and the filing of the respondents comments
corruption, bribery, perjury, serious misconduct, on or before 8:00 a.m. of February 15.
violation of the Code of Conduct for government
Employees, etc; (3) OMB Case No. 0-00-1755 filed In a resolution dated February 20, acting on the
by the Graft Free Philippines Foundation, Inc. on urgent motion for copies of resolution and press
November 24, 2000 for plunder, forfeiture, graft and statement for Gag Order on respondent
corruption, bribery, perjury, serious misconduct; (4) Ombudsman filed by counsel for petitioner in G.R.
OMB Case No. 0-00-1756 filed by Romeo Capulong, No. 146738, the Court resolved:
et al., on November 28, 2000 for malversation of
public funds, illegal use of public funds and property, (1) to inform the parties that the Court did not issue
plunder, etc., (5) OMB Case No. 0-00-1757 filed by a resolution on January 20, 2001 declaring the office
Leonard de Vera, et al., on November 28, 2000 for of the President vacant and that neither did the Chief
bribery, plunder, indirect bribery, violation of PD Justice issue a press statement justifying the alleged
1602, PD 1829, PD 46, and RA 7080; and (6) OMB resolution;
Case No. 0-00-1758 filed by Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr.
on December 4, 2000 for plunder, graft and (2) to order the parties and especially their counsel
corruption. who are officers of the Court under pain of being
cited for contempt to refrain from making any
A special panel of investigators was forthwith created comment or discussing in public the merits of the
by the respondent Ombudsman to investigate the cases at bar while they are still pending decision by
charges against the petitioner. It is chaired by the Court, and
Overall Deputy Ombudsman Margarito P. Gervasio
with the following as members, viz: Director Andrew (3) to issue a 30-day status quo order effective
Amuyutan, Prosecutor Pelayo Apostol, Atty. Jose de immediately enjoining the respondent Ombudsman
Jesus and Atty. Emmanuel Laureso. On January 22, from resolving or deciding the criminal cases pending
the panel issued an Order directing the petitioner to investigation in his office against petitioner Joseph E.
file his counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his Estrada and subject of the cases at bar, it appearing
witnesses as well as other supporting documents in from news reports that the respondent Ombudsman
may immediately resolve the cases against petitioner
Page | 83
Joseph E. Estrada seven (7) days after the hearing The negotiations that had happened were about a
held on February 15, 2001, which action will make peaceful transfer of power. It was already implied
the cases at bar moot and academic. that petitioner would resign. The negotiations
concentrated on the following: (1) the transition
ISSUES: period of five days after the petitioners resignation;
(2) the guarantee of the safety of the petitioner and
1. Whether petitioner Estrada is a President on leave his family, and (3) the agreement to open the second
while respondent Arroyo is an Acting President. NO envelope to vindicate the name of the petitioner.
Also taken from the Angara diaries, The President
2. Whether conviction in the impeachment says. Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na masyado
proceedings is a condition precedent for the criminal nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape,
prosecution of petitioner Estrada. In the negative bureaucracy, intriga. (I am very tired. I dont want
and on the assumption that petitioner is still any more of this its too painful. Im tired of the
President, whether he is immune from criminal red tape, the bureaucracy, the intrigue.) I just want
prosecution. to clear my name, then I will go. The quoted
(NO. The impeachment proceedings was already statement of the petitioner was a clear evidence that
aborted. As a non-sitting president, he is not entitled he has resigned.
to immunity from criminal prosecution)
The second round of negotiations were about the
HELD: consolidating of the clauses which were proposed by
both sides. The second round of negotiation cements
I. Whether or not petitioner resigned as the reading that the petitioner has resigned. It will
President. be noted that during this second round of
negotiation, the resignation of the petitioner was
Resignation is a factual question and again treated as a given fact. The only unsettled
its elements are beyond quibble: there must be an points at that time were the measures to be
intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by undertaken by the parties during and after the
acts of relinquishment. There is no required form of transition period.
resignation. It can be expressed, implied, oral or
written. It is true that respondent never wrote a When everything was already signed by the side of
letter of resignation before he left Malacanang on the petitioner and ready to be faxed by Angara, the
June 20, 2001. In this issue, the Court would use the negotiator for the respondent, Angelo Reyes, called
totality test or the totality of prior, contemporaneous to Angara saying that the SC would allow respondent
and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence to have her oath taking. Before petitioner left
bearing a material relevance on the issue. Malacanang, he made a last statement.
Using this test, the Court rules that the petitioner had The statement reads: At twelve oclock noon today,
resigned. The Court knows the amount of stress that Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her
the petitioner had suffered. With just a blink of an oath as President of the Republic of the
eye, he lost the support of the legislative when then Philippines. While along with many other legal minds
Manny Villar and other Representatives had of our country, I have strong and serious doubts
defected. AFP Chief of Staff General Angelo Reyes about the legality and constitutionality of her
had already gone to EDSA. PNP Chief Director proclamation as president, I do not wish to be a
General Panfilo Lacson and other cabinet secretaries factor that will prevent the restoration of unity and
had withdrawn as well. By looking into the Angara order in our civil society.
diaries, it was pointed out that the petitioner had
suggested a snap election at May on which he would It is for this reason that I now leave Malacaang
not be a candidate. Proposing a snap election in Palace, the seat of the presidency of this country, for
which he is not a candidate means that he had intent the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing
to resign. When the proposal for a dignified exit or process of our nation. I leave the Palace of our
resignation was proposed, petitioner did not disagree people with gratitude for the opportunities given to
but listened closely. This is proof that petitioner had me for service to our people. I will not shrik from
reconciled himself to the reality that he had to any future challenges that may come ahead in the
resign. His mind was already concerned with the same service of our country.
five-day grace period he could stay in the palace. It
was a matter of time.
Page | 84
I call on all my supporters and followers to join me clearly showing his resignation from the presidency,
in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of then the resignation must prevail as a later act. If,
reconciliation and solidarity. however, it was prepared afterthe press release, still,
it commands scant legal significance.
May the Almighty bless our country and our beloved
people. Petitioner also argues that he could not resign. His
legal basis is RA 3019 which states:
MABUHAY!
Sec. 12. No public officer shall be allowed to resign
By making such statement, petitioner impliedly or retire pending an investigation, criminal or
affirms the following: (1) he acknowledged the oath- administrative, or pending a prosecution against him,
taking of the respondent as President of the for any offense under this Act or under the provisions
Republic albeit with the reservation about its of the Revised Penal Code on bribery.
legality; (2) he emphasized he was leaving the
Palace, the seat of the presidency, for the sake of During the amendments, another section was
peace and in order to begin the healing process of inserted which states that:
our nation. He did not say he was leaving the Palace
due to any kind of inability and that he was going to During the period of amendments, the following
re-assume the presidency as soon as the disability provision was inserted as section 15:
disappears; (3) he expressed his gratitude to the Sec. 15. Termination of office No public official
people for the opportunity to serve them. Without shall be allowed to resign or retire pending an
doubt, he was referring to the past opportunity given investigation, criminal or administrative, or pending
him to serve the people as President; (4) he assured a prosecution against him, for any offense under the
that he will not shirk from any future challenge that Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal
may come ahead in the same service of our Code on bribery.
country. Petitioners reference is to a future
challenge after occupying the office of the The separation or cessation of a public official from
president which he has given up; and (5) he called office shall not be a bar to his prosecution under this
on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a Act for an offense committed during his
constructive national spirit of reconciliation and incumbency.
solidarity. Certainly, the national spirit of
reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if The original senate bill was rejected because of the
he did not give up the presidency. 2nd paragraph of section 15. Nonetheless, another
similar bill was passed. Section 15 then became
Petitioner however argues that he only took a section 13. There is another reason why petitioners
temporary leave of absence. This is evidenced by a contention should be rejected. In the cases at bar,
letter which reads as follows: the records show that when petitioner resigned on
January 20, 2001, the cases filed against him before
Sir the Ombudsman were OMB Case Nos. 0-00-1629, 0-
By virtue of the provisions of Section II, Article VII of 00-1755, 0-00-1756, 0-00-1757 and 0-00-1758.
the Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this While these cases have been filed, the respondent
declaration that I am unable to exercise the powers Ombudsman refrained from conducting the
and duties of my office. By operation of law and the preliminary investigation of the petitioner for the
Constitution, the Vice President shall be the Acting reason that as the sitting President then, petitioner
President. was immune from suit. Technically, the said cases
cannot be considered as pending for the
(Sgd.) Joseph Ejercito Estrada Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to act on
them. Section 12 of RA No. 3019 cannot therefore
The Court was surprised that the petitioner did not be invoked by the petitioner for it contemplates of
use this letter during the week long crisis. It would cases whose investigation or prosecution do not
be very easy for him to say before he left Malacanang suffer from any insuperable legal obstacle like the
that he was temporarily unable to govern, thus, he immunity from suit of a sitting President.
is leaving Malacanang. Under any circumstance,
however, the mysterious letter cannot negate the Petitioner contends that the impeachment
resignation of the petitioner. If it was proceeding is an administrative investigation that,
prepared before the press release of the petitioner under section 12 of RA 3019, bars him from
Page | 85
resigning. The Court holds otherwise. The

impeachment proceeding may be arguable. If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the
However, even if the impeachment proceeding is last written declaration, or, if not in session within
administrative, it cannot be considered pending twelve days after it is required to assemble,
because the process had already broke down. There determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses,
was also a withdrawal by the prosecutors to partake voting separately, that the President is unable to
in the impeachment case. In fact, the proceeding discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
was postponed indefinitely. In fact, there was no Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the
impeachment case pending when he resigned. President shall continue exercising the powers and
duties of his office."
II. Whether or not the petitioner is only
temporarily unable to act as President After studying in-depth the series of events that
happened after petitioner left Malacanang, it is very
This issue arose from the January 20 letter which clear that the inability of the petitioner as president
was addressed to then Speaker Fuentebella and then is not temporary. The question is whether this Court
Senate President Pimentel. Petitioners contention is has jurisdiction to review the claim of temporary
that he is a president on leave and that the inability of petitioner Estrada and thereafter revise
respondent is an acting president. This contention is the decision of both Houses of Congress recognizing
the centerpiece of petitioners stance that he is respondent Arroyo as President of the Philippines.
a President on leave and respondent Arroyo is only The Court says that they cannot, for such is an
an Acting President. example of a political question, in which the matter
has solely been left to the legislative,
An examination of section 11, Article VII is in
order. It provides: NOTES:
SEC. 11. Whenever the President transmit to the ARTICLE XI

President of the Senate and the Speaker of the ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
House of Representatives his written declaration that
he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public
his office, and until he transmits to them a written officers and employees must, at all times, be
declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act
President. with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the
Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman
written declaration that the President is unable to may be removed from office on impeachment for,
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the and conviction of, culpable violation of the
Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption,
and duties of the office as Acting President. other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All
other public officers and employees may be removed
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the from office as provided by law, but not by
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the impeachment.
House of Representatives his written declaration that
no inability exists, he shall reassume the powers and ARTICLE VI, Section 13:
duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of
all the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five No Senator or Member of the House of
days to the President of the Senate and to the Representatives may hold any other office or
Speaker of the House of Representatives their employment in the Government, or any subdivision,
written declaration that the President is unable to agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the government-owned or controlled corporations or
Congress shall decide the issue? For that purpose, their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting
the Congress shall convene, if it is not in session, his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office
within forty-eight hours, in accordance with its rules which may have been created or the emoluments
and without need of call.
Page | 86
thereof increased during the term for which he was Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law
elected. enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the
Government, including the Armed Forces of the
ARTICLE IX Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring
C. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible
elections.
Section 1.
Register, after sufficient publication, political parties,
There shall be a Commission on Elections composed organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to
of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be other requirements, must present their platform or
natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the program of government; and accredit citizens' arms
time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of the Commission on Elections. Religious
of age, holders of a college degree, and must not denominations and sects shall not be registered.
have been candidates for any elective positions in Those which seek to achieve their goals through
the immediately preceding elections. However, a violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and
majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported
members of the Philippine Bar who have been by any foreign government shall likewise be refused
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. registration.
The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be
appointed by the President with the consent of the Financial contributions from foreign governments
Commission on Appointments for a term of seven and their agencies to political parties, organizations,
years without reappointment. Of those first coalitions, or candidates related to elections,
appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven constitute interference in national affairs, and, when
years, two Members for five years, and the last accepted, shall be an additional ground for the
Members for three years, without reappointment. cancellation of their registration with the
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the Commission, in addition to other penalties that may
unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall be prescribed by law.
any Member be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity. File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own
initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall of voters; investigate and, where appropriate,
exercise the following powers and functions: prosecute cases of violations of election laws,
including acts or omissions constituting election
Enforce and administer all laws and regulations frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum, and recall. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to
minimize election spending, including limitation of
Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all places where propaganda materials shall be posted,
contests relating to the elections, returns, and and to prevent and penalize all forms of election
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance
city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all candidacies.
contests involving elective municipal officials decided
by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving Recommend to the President the removal of any
elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of officer or employee it has deputized, or the
limited jurisdiction. imposition of any other disciplinary action, for
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission violation or disregard of, or disobedience to, its
on election contests involving elective municipal and directive, order, or decision.
barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not
appealable. Submit to the President and the Congress, a
comprehensive report on the conduct of each
Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.
questions affecting elections, including Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en
determination of the number and location of polling banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its
places, appointment of election officials and rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of
inspectors, and registration of voters. election cases, including pre- proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard
Page | 87
and decided in division, provided that motions for commissions, or, when the commissions of two or
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the more of them shall bear the same date, according to
Commission en banc. the order in which their commissions have been
issued by the President.
Section 4. The Commission may, during the
election period, supervise or regulate the enjoyment The Presiding Justice and the Associate Justices shall
or utilization of all franchises or permits for the not be removed from office except on impeachment
operation of transportation and other public utilities, upon the grounds and in the manner provided for in
media of communication or information, all grants, Sections 2, 3 and 4 of Article XIII of the 1973
special privileges, or concessions granted by the Constitution.
Government or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including any government- The Presiding Justice shall receive an annual
owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary. compensation of P60,000.00 and each Associate
Such supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure Justice P55,000.00 which shall not be diminished
equal opportunity, time, and space ,and the right to during their continuance in office. They shall have
reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for the same rank, privileges and other emoluments, be
public information campaigns and forums among subject to the same inhibitions and disqualifications,
candidates in connection with the objective of and enjoy the same retirement and other benefits as
holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible those provided for under existing laws of the
elections. Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Court
of Appeals.
Section 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or
suspension of sentence for violation of election laws, Whenever the salaries of the Presiding Justice and
rules, and regulations shall be granted by the the Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals are
President without the favorable recommendation of increased, such increases in salaries shall be
the Commission. correspondingly extended to and enjoyed by the
Presiding Justice and the Associate Justices of the
Section 6. A free and open party system shall be Sandiganbayan.
allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the
people, subject to the provisions of this Article. They shall hold office until they reach the age of 65
years or become incapacitated to discharge the
PD 1606 duties of their office.
Section 1.
Sandiganbayan; composition; qualifications;

tenure; removal and composition. A special
court, of the same level as the Court of Appeals and
possessing all the inherent powers of a court of
justice, to be known as the Sandiganbayan is hereby
created composed of a Presiding Justice and eight
Associate Justices who shall be appointed by the
President.
No person shall be appointed Presiding Justice or

Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan; unless he is
a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, at least 40
years of age and for at least ten years has been a
judge of a court of record or been engaged in the
practice of law in the Philippines or has held office
requiring admission to the bar as a pre-requisite for
a like period.
The Presiding Justice shall be so designated in his

commission and the other Justices shall have
precedence according to the dates of their respective
Page | 88

Al, Lpo, El Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Al, Lpo, El Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Al, Lpo, El Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 2) Whether AO 308 violates the right to privacy

1) Whether AO 308 was a law beyond the power of

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER: department, regardless of its name or

(3) Local Government (11) Regulatory agency

(15) Employee However, on January 19, 1993, then President Fidel

Whether the issuance of Administrative Orders 29

Whether Philippine Tourism Authority is a GOCC and

RULING 1: DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION /

Conformably, it is the President or the head of each PANGANIBAN, J.:

In this instance, both the principle of primary TORRES, JR., J.:

This doctrine is disregarded: CARALE VS. ABARINTOS

In the instant case, Pontejos did not attempt to seek

SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED, vs. CA Twenty-four long years thereafter, on January 14,

subsequently submitted a secretarys REPUBLIC vs. EXTELCOM

2. No, the Republic of the Philippines cannot FACTS:

The Administrative Order under consideration is one ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONSHIPS

RULING: Manager with the approval of the PPA board of

See: Case of Taada 2) Whether a publication shall be made in

*OTHERWISE, In EXCESS of authority. regulations for that function, to repeat, may

ISSUE: In Tanada v. Tuvera (136 SCRA 27 [1985]), the

To summarize, petitioner should be absolved from

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: RULING:

FACTS: NO. The court reiterated that, No contract

1. Whether CHR has Jurisdiction over the case

Whether RTC and not the HLURB has the jurisdiction

RULING: (7) The administrative body should, in all

ISSUE: Wherefore, we hold that the determination of the

ISSUE: The Public Service Commission has power to grant

Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not, JOSE T. VIDUYA, as collector of Customs of

Whether or not respondent Judge committed grave

RULING: ships in transit through the Bureau of Customs,

A party dissatisfied with the decision of the Collector

TRACEY, J.: The power to whose judgment, wisdom, and

PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT 1987 Constitution regarding the legal matters

In June 1985, Danilo Mercado was dismissed by MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

is provided for under Executive Order No. 180. ARTICLE IX-D

Section 5. The Congress shall provide for the

RULING: Under Section 13, par. (d) RA 7227:

Yes. "The President shall appoint a professional manager

An appointment to public office is the unequivocal

ISSUE: An appointment to a public office is the unequivocal

On July 25, 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino

lack of it. A person who does not have the ISSUE:

Respondent Roco was appointed by then President Appointment to CES Rank

The President, Vice-President, the Members of the

Public respondents, on the other hand, maintain that

Sec. 7. . . . . . Constitution itself. In other words, Section 7, Article

FACTS: Aquino's protest that he is more qualified than de la

RULING: b. 2 polygraph tests show corroborative and

of enabling the disciplining authority to conduct an ISSUES:

What is the doctrine of forgiveness or On 10 June 1993, President Ramos issued

Constitution had already come into effect. latter of HELD:

No. The Court has already repeatedly ruled that the

LUZVIMINDA DE LA CRUZ, Et. Al. vs. IN RE FIRST INDORSEMET FROM

Petitioners are public school teachers who were PER CURIAM:

ISSUE: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

According to him, the computation of the prescriptive

In the present case, it was well-nigh impossible for