QUAMTO Cases – Law on Public Officers; 6. Gloria v.

Court of Appeals
Administrative Law; Election Law. a. Under Section 52 of the Civil
Service Law, the provision for
1. Summers v. Ozaeta payment of salaries during the
a. Ad interim appointments are period of preventive suspension
permanent. during the pendency of the
b. By accepting an ad interim investigation has been deleted.
appointment, the appointee waives The preventive suspension was not
his right to hold his old position. a penalty. Its imposition was
2. Sevilla v. CA lawful, since it was authorized by
a. An acting appointment is merely law.
temporary. b. If the penalty was modified
3. Marohombsar v. Alonto because he was exonerated of the
a. A temporary appointment cannot charge that was the basis for the
become a permanent appointment, decision ordering his dismissal, he
unless a new appointment, which is entitled to back wages,
is permanent, is made. This holds otherwise, this would be
true unless the acting tantamount to punishing him after
appointment was made because of exoneration from the charge which
a temporary vacancy. In such a caused his dismissal.
case, the temporary appointee c. He is entitled to back wages from
holds office until the assumption of the time of his dismissal until his
office by the permanent appointee reinstatement. The enforcement of
4. Civil Liberties Union v. Executive the dismissal pending appeal was
Secretary, 1991 punitive, and he was exonerated.
a. The prohibition against the 7. Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals
holding of multiple positions by a. If he was reprimanded for the
Cabinet Members in Article VII, same charge, which was the basis
Section 13 of the Constitution does of the decision ordering his
not apply to positions occupied in dismissal, the public officer is not
an ex officio capacity as provided entitled to back wages, because he
by law and as required by the was found guilty, and the penalty
primary functions of their office. was merely commuted.
b. A Cabinet Member holding an ex- 8. Santiago v. Sandiganbayan
officio position has no right to a. The suspension contemplated in
receive additional compensation, Article VI, Section 16(3) of the
for his services in that position are Constitution is a punishment that
already paid for by the is imposed by the Senate or House
compensation attached to his of Representatives upon an erring
principal office. member, it is distinct from the
5. Gamboa v. Aguirre, 1991 suspension under Section 13 of the
a. Under the Local Government Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Code, the Vice-Municipal Mayor Act, which is not a penalty but a
was deprived of the power to preventive measure. Since Section
preside over the Sangguniang 13 of the Anti-Graft and
Bayan and is no longer a member Corruption Practices Act does not
of it. The temporary vacancy in the state that the public officer must
office of the Municipal Mayor be suspended only in the office
creates a corresponding temporary where he is alleged to have
vacancy in the Office of the committed the acts, which he has
Municipal Vice-Mayor when he been charged, it applies to any
acts as Municipal Mayor. This office, which he may be holding.
constitutes inability on his part to 9. National Appellate Board of the National
preside over the sessions of the Police Commission v. Mamauag, 2005
Sangguniang Bayan.
 a. The Disciplining Authority is not suspension maybe imposed
the proper party to seek a review of without any notice or hearing. It is
the decision of the Court of merely a preliminary step in an
Appeals, because he is the one who administrative investigation and
heard the case and imposed the is not the final determination of
penalty. Being the disciplinary the guilt of the officer concerned.
authority, the Secretary of The suspension is preventive and
Education should be impartial and not punitive.
should not actively participate in 13. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
prosecuting Maximino. does not apply when:
10. In re: Laureta v. Court of Appeals 148 a. Irreparable injury due to
SCRA 382 immediately executory suspension
a. Pursuant to the principle of order. (University of the
separation of powers, the Philippines Board of Regents v.
correctness of the decisions of the Rasul)
Supreme Court as final arbiter of b. The question involved is purely
all justiciable disputes is legal. (Azarcon v. Bunagan)
conclusive upon all other 14. Maceda v. Vasquez
departments of the government; a. When the complaint refers to the
the Ombudsman has no power to performance of the duties of Judge,
review the decisions of the Ombudsman should not act on it
Supreme Court by entertaining a and should refer it to the Supreme
complaint against the Justices of Court. His investigation will
the Supreme Court for knowingly encroach upon the exclusive power
rendering an unjust decision. of administrative supervision of
11. Noblejas v. Teehankee the Supreme Court over all courts.
a. Section 21 of the Ombudsman Act 15. Deloso v. Domingo
vests the Office of the Ombudsman a. The Ombudsman can investigate
with disciplinary authority over all crimes or offenses committed by
elective and appointive officials of public officers which are not
the government, except officials connected with the performance of
who may be removed only by their duties. Under Section 13(1),
impeachment, Members of Article XI of the Constitution, the
Congress and the Judiciary. While Ombudsman can investigate any
a Commissioner of the National act or omission of a public official
Labor Relations Commission which is illegal.
(NLRC) has the rank of a Justice of 16. Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding
the Court of Appeals, he does not Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto
belong to the Judiciary but to the a. A violation of Section 3(b) and (c) of
Executive Department. This the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
simply means that he has the same Practices Act prescribes. Article
compensation and privileges as a XI, Section 15 of the Constitution
Justice of the Court of Appeals. If does not apply to criminal cases for
the Supreme Court were to violation of the Anti-Graft and
investigate a Commissioner of the Corrupt Practices Act. Article XI,
National Labor Relations Section 15 of the Constitution
Commission (NLRC), it would be provides that the right of the State
performing a non-judicial function. to recover properties unlawfully
This will violate the principle of acquired by public officials or
separation of powers. employees, or from them or from
12. Garcia v. Mojica their nominees or transferees,
a. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770 shall not be barred by prescription.
grants the Ombudsman the power 17. Feeder International Line, Pts, Ltd. v.
to impose preventive suspension Court of Appeals
up to six months. Preventive
 a. The assistance of counsel is not discretion to accept or reject them.
indispensable to due process in What is important is that Stevie
forfeiture proceedings since such was not deprived of his right to
proceedings are not criminal in present his own case and submit
nature. Moreover, the strict rules evidence in support thereof, the
of evidence and procedure will not decision is supported by
apply in administrative substantial evidence, and the
proceedings like seizure and commissioners acted on their own
forfeiture proceedings. What is independent consideration of the
important is that the parties are law and facts of the case, and did
afforded the opportunity to be not simply accept the views of their
heard and the decision of the subordinates in arriving at a
administrative authority is based decision.
on substantial evidence. 21. Maquiling v. COMELEC, GR No. 195649,
18. Adamson & Adamson, Inc. vs. Amores April 16, 2013
a. Administrative due process does a. The rule is that “an ineligible
not require that the actual taking candidate who receives the highest
of testimony or the presentation of number of votes is a wrongful
evidence before the same officer winner. By express legal mandate,
who will decide the case. he could not even have been a
19. American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents candidate in the first place, but by
a. The Supreme Court has ruled that virtue of the lack of material time
so long as the actual decision on or any other intervening
the merits of the cases is made by circumstances, his ineligibility
the officer authorized by law to might not have been passed upon
decide, the power to hold a hearing prior to election date.
on the basis of which his decision Consequently, he may have had
will be made can be delegated and the opportunity to hold himself out
is not offensive to due process. The to the electorate as a legitimate
Court noted that: “As long as a and duly qualified candidate.
party is not deprived of his right to However, notwithstanding the
present his own case and submit outcome of the elections, his
evidence in support thereof, and ineligibility as a candidate
the decision is supported by the remains unchanged. Ineligibility
evidence in the record, there is no does not only pertain to his
question that the requirements of qualifications as a candidate but
due process and fair trial are fully necessarily affects his right to hold
met. In short, there is no public office. The number of ballots
abrogation of responsibility on the cast in his favor cannot cure the
part of the officer concerned as the defect of failure to qualify with the
actual decision remains with and substantive legal requirements of
is made by said officer. It is, eligibility to run for public office.”
however, required that to give the b. Accordingly, “being anon-
substance of a hearing, which is for candidate, the votes cast in his
the purpose of making favor should not have been
determinations upon evidence the counted.” This leaves the second
officer who makes the placer as “the qualified candidate
determinations must consider and who obtained the highest number
appraise the evidence which of votes. Therefore, the rule on
justifies them." succession under the Local
20. Erlanger & Galinger, Inc. vs. Court of Government Code will not apply.”
Industrial Relations 22. Pimentel v. COMELEC, 2008
a. The findings of the subordinates a. Under Section 15 of Republic Act
are not conclusive upon the No. 7166, as amended by Republic
Commissioners, who have the Act No. 9369, no pre-proclamation
controversies regarding the
appreciation of election returns
and certificates of canvass maybe
entertained in elections for
members of the House of
Representatives. The canvassing
body may correct manifest errors
in the certificate of canvass. His
recourse is to file a regular election
protest before the HRET.