THE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW

Dean Salvador Carlota

THE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
I. DEFINITIONS, DISTINCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS
Laurel v. Deserto,
A!rl "#, #$$#
Pres. Ramos issued EO 128, reconstituting the Committee for the preparation of the National
Centennial Celebrations in 18.! "t renamed the Committee as the National Centennial
Commission #NCC$. %ppointed to chair the reconstituted Commission &as 'ice(President
)al*ador +. ,aurel.
-uring the term of Pres. Estrada, the )enate .lue Ribbon Committee recommended the
prosecution b/ the Ombudsman0-O1 of ,aurel, as chair of the NCC, for *iolating the rules on
public bidding, relati*e to the a&ard of centennial contracts2 for e3hibiting manifest bias in the
issuance of a Notice to Proceed to a contractor e*en in the absence of a *alid contract, causing
material in4ur/ to go*ernment and for participating in a scheme to preclude audit b/ CO%.
"n his defense, Laurel ar%ued t&at as '&ar o( t&e NCC &e )as not a !u*l' o(('er. +e
argued that some of the characteristics of a public officer &ere not present in the position,
namel/5 #1$ the delegation of so*ereign functions2 #2$ salar/, since he purportedl/ did not recei*e
an/ compensation2 and #6$ continuance, the tenure of the NCC being temporar/.
Issue+ 7ON ,aurel &as a public officer thus putting him &ithin the ambit of the po&er of the
Ombudsman to in*estigate an/ malfeasance, misfeasance and non(feasance b/ a public officer
or emplo/ee.
Held+ 8E).
9echem describes the dele%aton to t&e ndvdual o( so,e o( t&e sovere%n (un'tons o(
%overn,ent as the most important characteristic in determining &hether a position is a public
office or not.
:he Court held that the NCC performed e3ecuti*e functions, &hich concerns the implementation
of the policies as set forth b/ la&.
:he Constitution pro*ides in %rticle ;"' thereof that the )tate shall conser*e, promote, and
populari<e the nation=s historical and cultural heritage and resources, as &ell as artistic
creations. E.O. No. 128 itself cited the need to strengthen the NCC to ensure a more
coordinated and s/nchroni<ed celebrations of the Philippine Centennial and &ider participation
from the go*ernment and non(go*ernment or pri*ate organi<ations and the need to rationali<e
the rele*ance of historical lin>s &ith other countries.
:he NCC &as precisel/ created to e3ecute the foregoing policies and ob4ecti*es and to carr/
them into effect. Clearl-, t&e NCC !er(or,s sovere%n (un'tons. It s, t&ere(ore, a !u*l'
o(('e, and !ettoner, as ts C&ar, s a !u*l' o(('er.
Laurel v. Deserto,
.ul- ", #$$# /Resoluton0
9R of the Court=s earlier ruling.
Issue+ 7ON the earlier decision has serious constitutional repercussions because the
composition of the NCC included members of the Cabinet, the )enate, the +ouse of
Representati*es and the )upreme Court, &ho are prohibited b/ the Constitution from holding
an/ other office during their term or tenure.
Held+ ,%?RE,=) %R@?9EN: ") "RRE,E'%N:
:he issue in this case is &hether petitioner, as Chair of the NCC, is a public officer under the
4urisdiction of the Ombudsman. %ssuming, as petitioner proposes, that the designation of other
members to the NCC runs counter to the Constitution, it does not ma>e petitioner, as NCC
Chair, less a public officer. )uch serious constitutional repercussions! do not reduce the force of
the rationale behind this Court=s decision.
Pre'laro v. Sand%an*a-an,
Au%ust #", "112
Preclaro &as charged before the )andiganba/an &ith a *iolation of )ec. 6#b$ of R.%. No. 6A1
for demanding the sum of P2AA> from a construction compan/ as part of the e3pected profit
(ro, the construction of a public building &herein he &as Pro4ect 9anager0Consultant.
On appeal, Preclaro asserted that he &as not a public officer as &e )as net&er ele'ted nor
a!!onted to !u*l' o(('e *ut )as ,erel- a !rvate ndvdual &red on a 'ontra'tual *ass
for a particular pro4ect and for a specified period as e*idenced b/ a contract of ser*ices.
Issue+ 7ON Preclaro &as a public officer.
Held+ 8E). :he terms Bclassified, unclassified or e3emption ser*iceB &ere the old categories of
positions in the ci*il ser*ice &hich ha*e since been reclassified into Career )er*ice and Non(
Career )er*ice b/ P- 8AC pro*iding for the organi<ation of the Ci*il )er*ice Commission and b/
the %dministrati*e Code of 18C.
:he Non3Career serv'e n'ludes 4'ontra'tual !ersonnel or t&ose )&ose e,!lo-,ent n
t&e %overn,ent s n a''ordan'e )t& a s!e'al 'ontra't to underta>e a specific &or> or 4ob,
reDuiring special or technical s>ills not a*ailable in the emplo/ing agenc/, to be accomplished
&ithin a specific period, &hich in no case shall e3ceed one /ear, and performs or accomplishes
the specific &or> or 4ob, under his o&n responsibilit/ &ith a minimum of direction and super*ision
from the hiring agenc/.!
:he fact that petitioner &as not reDuired to record his &or>ing hours b/ means of a .und/ cloc>
or did not ta>e an oath of office became unessential considerations in *ie& of the a*ove3
,entoned !rovson o( la) 'learl- n'ludn% !ettoner )t&n t&e de(nton o( a !u*l'
o(('er.
II. ELI5IBILIT6 AND 7UALIFICATIONS
Cvl L*ertes Unon v. E8e'utve Se'retar-, Fe*ruar- ##, "11"
% petition see>ing a declaration of unconstitutionalit/ of E3ecuti*e Order No. 28E on the ground
that said EO b/ pro*iding that
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 appointive officials of the Executive
Department may, in addition to his primary position, hold not more than two positions in the
government and government corporations and receive the corresponding compensation
therefor; rovided, that this limitation shall not apply to ad hoc bodies or committees, or to
boards, councils or bodies of which the resident is the Chairman.
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 1
in effect, allo&s members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold
other go*ernment offices or positions in addition to their primar/ positions, in contra*ention of
)ection 16, %rticle '"" of the 18C Constitution &hich pro*ides that the President, 'ice(President,
the 9embers of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless other&ise
pro*ided in this Constitution, hold an/ other office or emplo/ment during their tenure.
Issue+ 7ON the prohibition in )ection 16, %rticle '"" of the 18C Constitution insofar as Cabinet
members, their deputies or assistants are concerned admit of the broad e3ceptions made for
appointi*e officials in general under )ection C, par. #2$, %rticle "(;. &hich states that
!nless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive
official shall hold any other office or employment in the "overnment or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including government#owned or controlled corporation or
their subsidiaries.
Held+ EO 28E ") 'O"- "N)OH%R %) ": %,,O7) 9E9.ER) OH :+E C%."NE:, :+E"R
?N-ER()ECRE:%R"E) %N- %))"):%N: )ECRE:%R"E) :O +O,- O:+ER @O'ERN9EN:
OHH"CE) OR PO)":"ON) "N %--":"ON :O :+E"R PR"9%R8 PO)":"ON).
7hile all other appointi*e officials in the ci*il ser*ice are allo&ed to hold other office or
emplo/ment in the go*ernment during their tenure &hen such is allo&ed b/ la& or b/ the
primar/ functions of their positions, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants ma/
do so onl/ &hen e3pressl/ authori<ed b/ the Constitution itself. "n other &ords, Se'ton 9,
Art'le I3:B s ,eant to la- do)n t&e %eneral rule a!!l'a*le to all ele'tve and a!!ontve
!u*l' o(('als and e,!lo-ees, &hile Se'ton ";, Art'le <II s ,eant to *e t&e e8'e!ton
a!!l'a*le onl- to t&e Presdent, t&e <'e3 Presdent, =e,*ers o( t&e Ca*net, t&er
de!utes and assstants.
:he prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices or emplo/ment under )ection 16, %rticle
'"" of the Constitution must not, ho&e*er, be construed as appl/ing to posts occupied b/ the
E3ecuti*e officials specified therein &ithout additional compensation in an ex#officio capacit/ as
pro*ided b/ la& and as re$uired b/ the primar/ functions of said officialsI office. :he reason is
that t&ese !osts do not 'o,!rse >an- ot&er o(('e> )t&n t&e 'onte,!laton o( t&e
'onsttutonal !ro&*ton *ut are !ro!erl- an ,!oston o( addtonal dutes and
(un'tons on sad o(('als.
Renato =. La!nd v. CSC, P&l!!ne Ports Aut&ort- and .uanto .unsa-,
=a- "?, "11"
,apinid &as appointed b/ the Philippine Ports %uthorit/ to the position of :erminal )uper*isor.
:his appointment &as protested b/ 1unsa/, &ho contended that he should be designated
terminal super*isor, or to an/ other comparable position, in *ie& of his preferential right thereto.
Jeto ba /ung higher grade caseKL
Complaining that the PP% had not acted on his protest, 1unsa/ &ent to the Ci*il )er*ice
Commission and challenged ,apinidIs appointment on the same grounds he had earlier raised
before the PP%.
"n a resolution, the Commission held that 1unsa/ had a preferential right to the position and
ordered that he be appointed thereto.
Issue+ 7ON the Ci*il )er*ice Commission authori<ed to disappro*e a permanent appointment
on the ground that another person is better Dualified than the appointee and, on the basis of this
finding, order his replacement b/ the latter.
Held+ NO, the C)C &as not authori<ed to do so.
T&e Cvl Serv'e Co,,sson &as no !o)er o( a!!ont,ent e8'e!t over ts o)n
!ersonnel. Neither does it ha*e the authorit/ to re*ie& the appointments made b/ other offices
e3cept onl/ to ascertain if the appointee possesses the reDuired Dualifications. T&e
deter,naton o( )&o a,on% as!rants )t& t&e ,n,u, statutor- @ual('atons s&ould
*e !re(erred *elon%s to t&e a!!ontn% aut&ort- and not t&e Cvl Serv'e Co,,sson. "t
cannot disallo& an appointment because it belie*es another person is better Dualified and much
less can it direct the appointment of its o&n choice.
A!!ont,ent s a &%&l- ds'retonar- a't t&at even t&s Court 'annot 'o,!el. 7hile the
act of appointment ma/ in proper cases be the sub4ect of mandamus, the selection itself of the
appointee ta>ing into account the totalit/ of his Dualifications, including those abstract Dualities
that define his personalit/ is the prerogati*e of the appointing authorit/. :his is a matter
addressed onl/ to the discretion of the appointing authorit/. It s a !olt'al @ueston t&at t&e
Cvl Serv'e Co,,sson &as no !o)er to reve) under t&e Consttuton and t&e
a!!l'a*le la)s.
III. A'@uston o( R%&t or Ttle to O(('e
A. In 5eneral
To,al v. CSC,
:omali &as appointed -e*elopment 9anagement Officer "" in the Office on 9uslim %ffairs
#O9%$. :he appointment &as e3tended b/ then O9% E3ecuti*e -irector Pundato. )he assumed
the duties and functions of the office four months later, at &hich time, the appointment had not
/et been transmitted to the Ci*il )er*ice Commission #C)C$ for appro*al.
)ubseDuentl/, the ne& -irector of the O9%, -r. Lu',an, re*o>ing the pre*ious incomplete
appointment of petitioner, appointed pri*ate respondent Rocaina Lu',an to the position in
Duestion.
Issue+ 7ON :omali=s appointment &as *alidl/ re*o>ed b/ -r. ,ucman.
Held+ 8E), ": 7%) '%,"-,8 RE'OME-.
An a!!ont,ent to a !oston n t&e 'vl serv'e s re@ured to *e su*,tted to t&e CSC
(or a!!roval in order to determine, in main, &hether the proposed appointee is Dualified to hold
the position and &hether or not the rules pertinent to the process of appointment are follo&ed.
Compliance &ith the legal reDuirements for an appointment to a ci*il ser*ice position is
essental n order to ,aAe t (ull- e((e'tve. 7ithout the fa*orable certification or appro*al of
the Commission, in cases &hen such appro*al is reDuired, no title to the office can /et be
deemed to be permanentl/ *ested in fa*or of the appointee, and the appointment can still be
recalled or &ithdra&n b/ the appointing authorit/. ?ntil an appointment has become a completed
act, it &ould li>e&ise be precipitate to in*o>e the rule on securit/ of tenure.
:he tolerance, acDuiescence or mista>e of the proper officials, resulting in the non(obser*ance
of the pertinent rules on the matter does not render the legal reDuirement, on the necessit/ of
appro*al of the Commissioner of Ci*il )er*ice of appointments, ineffecti*e and unenforceable.
T&e e,!lo-ee, )&ose a!!ont,ent )as not a!!roved, ,a- onl- *e 'onsdered as a de
facto o(('er.
=at*a% v. Ben!a-o,
CO9E,EC en banc appointed Pet as %cting -irector "'! of the E"-. @9% appointed, ad interim,
.enipa/o as CO9E,EC Chairman, and .orra and :uason as CO9E,EC Commissioners, each
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 2
for a term of se*en /ears. Commission on %ppointments did not act on said appointments.
President %rro/o rene&ed the ad interim appointments of .enipa/o, .orra and :uason, for three
times. "n such capacit/, .enipa/o issued a 9emorandum designating Cinco Officer(in(Charge of
the E"- and reassigning petitioner to the ,a& -epartment. Pet filed the instant petition
Duestioning the appointment and the right to remain in office of .enipa/o, .orra and :uason, as
Chairman and Commissioners of the CO9E,EC, respecti*el/. Petitioner claims that the ad
interim appointments of .enipa/o, .orra and :uason *iolate the constitutional pro*isions on the
independence of the CO9E,EC, as &ell as on the prohibitions on temporar/ appointments and
reappointments of its Chairman and members. Petitioner also assails as illegal her remo*al as
-irector "' of the E"- and her reassignment to the ,a& -epartment. )imultaneousl/, petitioner
challenges the designation of Cinco as Officer(in(Charge of the E"-.
IssueBs C Held+
7ON the ad interim appointments to .enipa/o, .orra and :uason amount to temporar/
appointments prohibited b/ )ection 1 #2$, %rticle ";(C of the Constitution ( NO
7ON the rene&al of their ad interim appointments and subseDuent assumption of office
to the same positions *iolate the prohibition on reappointment under )ection 1 #2$, %rticle ";(C of
the Constitution N NO
Rato+ An ad interim a!!ont,ent s a !er,anent a!!ont,ent *e'ause t taAes e((e't
,,edatel- and 'an no lon%er *e )t&dra)n *- t&e Presdent on'e t&e a!!ontee &as
@ual(ed nto o(('e. :he fact that it is sub4ect to confirmation b/ the Commission on
%ppointments does not alter its permanent character. T&e Consttuton tsel( ,aAes an ad
nter, a!!ont,ent !er,anent n '&ara'ter *- ,aAn% t e((e'tve untl dsa!!roved *-
t&e Co,,sson on A!!ont,ents or untl t&e ne8t adDourn,ent o( Con%ress.
:hus, the ad interim appointment remains effecti*e until such disappro*al or ne3t ad4ournment,
signif/ing that it can no longer be &ithdra&n or re*o>ed b/ the President. #%rt '"", )ec 1O,
Const$ :he fear that the President can &ithdra& or re*o>e at an/ time and for an/ reason an ad
interim appointment is utterl/ &ithout basis. 9ore than half a centur/ ago, this Court had alread/
ruled that an ad interim appointment is permanent in character. "t is an appointment permanent
in nature, and the circumstance that it is sub4ect to confirmation b/ the Commission on
%ppointments does not alter its permanent character. %n ad interim appointment is disappro*ed
certainl/ for a reason other than that its pro*isional period has e3pired. )aid appointment is of
course distinguishable from an Pacting= appointment &hich is merel/ temporar/, good until
another permanent appointment is issued.!
% distinction is thus made bet&een the e3ercise of such presidential prerogati*e reDuiring
confirmation b/ the Commission on %ppointments &hen Congress is in session and &hen it is in
recess. "n the former, the President nominates, and onl/ upon the consent of the Commission on
%ppointments ma/ the person thus named assume office. "t is not so &ith reference to ad interim
appointments. "t ta>es effect at once. :he indi*idual chosen ma/ thus Dualif/ and perform his
function &ithout loss of time. +is title to such office is complete. "n the language of the
Constitution, the appointment is effecti*e Puntil disappro*al b/ the Commission on %ppointments
or until the ne3t ad4ournment of the Congress.=!
Petitioner cites .lac>=s ,a& -ictionar/ &hich defines the term ad interim! to mean in the
meantime! or for the time being.! +ence, petitioner argues that an ad interim appointment is
undoubtedl/ temporar/ in character. +o&e*er, the term ad interim appointment!, as used in
letters of appointment signed b/ the President, means a permanent appointment made b/ the
President in the meantime that Congress is in recess. "t does not mean a temporar/
appointment that can be &ithdra&n or re*o>ed at an/ time.
%n ad interim appointee &ho has Dualified and assumed office becomes at that moment a
go*ernment emplo/ee and therefore part of the ci*il ser*ice. +e en4o/s the constitutional
protection that !JnLo officer or emplo/ee in the ci*il ser*ice shall be remo*ed or suspended
e3cept for cause pro*ided b/ la&.! :hus, an ad interim appointment becomes complete and
irre*ocable once the appointee has Dualified into office. :he &ithdra&al or re*ocation of an ad
interim appointment is possible onl/ if it is communicated to the appointee before the moment he
Dualifies, and an/ &ithdra&al or re*ocation thereafter is tantamount to remo*al from office. Once
an appointee has Dualified, he acDuires a legal right to the office &hich is protected not onl/ b/
statute but also b/ the Constitution. +e can onl/ be remo*ed for cause, after notice and
hearing, consistent &ith the reDuirements of due process.
%n ad interim appointment can be terminated for t&o causes specified in the Constitution. :he
first cause is the dsa!!roval o( &s ad interim a!!ont,ent *- t&e Co,,sson on
A!!ont,ents. :he second cause is the adDourn,ent o( Con%ress )t&out t&e Co,,sson
on A!!ont,ents a'tn% on &s a!!ont,ent. :hese t&o causes are resolutor/ conditions
e3pressl/ imposed b/ the Constitution on all ad interim appointments. :hese resolutor/
conditions constitute, in effect, a )&ord of -amocles o*er the heads of ad interim appointees.
No one, ho&e*er, can complain because it is the Constitution itself that places the )&ord of
-amocles o*er the heads of the ad interim appointees.
7hile an ad interim appointment is permanent and irre*ocable e3cept as pro*ided b/ la&, an
a!!ont,ent or des%naton n a te,!orar- or a'tn% 'a!a't- 'an *e )t&dra)n or
revoAed at t&e !leasure o( t&e a!!ontn% !o)er. % temporar/ or acting appointee does not
en4o/ an/ securit/ of tenure, no matter ho& briefl/. :his is the >ind of appointment that the
Constitution prohibits the President from ma>ing to the three independent constitutional
commissions, including the CO9E,EC.
"f .enipa/o, .orra and :uason &ere not e3tended ad interim appointments to fill up the three
*acancies in the CO9E,EC, there &ould onl/ ha*e been one di*ision functioning in the
CO9E,EC instead of t&o during the 9a/ 2AA1 elections. Considering that the Constitution
reDuires that all 3 3 3 election cases shall be heard and decided in di*ision!, the remaining one
di*ision &ould ha*e been s&amped &ith election cases. 9oreo*er, since under the Constitution
motions for reconsideration shall be decided b/ the Commission en banc!, the mere absence of
one of the four remaining members &ould ha*e pre*ented a Duorum, a less than ideal situation
considering that the Commissioners are e3pected to tra*el around the countr/ before, during
and after the elections. :here &as a great probabilit/ that disruptions in the conduct of the 9a/
2AA1 elections could occur because of the three *acancies in the CO9E,EC.
E*identl/, the e3ercise b/ the President in the instant case of her constitutional po&er to ma>e
ad interim appointments pre*ented the occurrence of the *er/ e*il sought to be a*oided b/ the
second paragraph of )ection 1O, %rticle '"" of the Constitution.
:here is no dispute that an ad interim appointee disappro*ed b/ the Commission on
%ppointments can no longer be e3tended a ne& appointment. :he disappro*al is a final
decision of the Commission on %ppointments in the e3ercise of its chec>ing po&er on the
appointing authorit/ of the President. :he disappro*al is a decision on the merits, being a refusal
b/ the Commission on %ppointments to gi*e its consent after deliberating on the Dualifications of
the appointee.
%n ad interim appointment that is b/(passed because of lac> of time or failure of the
Commission on %ppointments to organi<e is another matter. % b/(passed appointment is one
that has not been finall/ acted upon on the merits b/ the Commission on %ppointments at the
close of the session of Congress. :here is no final decision b/ the Commission on
%ppointments to gi*e or &ithhold its consent to the appointment as reDuired b/ the Constitution.
%bsent such decision, the President is free to rene& the ad interim appointment of a b/(passed
appointee.
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 6
:he prohibition on reappointment in )ection 1 #2$, %rticle ";(C of the Constitution applies neither
to disappro*ed nor b/(passed ad interim appointments. % disappro*ed ad interim appointment
cannot be re*i*ed b/ another ad interim appointment because the disappro*al is final under
)ection 1O, %rticle '"" of the Constitution, and not because a reappointment is prohibited under
)ection 1 #2$, %rticle ";(C of the Constitution. % b/(passed ad interim appointment can be
re*i*ed b/ a ne& ad interim appointment because there is no final disappro*al under )ection 1O,
%rticle '"" of the Constitution, and such ne& appointment &ill not result in the appointee ser*ing
be/ond the fi3ed term of se*en /ears. :he phrase &ithout reappointment! applies onl/ to one
&ho has been appointed b/ the President and confirmed b/ the Commission on %ppointments,
&hether or not such person completes his term of office. :here must be a confirmation b/ the
Commission on %ppointments of the pre*ious appointment before the prohibition on
reappointment can appl/.
B. A!!ont,ents *- t&e Presdent
5rEo v. CSC, et al,
Fe*ruar- #F, "11"
-emaisip resigned from the position of Pro*. %tt/. of "loilo. ?pon his recommendation, O"C
@o*ernor appointed %randela #)enior ,egal Officer$ as Pro*. %tt/. @el*e<on #,egal Officer ""$
&as then promoted to )enior ,egal Officer. -ato(on and @eduspan &ere appointed as ,egal
Officer.
@rino assumed post as @o*ernor(elect of "loilo.
+e terminated the named appointees, and re(appointed -emaisip as Pro*incial %ttorne/ N
on the ground of loss and trust and confidence, because of an article that came out in the Pana/
Ne&s.
IssueBs C Held+
7ON position of Pro*incial %ttorne/ is primaril/ confidential ( 8E)
7ON positions of )enior ,egal Officer and ,egal Officer are primaril/ confidential ( NO
7ON the/ ma/ be terminated on the ground of loss of confidence b/ the local e3ecuti*e N
8E) to pro*incial attorne/, NO to )enior ,egal Officer and ,egal Officer
Rato+ T&e !oston o( Provn'al Attorne- s !r,arl- 'on(dental.
:he position of a Cit/ ,egal Officer is one reDuiring that utmost confidence on the part of
the ma/or be e3tended to said officer. :he relationship e3isting bet&een a la&/er and his client,
&hether a pri*ate indi*idual or a public officer, is one that depends on the highest degree of trust
that the latter entertains for the counsel selected. #Cadiente ruling$
Court also held that the &hile the &or> of the Chief ,egal Counsel as of an/ la&/er for that
matter, is impressed &ith a highl/ technical aspect, it does not mean that thereb/ a client is
precluded from substituting in his stead another practitioner. "t is the client=s right to terminate the
relationship, and once made such decision is impressed &ith the attribute of finalit/ and should
be respected. #.esa ruling$
4Pr,arl- 'on(dentalG denotes not onl/ confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for
the duties of the office but primaril/ close intimac/ &hich insures freedom of intercourse, &ithout
embarrassment or freedom from misgi*ings of betra/als of personal trust on confidential matters
of state.
T&us, t&e tenure o( o(('als &oldn% !r,arl- 'on(dental !ostons ends u!on loss
o( 'on(den'e, *e'ause t&er ter, o( o(('e lasts onl- as lon% as 'on(den'e n t&e,
endures. 7hen such confidence is lost and the officer holding such position is separated from
the ser*ice, such cessation entails no remo*al but an e8!raton o( &s ter,.
:he main difference bet&een a primar/ confidential officer and an officer &hose term has
e3pired is that the latterIs term is fi3ed or definite, &hereas t&at o( t&e (or,er s not !re3(8ed,
*ut nde(nte, at the time of his appointment or election, and *e'o,es (8ed and deter,ned
)&en t&e a!!ontn% !o)er e8!resses ts de'son to !ut an end to t&e serv'es o( t&e
n'u,*ent. 7hen this e*ent ta>es place, the latter is not remo*ed or dismissed from office(his
merel/ e3pired.
T&e Cadente and Besa ruln%s a!!l- *- analo%- to a !rovn'al attorne-.
% cit/ legal officer appointed b/ a cit/ ma/or to &or> for and in behalf of the cit/ has for its
counterpart in the pro*ince a pro*incial attorne/ appointed b/ the pro*incial go*ernor. "n the
same *ein, a municipalit/ ma/ ha*e a municipal attorne/ &ho is to be named b/ the appointing
po&er. :he positions of cit/ legal officer and pro*incial attorne/ &ere created under Republic %ct
No. Q18Q &hich categori<ed them together as positions of BtrustB. .oth the pro*incial attorne/
and cit/ legal officer ser*e as the legal ad*iser and legal officer for the ci*il cases of the pro*ince
and the cit/ that the/ &or> for. :heir ser*ices are precisel/ categori<ed b/ la& to be Btrusted
ser*ices.B T&er (un'tons 'learl- re(le't t&e &%&l- 'on(dental nature o( t&e t)o o(('es
and t&e need (or a relatons&! *ased on trust *et)een t&e o(('er and t&e &ead o( t&e
lo'al %overn,ent unt &e serves. :he >trusted serv'es> to be rendered b/ the officer &ould
mean such trusted ser*ices of a la&/er to his client &hich is of the highest degree of trust.
Ho)ever, !ostons o( Senor Le%al O(('er and Le%al O(('er are not !r,arl-
'on(dental.
:he legal &or> of Pro*incial or Cit/ %ttorne/, as distinguished from the relationship, can be
delegated. :he practice of delegating &or> of a counsel to his subordinates is apparent in the
Office of the Pro*incial %ttorne/ &herein it can be gleaned from the po&er granted to such officer
to e3ercise administrati*e super*ision and control o*er the acts and decision of his subordinates.
:hus, there is no need to e3tend the professional relationship to the legal staff &hich
assists the confidential emplo/er. Sn'e t&e !ostons o''u!ed *- t&ese su*ordnates are
re,ote (ro, t&at o( t&e a!!ontn% aut&ort-, t&e ele,ent o( trust *et)een t&e, s no
lon%er !redo,nant. :he importance of these subordinates to the appointing authorit/ no& lies
in the contribution of their legal s>ills to facilitate the &or> of the confidential emplo/ee.
%t this le*el of the bureaucrac/, an/ impairment of the appointing authorit/Is interest as a
client, &hich ma/ be caused through the breach of residual trust b/ an/ of there lo&er(ran>ed
la&/ers, can be anticipated and pre*ented b/ the confidential emplo/ee, as a reasonabl/
competent office head, through the e3ercise of his po&er to Bre*ie&, appro*e, re*erse, or
modif/B their acts and decisions.
:he subordinates ha*e been emplo/ed due to their technical Dualifications. T&er
!ostons are &%&l- te'&n'al n '&ara'ter and not 'on(dental, so t&e- are !er,anent
e,!lo-ees, and the/ belong to the categor/ of classified emplo/ees under the Ci*il )er*ice
,a&. :hus, the items of )enior ,egal Officer and ,egal Officer "" remain permanent as classified
b/ the Ci*il )er*ice Commission. ConseDuentl/, the holders of the said items2 being permanent
emplo/ees, en4o/ securit/ of tenure as guaranteed under the Constitution.
Tra v. Sto. To,as, CSC, et al,
.ul- ;", "11"
:ria &as emplo/ed &ith H9". as a 9anagement and %udit %nal/st ", a position e3pressl/
described in the letter of appointment as Bconfidential.B :ria &rote a confidential report to the
H9". -eput/ Commissioner detailing the nonfeasance of a H9". la&/er and recommending the
la&/er=s replacement, and then another report on a retired colonel this time submitted to the
Office of the President.
:ria applied for sic> lea*e in order to see> interim emplo/ment abroad, as permitted in a
C)C circular. %t this time %ssistant H9". Comm sent him a letter reprimanding him for b/(
passing the H9". Commissioners and sending a report straight to the Office of the President to
the embarrassment of the H9".. 7hile his sic> lea*e &as appro*ed b/ immediate superior, it
&as e*entuall/ denied b/ the H9". higher(ups. +e did not recei*e notice of denial and the letter
of reprimand until he got bac> from the ?). +e &as therefore terminated from ser*ice.
:ria no& see>s reinstatement.
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e E
IssueBs C Held+
7ON termination &as *alid ( NO
7ON :ria is a primaril/ confidential emplo/ee N NO
Rato+ C&ara'terHn% a !oston as >!r,arl- 'on(dental> are t)o3(old+ (rstl-, such
characteri<ation renders inapplicable the ordinar/ reDuirement of filling up a position in the Ci*il
)er*ice on the basis of merit and fitness as determined b/ competiti*e e3aminations2 and
se'ondl-, &hile the 18C Constitution does not e3empt such positions from the operation of the
principle set out in %rticle "; #.$, )ection 2 #6$ of the same Constitution that Bno officer or
emplo/ee of the Ci*il )er*ice shall be remo*ed or suspended e3cept for cause pro*ided b/ la&,B
the Bcause pro*ided b/ la&B includes Bloss of confidence.B
A !oston n t&e Cvl Serv'e ,a- *e 'onsdered !r,arl- 'on(dental+ #1$ &hen the
President of the Philippines, upon recommendation of the Ci*il )er*ice Commission, has
declared that position to be primaril/ confidential2 or #2$ &hen the position, gi*en the character of
the duties and functions attached to it, is primaril/ confidential in nature.
%ll positions in the E"". &ere apparentl/ declared as Bhighl/ confidentialB b/ former President
9arcos in ,etter of "mplementation No. C1, dated E )eptember 1C8.
7hen one e3amines, ho&e*er, the actual duties and functions of petitioner as a >=ana%e,ent
and Audt Anal-st I> n t&e F=IB, as set out in the 4ob description of that position, one is struc>
b/ the ordnar- and da- to da- '&ara'ter o( su'& dutes and (un'tons5 Bprepares reDuired
sur*e/ materials, &or> plans and schedules2 gathers data and ma>es in*estigations and
anal/<es #sic$ of administrati*e problems relating to organi<ation, personnel and procedure,
etcR!
It s t&e nature o( t&e !oston )&'& (nall- deter,nes )&et&er a !oston s !r,arl-
'on(dental, !ol'- deter,nn% or &%&l- te'&n'al. E3ecuti*e pronouncements can be no
more than initial determinations that are not conclusi*e in case of conflict. %nd it must be so, or
else it &ould then lie &ithin the discretion of the Chief E3ecuti*e to den/ to an/ officer, b/
e3ecuti*e fiat, the protection of section E, %rticle ;"", of the Constitution.B
Ever- a!!ont,ent ,!les 'on(den'e, *ut ,u'& ,ore t&an ordnar- 'on(den'e s
re!osed n t&e o''u!ant o( a !oston t&at s !r,arl- 'on(dental. :he latter phrase
denotes not onl/ confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but
primaril/ close intimac/ &hich insures freedom of Jdiscussion and delegation and reportingL
&ithout embarrassment or freedom from misgi*ings of betra/als of personal trust and
confidential matters of state.
"t is e*ident that the duties of petitioner related to the stud/ and anal/sis of organi<ational
structures and procedures, &ith the end in *ie& of ma>ing recommendations designed to
increase the le*els of efficienc/ and coordination &ithin the organi<ation so anal/<ed. 9oreo*er,
the modest ran> and fungible nature of the position occupied b/ petitioner, is underscored b/ the
fact that the salar/ attached to it &as no more than P1,QAA.AA a month at the time he &ent on
lea*e. :here thus appears nothing to suggest that petitionerIs position &as Bhighl/B or e*enB
primaril/ confidentialB in nature. T&e (a't t&at !ettoner ,a-, so,et,es, &andle
>'on(dental ,atters> or !a!ers )&'& are 'on(dental n nature, does not su(('e to
'&ara'terHe t&er !ostons as !r,arl- 'on(dental.
Not being a primaril/ confidential emplo/ee, there must be another la&ful cause to base his
termination on. :he Court found that there &as none in this case since his failure to report first to
the H9". Commissioner #and &ent directl/ to the Office of the President$, and his going sic>
lea*e &ere made in good faith. %s to the reports, it &as because no in*estigation &as done after
his first report &hich he made to the H9". Commissioner. %s to the sic> lea*e, his immediate
super*isor appro*ed it, and the latter &as in a position to tell &hether or not :ria=s presence in
the office &as necessar/.
Hlaro v. CSC and Planas,
=ar'& ;", "112
+ilario &as Cit/ %ttorne/ of SC, &ho &as appointed b/ O"C 9a/or. 7hen 9atha/ assumed post
as 9a/or(elect, the latter &rote him a letter that since his term &as co(terminous &ith the
appointing authorit/, +ilario &as deemed resigned. +ilario insists that his position should be
*ie&ed under .P 66C, the old la&, under &hich la& he &as then appointed as Cit/ %ttorne/.
Under BP ;;9, Ct- Attorne- s not e8!ressl- des'r*ed as a 'on(dental e,!lo-ee.
Issue+ 7ON +ilario is a confidential emplo/ee
Held+ 8E). %n e3amination of the pro*isions of .P 66C re*eals no intention b/ the legislature to
remo*e the confidential nature of the position of cit/ legal officer. 7hat it does, is to merel/
specif/ the *arious Dualifications, po&ers and duties of a cit/ legal officer &hich &ere not
enumerated under Republic %ct No. Q18Q. We &ave 'onsstentl- &eld n !revous 'ases t&at
t&e !oston o( Ct- Le%al O(('er s a 'on(dental one.
Provn'e o( Ca,arnes Sur v. CA and Dato,
.ul- "?, "112
:ito -ato &as appointed as Pri*ate %gent then promoted to %ssistant Pro*incial 7arden.
.ecause he had no ci*il ser*ice eligibilit/, he could not be gi*en a permanent appointment.
+ence, he &as onl/ gi*en a temporar/ appointment &hich &as rene&ed annuall/. E*entuall/,
@o*ernor appro*ed the change in -atoIs emplo/ment status from temporar/ to permanent upon
the latterIs representation that he passed the ci*il ser*ice e3amination for super*ising securit/
guards. )aid change of status ho&e*er, &as not fa*orabl/ acted upon b/ the Ci*il )er*ice
Commission #C)C$ reasoning that :ito -ato did not possess the necessar/ ci*il ser*ice eligibilit/
for the office he &as appointed to. +is appointment therefore remained temporar/. +e &as
suspended for criminal charges filed against him. 9ean&hile, C)C &rote the @o*ernor of
Camarines )ur a letter informing him that the status of pri*ate respondent :ito -ato has been
changed from temporar/ to permanent, the latter ha*ing passed the e3amination for )uper*ising
)ecurit/ @uard. :he change of status &as to be made retroacti*e to 1une 11, 1CE, the date of
release of said e3amination.
Issue+ 7ON -ato &as a permanent emplo/ee of the Pro*ince at the time of suspension
Held+ NO. %t the time he &as appointed %ssistant Pro*incial 7arden on 1anuar/ 1, 1CE, he
had not /et Dualified in an appropriate e3amination for the aforementioned position. Su'& la'A
o( a 'vl serv'e el%*lt- ,ade &s a!!ont,ent te,!orar- and &ithout a fi3ed and definite
term and is dependent entirel/ upon the pleasure of the appointing po&er. :he fact that pri*ate
respondent obtained ci*il ser*ice eligibilit/ later on is of no moment as his ha*ing passed the
super*ising securit/ guard e3amination, did not ipso facto con*ert his temporar/ appointment
into a permanent one. "n cases such as the one at bench, )&at s re@ured s a ne)
a!!ont,ent sn'e a !er,anent a!!ont,ent s not a 'ontnuaton o( t&e te,!orar-
a!!ont,ent 3 t&ese are t)o dstn't a'ts o( t&e a!!ontn% aut&ort-.
%s to the C)C=s action of granting a permanent appointment to -ato, such &as uncalled for. :he
C)C can onl/ inDuire into the eligibilit/ of the person chosen to fill a position and if it finds the
person Dualified it must so attest. "f not, the appointment must be disappro*ed. T&e dut- o( t&e
CSC s to attest a!!ont,ents and a(ter t&at (un'ton s ds'&ar%ed, ts !art'!aton n t&e
a!!ont,ent !ro'ess 'eases. "n the case at bench, C)C should ha*e ended its participation in
the appointment of pri*ate respondent on 1anuar/ 1, 1CE &hen it confirmed the temporar/
status of the latter &ho lac>ed the proper ci*il ser*ice eligibilit/. 7hen it issued the foregoing
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e Q
communication on 9arch 1, 1CO, it stepped on the toes of the appointing authorit/, thereb/
encroaching on the discretion *ested solel/ upon the latter.
5lora v. De 5uH,an, et al,
O'to*er F, "112
Cerillo et al &ere emplo/ees of the Philippine %ir Horce College of %eronautics #P%HC%$. :he
P%HC% .oard of :rustees issued Resolution &hich declared that B%ll facult/0administrati*e
emplo/ees are also sub4ect to the reDuired ci*il ser*ice eligibilities,B in accordance &ith pertinent
ci*il ser*ice la&, rules and regulations. :hus, Cerillo et al &ere issued onl/ temporar/
appointments because at the time of their appointment, the/ lac>ed appropriate ci*il ser*ice
eligibilities or other&ise failed to meet the necessar/ Dualification standards for their respecti*e
positions.
On 9arch 2E, 12, Cerillo &as relie*ed as .oard )ecretar/ of the P%HC% in accordance &ith
.oard Resolution b/ reason of loss of confidence. )ubseDuentl/, ho&e*er, she &as designated
as BCoordinator for E3tension )er*ices.B :hen, the/ &ere informed in -ecember 12 that the/
shall be deemed separated from the ser*ice upon the e3piration of their temporar/
appointments. Cerillo et al filed a case for reinstatement.
Issue+ 7ON Cerillo et al ma/ be reinstated
Held+ NO. T&e lo)er 'ourtIs Dud%,ent )&'& orders t&e renstate,ent o( =s. Rosaro <.
Cerllo to t&e !oston o( >Coordnator (or E8tenson Serv'es> s !atentl- ,!ro!er.
Cerillo, although temporaril/ e3tended an appointment as .oard )ecretar/ "", &as dismissed
therefrom because of loss of confidence. :his dismissal &as neither contested nor appealed
from b/ 9s. Cerillo.
CerlloIs ass%n,ent as >Coordnator (or E8tenson Serv'es> )as a ,ere des%naton.
Not being a permanent appointment, the designation to the position cannot be the sub4ect of a
case for reinstatement.
Hurthermore, e*en granting that 9s. Cerillo could be *alidl/ reinstated as BCoordinator for
E3tension )er*ices,B her reinstatement thereto &ould not be possible because the position is not
pro*ided for in the P)C% plantilla. :he P)C% could not ha*e made an/ *alid appointment for this
ine3istent position. At an- rate, a ,ere >des%naton> does not 'on(er u!on t&e des%nee
se'urt- o( tenure n t&e !oston or o(('e )&'& &e o''u!es n an a'tn% 'a!a't- onl-.
:he Ci*il )er*ice Commission, mandating a polic/, &rote petitioner Col. 1ulian 1. ,oleng, 1r. a
letter mandating that temporar/ appointments of officers0emplo/ees of the P)C% &ere to last
onl/ up to -ecember 61, 12. Pursuant to this, the .oard of :rustees declared that all facult/0
administrati*e emplo/ees of the college, &hile reDuired to acDuire ci*il ser*ice eligibilities under
pertinent ci*il ser*ice la&, rules and regulations, must e3ert effort to acDuire ci*il ser*ice
eligibilities &ithin a period of three /ears from their temporar/ appointments. :his, the pri*ate
respondents belie*e should be ta>en to mean that, should the/ acDuire ci*il ser*ice eligibilities
&ithin that period of three /ears, the/ cannot be terminated from the ser*ice.
:he fact that pri*ate respondent Cenillo passed the reDuisite Ci*il )er*ice E3amination after the
termination of her temporar/ appointment is no reason to compel petitioners to reappoint her.
A'@uston o( 'vl serv'e el%*lt- s not t&e sole (a'tor (or rea!!ont,ent. )till to be
considered b/ the appointing authorit/ are5 performance, degree of education, &or> e3perience,
training, seniorit/, and, more importantl/, as in this case, &hether or not the applicant en4o/s the
confidence and trust of the appointing po&er. "t has been ruled that the position of .oard
)ecretar/ "", b/ its nature, is primaril/ confidential.
Renstate,ent is technicall/ issuance of a ne& appointment &hich is essentiall/ discretionar/,
to be performed b/ the officer in &hich it is *ested according to his best lights, the onl/ condition
being that the appointee should possess the Dualifications reDuired b/ la&. )uch e3ercise of the
discretionar/ po&er of appointment cannot be controlled, not e*en b/ the Court as long as it is
e3ercised properl/ b/ the appointing authorit/.
I<. POWERS, DUTIES AND NOR=S OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Tarrosa v. Sn%son,
=a- #2, "11?
:arrosa as ta3pa/er! files a petition for prohibition, Duestioning the appointment of )ingson b/
Ramos as @o*ernor of the .ang>o )entral ng Pilipinas for not ha*ing been confirmed b/ the
Commission on %ppointments. :he petition is based on Se' F o( RA9F2;, &hich established the
.)P as the Central 9one/ %uthorit/ of the Philippines. :he said pro*ision stated that the
appointment of the @o*ernor should be confirmed b/ the Commission on %ppointments.
Issue+ 7ON the action ma/ prosper
Held+ NO. :he action is in the nature of a $uo warranto proceeding as it see>s the ouster of
)ingson and alleges the latter is unla&full/ holding or e3ercising the office. % quo warranto
!ro'eedn% ma/ onl/ be commenced b/ the )ol(@en or a person claiming to be entitled to a
public office or position unla&full/ held or e3ercised b/ another!.
"t is ob*ious that the instant petition &as impro*identl/ brought. :o uphold the position &ould
encourage e*er/ disgruntled citi<en to resort to courts , thereb/ causing incalculable mischief
and hindrance to the efficient operation of the go*ernmental machiner/.
O*ter+ Hor the information of all concerned, in Calderon v Carale, the Court ruled that Congress
b/ la& cannot e3pand the confirmation po&ers of the Co% and reDuire confirmation for positions
not e3pressl/ mentioned in %rt '"", )ec 1O of the Constitution.
=endoHa v. Allas and Olores,
Fe*ruar- ?, "111
9endo<a &or>ed in the .ureau of Customs as -irector """!. +e &as temporaril/ designated as
%cting -istrict Collector in Caga/an de Oro. %llas &as appointed as %cting -irector """!b/
President Ramos so 9endo<a &as terminated. +e filed a petition for $uo warranto against %llas
and &on in the R:C. 7hile the action &as pending in the C%, %llas &as promoted and Olores
no& occupied the position so C% denied the 9otion for E3ecution.
Issue5 7ON the C% can e3ecute the 4udgment
Held5 NO. Quo warranto is a proceeding to determine the right of a person to the use or
e3ercise of a franchise or office and to oust the holder from its en4o/ment, if his claim is not &ell(
founded, or if he has forfeited his right to en4o/ the pri*ilege. :he action ma/ be commenced b/
the )ol(@en or the fiscal or b/ an indi*idual &ho claims to be entitled.
Ordnarl-, a Dud%,ent a%anst a !u*l' o(('er )t& re%ard to a !u*l' r%&t *nds &s
su''essor n o(('e. T&s rule, &o)ever, s not a!!l'a*le to quo warranto cases , :he
4udgment does not bind the respondentIs successor e*en if the latter ma/ trace his title to the
same source. :his follo&s from the nature of the &rit itself. "t is ne*er directed to an officer as
such, but al)a-s a%anst t&e !erson Tto determine &hether he is constitutionall/ and legall/
authori<ed to perform an/ act in, or e3ercise an/ function of the office. "n the case at bar, the
petition &as solely against %llas.
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e O
<. RI5HTS AND PRI<ILE5ES
5SIS v. CSC,
.une "1, "112
.elo &as 'ice(@o*ernor of Capi< from 1anuar/ 1C2 until Hebruar/ 188. Hrom -ecember 1C
to Hebruar/ 188, she held it in a hold#over capacit/ and &ithin that time, from -ecember 1CO
to -ecember 1C, she &as paid on a per diem basis. .aradero &as a member of the
)angguniang .a/an in Negros Occidental. +e &as also paid per diem for a time.
Issue+ 7ON regular ser*ice on a per diem basis, &ithout an/ other form of compensation or
emolument, is compensation to be creditable for retirement
Held+ 8E). Tradtonal De(nton o( per diem n 5SIS La)+ a dail/ allo&ance gi*en for each
da/ an officer or emplo/ee of go*ernment is a&a/ from his home base
T&e per diem )as a'tuall- n t&e nature o( 'o,!ensaton. W&at s 'ontrolln% s t&e nature
o( t&e renu,eraton not t&e la*el atta'&ed to t. :he per diem she recei*ed is not the >ind
described in the @o*ernment )er*ice "nsurance %ct. :hat la& sho&s a clear legislati*e intent to
distinguish bet&een compensation and incidental allo&ances.
TEST5 "t is generall/ held that an allo&ance for e3penses incident to the discharge of an office
is not salar/ so if the remuneration recei*ed b/ the public official in performance of his duties
does not constitute mere allo&ance for e3penses! but appears to be his actual base pa/, then
no amount of categori<ing the salar/ as per diem &ould ta>e the allo&ances from the term
ser*ice &ith compensation! for the purpose of computing the number of /ears of ser*ice in
go*ernment.
Retre,ent *ene(ts gi*en to go*ernment emplo/ees in effect re&ard them for gi*ing the best
/ears of their li*es to the ser*ice of their countr/. :his is especiall/ true &ith those in go*ernment
ser*ice occup/ing positions of leadership or positions reDuiring management s>ills. :he source
of benefits is a social legislation.
.elo belie*ed in good faith that the short period &as credited as she &as not dul/ informed. :he
problem that she did not contribute for that period can be remedied b/ simpl/ deducting the
corresponding contributions from the benefits. "t &ould be grossl/ ineDuitableTas it &ould
*iolate the spirit and intent of go*ernment retirement and insurance la&s(( to permanentl/
penali<e both .elo and .aradero. -ue to the peculiar circumstances, it is the spirit and intent,
not form, that should go*ern.
7uason, dssentn%+ Hirst, @)") has the po&er to determine &hat ser*ice is creditable for
retirement purposes. )econd, the obligation to pa/ premiums is eDuall/ essential as the period
of ser*ices rendered. .elo had the option to continue membership &hen she started &or>ing for
the ,@?, but she did not e3ercise the option. %s she did not contribute to the s/stem, it &ould be
un4ust to compel @)") to grant her retirement benefits.
Btono, .r. v. COA and 5an%an,
=ar'& "#, #$$?
.itonio &as designated as -O,E Representati*e to the Philippine Economic Uone %uthorit/
#PEU%$ pursuant to )ec 11, R% C1O and he recei*ed per diems for e*er/ board meeting
attended. ?pon audit, CO% disallo&ed pa/ment of per diems on the strength of C,? * E3ec)ec
&hich stated that cabinet members, their deputies and assistants, holding offices other than their
primar/ office shall not recei*e additional compensation.
Issue+ 7ON the CO% correctl/ disallo&ed the per diems
Held+ 8E). .itonioIs presence in the PEU% .oard meetings is solely b/ *irtue of his capacit/ as
representati*e of the )ecretar/ of ,abor. :here &as no separate or special appointment for such
position. Sn'e t&e Se'retar- o( La*or s !ro&*ted (ro, re'evn% addtonal
'o,!ensaton (or &s addtonal o(('e, su'& !ro&*ton lAe)se a!!les to &s
re!resentatve. :his case is on all fours &ith Dela Cru& v C'%. % contrar/ rule &ould gi*e the
representati*es a better right than their principals.
:here is no merit in the contention that the legislature &as a&are of C,? * E3ec)ec &hen the/
enacted R% C1O. "t is a basic tenet that an/ legislati*e enactment must not be repugnant to the
highest la& of the land. "t is important to note that the said la& &as later amended, deleting the
pa/ment of per diems.
Natonal A,nest- Co,,sson v.
COA, Es!no and Eulala,
Se!te,*er J, #$$?
:he )ecretaries of 1ustice, National -efense and "nterior and ,ocal @o*ernment &ere ex officio
member of the N%C. :he/ turned o*er their responsibilit/ to representati*es &ho &ere paid
honoraria &hich &ere disallo&ed on audit. N%C passed %O 2, pro*iding that representati*es
ma/ be designated and the/ are entitled to per diems, allo&ances and other benefits. )till, the
CO% disallo&ed the benefits so N%C filed the present petition.
Issue+ 7ON the honoraria &ere correctl/ disallo&ed b/ CO%
Held+ 8E). :he position of N%C is against the la& and 4urisprudence. :he Constitution
mandates the CO% to ensure that the funds and properties of the go*ernment are *alidl/,
efficientl/ and conscientiousl/ used as sho&n in %rt ";(-. "n accordance &ith this mandate and
C,? * E3ec )ec, CO% issued 9emo No., C(A68 &hich disallo&s additional compensation :his
memo does not reDuire publication to be *alid because it is merel/ an internal and interpretati*e
regulation, implementing )ec 16, %rt '"" of the Constitution.
:he C(! decision gi*es 2 constitutional prohibitions5
1. the blan>et prohibition of par 2, )ec C, %rt ";(. on all go*ernment emplo/ees holding
multiple offices
2. the stricter prohibition in )ec 16, %rt '"" on the President and his official famil/
:he N%C ex officio membersI representati*es are co*ered b/ both prohibitions. :he @o*ernment
is ne*er estopped b/ mista>e or error on the part of its agents. ,astl/, t&e re!resentatves are
not de facto o(('ers enttled to *ene(ts, !ursuant to t&e CLU 'ase, *e'ause t&e- )ere
not a!!onted *ut ,erel- des%nated.
De la <'tora v. Bur%os and Ses*reEo,
.une #9, "112
:here &as 4udgment against asst Cit/ Hiscals 9abanto, 1r and -e Rama, 1r, ordering them to
pa/ damages so a notice of garnishment &as ser*ed on petitioner de la 'ictoria as Cit/ Hiscal
&hich directed her not to disburse, transfer, release or con*e/ the salar/ chec>s of the
defendants e3cept to the deput/ sheriff. )he failed to compl/ so she &as as>ed to e3plain &h/
she should not be cited in contempt. +er defense5 :he salar/ chec>s are not o&ned b/ 9abanto,
1r. because the/ &ere not /et deli*ered to him so the/ &ere go*ernment funds based on )ec 1O
of the Negotiable "nstruments ,a&.
Issue+ 7ON the salar/ chec>s are go*ernment funds
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e C
Held+ 8E). @arnishment is a species of attachment for reaching credits belonging to the
4udgment debtor o&ing to him from a stranger to the litigation. In t&s 'ase, t&e sour'e o( t&e
salar- o( =a*anto s !u*l' (unds and &e re'eves t n '&e'A. Under Se' "F o( t&e NIL,
ever- 'ontra't on a ne%ota*le nstru,ent s n'o,!lete and revo'a*le until delivery (or
t&e !ur!ose o( %vn% e((e't t&ereto.
)iro v *ontanosas+ :he salar/ chec> of the go*ernment officer or emplo/ee does not belong to
him before it is ph/sicall/ deli*ered to him. ?ntil that time, the chec> belongs to the go*ernment.
:he rationale behind this doctrine is ob*ious consideration of !u*l' !ol'-5 Commissioner of
ublic *ighways v San Diego5 :he functions and public ser*ices rendered b/ the )tate cannot
be allo&ed to be paral/<ed or disrupted b/ the di*ersion of public funds from their legitimate and
specific ob4ects, as appropriated b/ the la&.
Davde, dssentn%. :he ponencia failed to indicate the pa/roll period co*ered b/ the salar/
chec> and the month to &hich the R%:% chec> corresponds. "f the salar/ and R%:% chec>s
corresponded, respecti*el/, to a pa/roll period and to a month &hich had alread/ lapsed at the
time the notice of garnishment &as ser*ed, the garnishment &ould be *alid. ?pon e3piration, the
sums are deemed automaticall/ segregated from the budgetar/ allocations.
<nHons3C&ato v. Natvdad and Blas,
.une #, "112
On -ecember 1A, 16, petitioner Commissioner of "nternal Re*enue, citing the Be3igencies of
the re*enue ser*ice,B issued Re*enue :ra*el %ssignment Order No. 8A(6 #R:%O 8A(6$,
directing ninet/ re*enue district officers to report to ne& assignments in the redesignated and
renumbered re*enue district offices nation&ide. Pri*ate respondent )al*ador Nori .las &as
ordered to report to Re*enue -istrict No. 1E in :uguegarao, Caga/an. "n turn, petitioner )olon
.. %lcantara &as ordered to report to .lasI former post in )an Hernando, Pampanga, no& >no&n
as Re*enue -istrict No. 21.
,las- Contention
%ll that he asserts is his constitutional right to protection from a demotion not for cause, and
&ithout his consent under the guise of a Btransfer in the e3igencies of the ser*iceB. +e contends
that his transfer constitutes a demotion because, in effect, his span of control in terms of
4urisdiction and personnel has been considerabl/ diminished. +e claims that he has earned,
through hard &or>, as e*idenced b/ his ser*ice record, the position at )an Hernando,
Pampanga &hich has a larger staff and re*enue capacit/ and is much closer to 9anila.
Chato-s Contention
1. Pri*ate respondent did not ha*e an/ *ested right to his station in )an Hernando, Pampanga
since he &as onl/ designated to the post and not appointed thereto. Neither did pri*ate
respondent sho& an/ right to be e3empted from the reorgani<ation.
2. Neither &as the transfer a demotion, since there &as no reduction in duties, responsibilities,
status, ran>, or salar/.
Issues+
1. 7ON there is a reduction in duties and responsibilities
2. 7ON there &as a demotion and dislocation on the part of the plaintiff &hen the public
defendant Chato issued Re*enue :ra*el %ssignment Order #R:%O$ No. 8A(6.
Held+ /NONE0
1. .las= transfer to the :uguegarao re*enue district did not reall/ entail an/ diminution in ran>,
salar/, status and responsibilities. Pri*ate respondentIs claim that the :uguegarao re*enue
district is smaller than that in )an Hernando, Pampanga has no basis because, as alread/
noted, the classification of R-OsI into Class %(1, %, ., C and - has been abolished and all
R-OIs are no& considered to be of the same class.
2. .las= transfer is part of a nation&ide reshuffle or reassignment of re*enue district officers
designed to impro*e re*enue collection. "t could be that pri*ate respondent is being transferred
to a re*enue district &hich he claims has less re*enue capacit/ than )an Hernando, Pampanga,
precisel/ to impro*e the capacit/ of the ne& assignment. Hs ne) ass%n,ent s&ould
t&ere(ore *e 'onsdered *- &, a '&allen%e to &s leaders&! as revenue dstr't o(('er
rat&er t&an a de,oton or a !enalt-.
6. Prvate res!ondent (aled to s&o) !atent lle%alt- n t&e a'ton o( t&e Co,,ssoner
'onsttutn% volaton o( &s r%&t to se'urt- o( tenure. :o sustain his contention that his
transfer constitutes a demotion simpl/ because the ne& assignment is not to his li>ing &ould be
to subordinate go*ernment pro4ects, along &ith the great resources and efforts the/ entail, to the
indi*idual preferences and opinions of ci*il ser*ice emplo/ees. )uch contention &ould negate
the principle

that a public office is a public trust and that it is not the pri*ate preser*e of an/
person.
Dvna%ra'a, .r. v. Sto. To,as,
=a- ;", "112
% trans(er is a mo*ement from one position to another &hich is of eDui*alent ran>, le*el, salar/,
&ithout brea> in ser*ice. Pro,oton is the ad*ancement from one position to another &ith an
increase in duties and responsibilities as authori<ed b/ la&, and is usuall/ accompanied b/ an
increase in salar/. % transfer that results in promotion or demotion, ad*ancement or reduction, or
a transfer that aims to lure the emplo/ee from the permanent position 'annot *e done )t&out
t&e e,!lo-eeIs 'onsent. :his &ould constitute remo*al from office. "ndeed, no permanent
transfer can ta>e place unless the officer or emplo/ee is first remo*ed from the position held,
and then appointed to another position.
:he rule that unconsented transfers amount to remo*al is not &ithout an e3ception. :here are
transfers &hich do not amount to remo*al. )uch transfers can be effected &ithout need for
charges being proffered, &ithout trial or hearing, and &ithout the consent of the emplo/ee. :he
clue to such transfers ma/ be found in the nature of the appointment. W&ere t&e a!!ont,ent
does not nd'ate a s!e'(' staton, an e,!lo-ee ,a- *e trans(erred or ass%ned
!rovded t&e trans(er a((e'ts no su*stantal '&an%e n ttle, ranA or salar-. )uch rule does
not proscribe a transfer carried out under specific statute that empo&ers the head of an agenc/
to periodicall/ reassign the emplo/ees and officers in order to impro*e the ser*ice of the agenc/.
Neither does illegalit/ attach to the transfer or assignment of an officer pending the
determination of an administrati*e charge against him or to the transfer of an emplo/ee from his
assigned station to the main office, effected in good faith and in the interest of ser*ice.
5SIS v. COA,
Nove,*er "$, #$$?
T&e ssue in this case is &hether or not the @)") ma/ la&full/ deduct an/ amount from the
retirement benefits of respondents in light of )ection 6, R% 821, the last paragraph of &hich
specificall/ pro*ides5
SEC. 39. Exemption from Tax Le!al "rocess and Lien.# :he funds and0or the properties
referred to herein as &ell as the benefits, sums or monies corresponding to the benefits under
this %ct shall be e3empt from attachment, garnishment, e3ecution, le*/ or other processes
issued b/ the courts, Duasi(4udicial agencies or administrati*e bodies including Commission on
%udit #CO%$ disallo&ances and from all financial obligations of the members, including his
pecuniar/ accountabilit/ arising from or caused or occasioned b/ his e3ercise or performance of
his official functions or duties, or incurred relati*e to or in connection &ith his position or &or>
e3cept &hen his monetar/ liabilit/, contractual or other&ise, is in fa*or of the @)").
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 8
Held+ #NO$
1. "t is clear from the abo*e pro*ision that CO% disallo&ances cannot be deducted from benefits
under R% 821, as the same are e3plicitl/ made e3empt b/ la& from such deductions.
Retre,ent *ene(ts 'annot *e d,ns&ed *- COA dsallo)an'es n ve) o( t&e 'lear
,andate o( t&e (ore%on% !rovson.
2. %ccordingl/, the @)") interpretation of )ection 6 that CO% disallo&ances ha*e become
monetar/ liabilities of respondents to the @)") and therefore fall under the e3ception stated in
the la& is &rong. No interpretation of the said pro*ision is necessar/ gi*en the 'lear lan%ua%e
o( t&e statute. % meaning that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the *er/ language
of the statute cannot be placed therein b/ construction.
6. :hat retre,ent !a- a''run% to a !u*l' o(('er ,a- not *e )t&&eld and a!!led to &s
nde*tedness to t&e %overn,ent has been settled in se*eral cases. "n Cru< *. :antuico, 1r.,
the Court, citing +unt *. +ernande<, e3plained the reason for such polic/ thus5
3 3 3 :he e3emption should be liberall/ construed in fa*or of the pensioner. Penson n t&s
'ase s a *ount- (lo)n% (ro, t&e %ra'ousness o( t&e 5overn,ent ntended to re)ard
!ast serv'es and, at t&e sa,e t,e, to !rovde t&e !ensoner )t& t&e ,eans )t& )&'&
to su!!ort &,sel( and &s (a,l-. ?nless other&ise clearl/ pro*ided, the pension should inure
&holl/ to the benefit of the pensioner.
Ra*or v. CSC,
=a- ;", "112
Petitioner -ionisio Rabor is a ?tilit/ 7or>er &ho entered the go*ernment ser*ice at the age of
QQ /ears. Pagatpatan, an official in the Office of the 9a/or of -a*ao Cit/, ad*ised -ionisio 9.
Rabor to appl/ for retirement, considering that he had alread/ reached the age of O8 /ears and
C months, &ith 16 /ears and 1 month of go*ernment ser*ice. Rabor responded to this ad*ice b/
e3hibiting a BCertificate of 9embershipB

issued b/ the @o*ernment )er*ice "nsurance )/stem %t
the bottom of this BCertificate of 9embershipB is a t/pe&ritten statement of the follo&ing tenor5
B)er*ice e3tended to compl/ &ith 1Q /ears ser*ice reDuirements!
C)C 9emorandum Circular No. 2C, s. 1A pro*ides, in part5 1. %n/ reDuest for e3tension of
ser*ice of compulsor/ retirees to complete the fifteen /ears ser*ice reDuirement for retirement
shall be allo&ed onl/ to permanent appointees in the career ser*ice &ho are regular members of
the @o*ernment )er*ice "nsurance )/stem #@)")$ and shall be granted for a period of not
exceeding one .1/ year.
"n this proceeding, petitioner Rabor contends that his claim falls sDuarel/ &ithin the ruling of this
Court in Cena v. Civil Service Commission.
Issue+ 7ON Ci*il )er*ice Commission 9emorandum No. 2C relating to e3tension of ser*ice of
compulsor/ retirees should be upheld
Held+
1. "t &ill be seen that Cena, in stri>ing do&n Ci*il )er*ice Commission 9emorandum No. 2C,
too> a *er/ narro& *ie& on the Duestion of &hat subordinate rule(ma>ing b/ an administrati*e
agenc/ is permissible and *alid.
)he rule on limiting to one the year the extension of service of an emplo/ee &ho has reached
the compulsor/ retirement age of OQ /ears, but has less than 1Q /ears of ser*ice under Civil
Service 0emorandum Circular 1o. 23, S. 1445, cannot li>e&ise be accorded validity because it
has no relationship or connection with any provision of .D. 1167 supposed to be carried into
effect. )he rule was an addition to or extension of the law, not merely a mode of carrying it into
effect. :he Ci*il )er*ice Commission has no po&er to suppl/ percei*ed omissions in P.-. 11EO.
2. Clearl/, therefore, Cena &hen it reDuired a considerabl/ higher degree of detail in the statute
to be implemented, &ent against pre*ailing doctrine. "t seems clear that if the go*erning or
enabling statute is Duite detailed and specific to begin &ith, there &ould be *er/ little need #or
occasion$ for implementing administrati*e regulations. "t is, ho&e*er, precisel/ the inabilit/ of
legislati*e bodies to anticipate all #or man/$ possible detailed situations in respect of an/
relati*el/ comple3 sub4ect matter, that ma>es subordinate, delegated rule(ma>ing b/
administrati*e agencies so important and una*oidable. %ll that ma/ be reasonabl/2 demanded is
a sho&ing that the delegated legislation consisting of administrati*e regulations are germane to
the general purposes pro4ected b/ the go*erning or enabling statute. :his is the test that is
appropriatel/ applied in respect of Ci*il )er*ice 9emorandum Circular No. 2C, )eries of 1A,
and to this test &e no& turn.
6. :he enabling statute that should appropriatel/ be e3amined is the present Ci*il )er*ice la&
found in .oo> ', :itle ", )ubtitle %, of E3ecuti*e Order No. 22 dated 2Q 1ul/ 18C, other&ise
>no&n as the %dministrati*e Code of 18C and not alone P.-. No. 11EO, other&ise >no&n as the
BRe*ised @o*ernment )er*ice "nsurance %ct of 1CC.B Hor the matter of e3tension of ser*ice of
retirees &ho ha*e reached si3t/(fi*e #OQ$ /ears of age is an area that is covered by both statutes
and not alone b/ )ection 11 #b$ of P.-. 11EO.
"t &as on the bases of )ection 12 of the present Ci*il )er*ice ,a& set out in 18C %dministrati*e
Code that the Ci*il )er*ice Commission promulgated its 9emorandum Circular No. 2C. "n doing
so, the Commission &as acting as Bthe central personnel agenc/ of the go*ernment empo&ered
to promulgate policies, standards and guidelines for efficient, responsi*e and effecti*e personnel
administration in the go*ernment.B "t &as also discharging its function of Badministering the
retirement program for go*ernment officials and emplo/eesB and of Bevaluat8ing9 $ualifications
for retirement.B
E. "n addition, the Ci*il )er*ice Commission is charged b/ the 18C %dministrati*e Code &ith
pro*iding leadership and assistance Bin the development and retention of $ualified and efficient
wor: force in the Ci*il )er*iceB #)ection 1O J1AL$ and &ith the Benforcement of the constitutional
and statutory provisions, relative to retirement and the regulation for the effective
implementation of the retirement of government officials and employeesB #)ection 1O J1EL$.
7e find it *er/ difficult to suppose that the limitation of permissible e3tensions of ser*ice after an
emplo/ee has reached si3t/(fi*e #OQ$ /ears of age has no reasonable relationship or is not
germane to the foregoing pro*isions of the present Ci*il )er*ice ,a&. :he ph/siological and
ps/chological processes associated &ith ageing in human beings are in fact related to the
efficienc/ and Dualit/ of the ser*ice that ma/ be e3pected from indi*idual persons.
;. Cena laid hea*/ stress on the interest of retirees or &ould be retirees, something that is, in
itself, Duite appropriate. At t&e sa,e t,e, &o)ever, )e are *ound to note t&at t&ere s&ould
*e 'ountervaln% stress on t&e nterests o( t&e e,!lo-er a%en'- and o( ot&er %overn,ent
e,!lo-ees as a )&ole. :he results flo&ing from the stri>ing do&n of the limitation established
in Ci*il )er*ice 9emorandum Circular No. 2C ma/ &ell be Babsurd and ineDuitable,B as
suggested b/ 9me. 1ustice @riVo(%Duino in her dissenting opinion. %n emplo/ee &ho has
rendered onl/ 6 /ears of go*ernment ser*ice at age OQ can ha*e his ser*ice e3tended for 12
/ears and finall/ retire at the age of CC. T&s redu'es t&e s%n('an'e o( t&e %eneral
!rn'!le o( 'o,!ulsor- retre,ent at a%e F2 ver- 'lose to t&e vans&n% !ont.
O. Our conclusion is that t&e do'trne o( Cena s&ould *e and s &ere*- ,od(ed to t&s
e8tent+ that Ci*il )er*ice 9emorandum Circular No. 2C, )eries of 1A, more specificall/
paragraph #1$ thereof, is hereb/ declared *alid and effecti*e. )ection 11 #b$ of P.-. No. 11EO
must, accordingl/, be read together &ith 9emorandum Circular No. 2C. 7e reiterate, ho&e*er,
the holding in Cena that the head of the go*ernment agenc/ concerned is *ested &ith
discretionar/ authorit/ to allo& or disallo& e3tension of the ser*ice of an official or emplo/ee &ho
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e
has reached OQ /ears of age &ithout completing 1Q /ears of go*ernment ser*ice2 t&s
ds'reton s, nevert&eless, to *e e8er'sed 'on(or,a*l- )t& t&e !rovsons o( Cvl
Serv'e =e,orandu, Cr'ular No. #9, Seres o( "11$.
Tantu'o .r., v. Do,n%o,
Fe*ruar- #J, "11?
Petitioner, former chairman of the Commission on %udit, argues that not&ithstanding the t&o
clearances pre*iousl/ issued, and respondent ChairmanIs #current chairman of CO%$
certification that petitioner had been cleared of mone/ and propert/ accountabilit/, respondent
Chairman still refuses to release the remaining half of his retirement benefits, a purel/ ministerial
act.
Issue+ 7ON respondent Chairman of the CO% should pa/ petitionerIs retirement benefits in full
and his monthl/ pensions beginning in 9arch 11
Held+ Regardless of petitionerIs monetar/ liabilit/ to the go*ernment that ma/ be disco*ered
from the audit concerning his fiscal responsibilit/ as former CO% Chairman, res!ondent
C&ar,an 'annot )t&&old t&e *ene(ts due !ettoner under t&e retre,ent la)s.
1. "n )antuico, &e cited 1ustice ,aurelIs essa/ on the rationale for the benign ruling in fa*or of
the retired emplo/ees, thus5 . . . Pension in this case is a bount/ flo&ing from the graciousness
of the @o*ernment intended to re&ard past ser*ices and, at the same time, to pro*ide the
pensioner &ith the means &ith &hich to support himself and his famil/. ?nless other&ise clearl/
pro*ided, the pension should inure &holl/ to the benefit of the pensioner.
2. ?nder )ection E, R% 1QO8 #%n %ct to Pro*ide ,ife Pension to the %uditor @eneral and the
Chairman or %n/ 9ember of the Commission of Elections$, the benefits granted b/ said la& to
the %uditor @eneral and the Chairman and 9embers of the Commission on Elections shall not
be sub4ect to garnishment, le*/ or e3ecution. ,i>e&ise, under )ection 66, P- 11EO, as amended
#:he Re*ised @o*ernment )er*ice "nsurance %ct of 1CC$, the benefits granted thereunder
Bshall not be sub4ect, among others, to attachment, garnishment, le*/ or other processes.B
6. 7ell(settled is the rule that retre,ent la)s are l*erall- nter!reted n (avor o( t&e retree
*e'ause t&e ntenton s to !rovde (or t&e retreeKs sustenan'e and 'o,(ort, )&en &e s
no lon%er 'a!a*le o( earnn% &s lvel&ood #Profeta *s. -rilon, 21O )CR% CCC J12L$.
5lora v. CA,
A!rl #", "111
:his case arose out of the unfortunate stri>es and &al>(outs staged b/ public school teachers on
different dates in )eptember and October 1A. :he illegalit/ of the stri>es &as declared in our
11 decision in 0anila ublic School )eachers %ssociation v. (aguio, <r.,
1
but man/ incidents
of those stri>es are still to be resol*ed. %t issue in this case is the right to bac> salaries of
teachers &ho &ere either dismissed or suspended because the/ did not report for &or> but &ho
&ere e*entuall/ ordered reinstated because the/ had not been sho&n to ha*e ta>en part in the
stri>e, although reprimanded for being absent &ithout lea*e.
Issue+ 7ON respondents &ho &ere put under pre*enti*e suspension ha*e a right to
compensation in case of e3oneration
1. :here are t)o Ands o( !reventve sus!enson o( 'vl serv'e e,!lo-ees )&o are
'&ar%ed )t& o((enses !uns&a*le *- re,oval or sus!enson+
#1$ pre*enti*e suspension pending in*estigations
#2$ pre*enti*e suspension pending appeal if the penalt/ imposed b/ the disciplining
authorit/ is suspension or dismissal and, after re*ie&, the respondent is
e3onerated
2. Preventve sus!enson !endn% nvest%aton s not a !enalt-. "t is a measure intended to
enable to enable the disciplining authorit/ to in*estigate charges against respondent b/
pre*enting the latter from intimidating or an/ &a/ influencing &itnesses against him. "f the
in*estigation is not finished and a decision is not rendered &ithin that period, the suspension &ill
be lifted and the respondent &ill automaticall/ be reinstated. "f after in*estigation respondent is
found innocent of the charges and is e3onerated, he should be reinstated.
6. T&ere s no r%&t to 'o,!ensaton (or Preventve Sus!enson "endin! $nvesti!ation
even ( e,!lo-ee s e8onerated.
:he Ombudsman %ct of 18 #R% OCCA$ categoricall/ pro*ides that pre*enti*e suspension shall
be B&ithout pa/.B )ec. 2E reads5
Sec. %&. "reventive Suspension. :he Ombudsman or his -eput/ ma/ pre*enti*el/ suspend
an/ officer or emplo/ee under his authorit/ pending an in*estigation, if in his 4udgment the
e*idence of guilt is strong, and #a$ the charge against such officer or emplo/ee in*ol*es
dishonest/, oppression or gra*e misconduct or neglect in the performance of dut/2 #b$ the
charges &ould &arrant remo*al from the ser*ice2 or #c$ the respondents continued sta/ in office
ma/ pre4udice the case filed against him.
:he pre*enti*e suspension shall continue until the case is terminated b/ the Office of the
Ombudsman but not more than si3 months, without pay, e3cept &hen the dela/ in the
disposition of the case b/ the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault, negligence or petition
of the respondent, in &hich case the period of such dela/ shall not be counted in computing the
period of suspension herein pro*ided. "t is clear that the purpose of the amendment is to
disallo& the pa/ment of salaries for the period of suspension.
E. T&ere s a r%&t to 'o,!ensaton (or Preventve Sus!enson "endin! 'ppeal (
e,!lo-ee s e8onerated.
Preventve sus!enson !endn% a!!eal s a'tuall- !untve alt&ou%& t s n e((e't
su*se@uentl- 'onsdered lle%al ( res!ondent s e8onerated and t&e ad,nstratve
de'son (ndn% &, %ult- s reversed. +ence, he should be reinstated &ith full pa/ for the
period of the suspension. :he respondent Bshall be considered as under pre*enti*e suspension
during the pendenc/ of the appeal in the e*ent he &ins.B On the other hand, if his con*iction is
affirmed, i.e ., if he is not e3onerated, the period of his suspension becomes part of the final
penalt/ of suspension or dismissal.
"t is precisel/ because respondent is penali<ed before his sentence is confirmed that he should
be paid his salaries in the e*ent he is e3onerated. "t &ould be un4ust to depri*e him of his pa/ as
a result of the immediate e3ecution of the decision against him and continue to do so e*en after
it is sho&n that he is innocent of the charges for &hich he &as suspended. "ndeed, to sustain the
go*ernmentIs theor/ &ould be to ma>e the administrati*e decision not onl/ e3ecutor/ but final
and e3ecutor/
Q. Prvate res!ondents are enttled to *a'A salares. :he/ &ere e3onerated of all charges
against them for acts connected &ith the teachersI stri>es of )eptember and October 1A.
%lthough the/ &ere absent from &or>, it &as not because of the stri>e. Hor being absent &ithout
lea*e, the/ &ere held liable for *iolation of reasonable office rules and regulations for &hich the
penalt/ is a reprimand.
:heir case thus falls sDuarel/ &ithin ruling in ,angalisan, &hich li>e&ise in*ol*ed a teacher
found guilt/ of ha*ing *iolated reasonable office rules and regulations. E3plaining the grant of
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 1A
salaries during their suspension despite the fact that the/ &ere meted out reprimand, this Court
stated5
?nder )ection 26 of the Rule "mplementing .oo> ' of EO 22 and other pertinent ci*il ser*ice
la&s, in *iolations of reasonable office rules and regulations, the first offense is punishable b/
reprimand. :o den/ petitioner 9ariano his bac> &ages during his suspension &ould be
tantamount to punishing him after his e3oneration from the charges &hich caused his dismissal
from the ser*ice.
PA5COR v. Salas,
Au%ust ", #$$#
)alas &as P%@COR=s "nternal )ecurit/ )taff before the latter fired him for loss of confidence
because he engaged in pro3/ betting. )alas filed a case against P%@COR #Case 1$ &here the
)upreme Court held that )alas &as illegall/ dismissed because he &as not a confidential
emplo/ee &ho can be dismissed for loss of confidence. Reinstatement &ith full bac>&ages &as
ordered &ithout pre4udice to the filing of administrati*e charges against )alas.
7hile this 4udgment &as pending e3ecution, P%@COR reinstated )alas but imposed a A(da/
suspension on him pending in*estigation on an administrati*e case #Case 2$ for gra*e
misconduct &hich P%@COR filed against him. "n the admin case, the C)C ordered )alas=
dismissal &hich is to retroact to the date of the commission of the offense.
Held+ Salas s enttled to *a'A)a%es (ro, t&e t,e &e )as lle%all- ds,ssed untl &s
renstate,ent.
"n Case 1, )alas &as found to ha*e been illegall/ dismissed. T&ere(ore, t&e (rst ds,ssal
e((e'ted *- PA5COR &as no le%al (or'e and e((e't and SalasI tenure o( o(('e )as never
nterru!ted. +e is therefore entitled to all the rights and pri*ileges that accrue to him b/ *irtue of
the office he held.
:he subseDuent filing of Case 2 is immaterial since it is separate and distinct from the first
charge, e*en though both cases &ere based on the same set of facts. In (a't, a(ter
res!ondent )as &eld to &ave *een lle%all- ds,ssed n Case ", t )as as ( &e )as not
ds,ssed (ro, serv'e at all, and Case # s dee,ed to *e &s (rst '&ar%e. Prior thereto,
he is considered to ha*e been in petitioner=s continuous ser*ice, and entitled to all the rights and
pri*ileges his position en4o/s. :his is but the natural conseDuence of the Court=s finding of illegal
dismissal.
T&e su*se@uent ds,ssal 'annot retroa't to a date !ror to t&e (ln% o( an ad,nstratve
'ase a%anst res!ondent. :he filing of an administrati*e case against )alas is the reDuisite
Pdue process= &hich must precede his remo*al if &arranted. -ue process! here means that
ds,ssal ,a- *e ,ade onl- !ros!e'tvel-.
Bun-e v. Sand%an*a-an,
=a- 2, "111
Petitioners are public officers #ma/or, *ice ma/or, councilors, etc.$ &ho enacted Resolution EQ,
and on the basis thereof, forcibl/ too> possession of the Ne& Public 9ar>et in 9untinlupa and
thereafter too> o*er the operation and management of the public mar>et despite the fact that
there &as a *alid and subsisting lease contract for a term of 2Q /ears e3ecuted bet&een the
go*ernment and the Milusang 9agtitinda. % case &as filed against them for *iolation of )ec. 6#e$
of R% 6A1. :he )andiganba/an found them guilt/.
Held5 :he petitioners are not guilt/ of graft and corruption.
:he sub4ect lease contract &as grossl/ disad*antageous to the go*ernment, as the monthl/
rentals &ere onl/ QW of the monthl/ income of the Milusang 9agtitinda. 9oreo*er, the Milusang
9agtitinda failed to compl/ &ith the contractual stipulations under the +ealth and )anitation
Clause.
T&e ele,ents o( Se'. /;0 o( RA ;$"1 are as follo&s5
1. :hat the accused are public officers or pri*ate persons charged in conspirac/ &ith
them2
2. :hat said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their
official duties or in relation to their public positions2
6. )hat they cause undue in=ury to any party, whether the "overnment or a private party2
E. :hat such in4ur/ is caused b/ gi*ing un&arranted benefits, ad*antage or preference to
such parties2 and
Q. :hat the public officers ha*e acted &ith manifest partialit/, e*ident bad faith or gross
ine3cusable negligence.
:he element of undue in4ur/ is not present. 7hile there &as P169 recei*ed b/ the go*ernment
from the mar>et *endors, records sho& that the contract for the management and operation of
the Ne& 9untinlupa Public 9ar>et &as a&arded to the same Milusang 9agtitinda, but &ith a
ne& set of dul/ elected officers. :hus the business interest of the stallholders concerned has
ne*er been ad*ersel/ affected, and no mar>et *endor &as displaced or pre*ented from
operating in the Ne& 9untinlupa Public 9ar>et, as a result of the implementation of Resolution
EQ, No undue in4ur/ &as caused b/ the petitioners to the mar>et *endors or to Milusang
9agtitinda.
Duterte and de 5uH,an v. Sand%an*a-an,
A!rl #9, "11J
:he -a*ao Cit/ go*ernment entered into a contract &ith )P" for the purchase of computer
hard&are and accessories. % ci*il case &as thereafter filed against the cit/ council and officers of
)P" for the 4udicial declaration of nullit/ of the resolutions and ordinances &hich pushed for the
contract, and a declaration of nullit/ of the contract itself. %t the seller, the contract &as mutuall/
rescinded b/ -a*ao Cit/ and )P". )hereafter, the )pecial %udit :eam of the Commission on
%udit submitted a report recommending the rescission of the sub4ect contract. :he %nti(@raft
,eague filed a criminal case against the public officers in*ol*ed and )P" for *iolation of )ec. 6#g$
R% 6A1, claiming the contract made entered into &ithout public bidding and &as grossl/
disad*antageous to the go*ernment as the acDuisition cost &as o*erpriced.
Held+ :here is no basis in la& or in fact to charge petitioners for *iolation of )ec. 6#g$ R% 6A1.
To esta*ls& !ro*a*le 'ause a%anst t&e o((ender (or volaton o( Se'. ;/%0, t&e (ollo)n%
ele,ents ,ust *e !resent+
1. the offender is a public officer2
2. he entered into a contract or transaction in behalf of the government2 and
6. the contract or transaction is grossl/ and manifestl/ disad*antageous to the go*ernment.
+ere, t&e se'ond ele,ent o( t&e 'r,e t&at t&e a''used !u*l' o(('ers entered nto a
'ontra't n *e&al( o( t&e %overn,ent s a*sent. :he computeri<ation contract &as rescinded
before the special audit report came out and before the %nti(@raft ,eague filed its complaint &ith
the Ombudsman on 1 %ugust 11. +ence, at that time the %nti(@raft ,eague instituted their
complaint and the Ombudsman issued its Order on 12 No*ember 11, there &as no longer an/
contract to spea> of. :he contract, after O 9a/ 11 became in contemplation of la&, non(
e3istent, as if no contract &as e*er e3ecuted.
Llorente, .r. v. Sand%an*a-an and Fuertes,
=ar'& "", "11J
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 11
,lorente &as 9a/or of )indangan, Uamboanga. +e &as charged &ith *iolation of )ec.6#e$,
R%6A1 for causing undue in4ur/ to ,eticia Huertes b/ refusing to sign and appro*e the pa/rolls
and *ouchers representing the latter=s salaries and other emoluments.
Huertes &as the %ssistant 9unicipal :reasurer of )indangan but because she &as detailed to
other municipalities, she &as dropped off the pa/roll. )he &as 4ust gi*en *ouchers that she could
use to claim her salar/ upon presentation of clearance from the different offices &here she &as
detailed. %ccording to ,lorente, the dela/ in the release of Huertes= salar/ &as because he &as
tr/ing to *erif/ the claims of o*erpa/ment b/ the 9unicipalit/ of PiVan.
+o&e*er, )andiganba/an found ,lorente guilt/. "t found that the dela/ in the release of the
salar/ &as unreasonable and &as done to harass Huertes because the 9a/or &anted to assign
his political protXgXe to the position of 9unicipal :reasurer b/passing Huertes &ho &as ne3t in
seniorit/. "t also too> note that such dela/ caused difficulties in meeting her famil/=s financial
obligations li>e pa/ing for the tuition of her children.
Issues+
1. 7ON prosecution established the elements of undue in4ur/ and bad faith. No.
2. 7ON )ec.6#e$ R%6A1 can be committed through nonfeasance.
>e+ !ndue ?n=ury
Ele,ents o( undue nDur- t&at ,ust *e !roven *e-ond reasona*le dou*t+
#1$ :hat the accused is a public officer or a pri*ate person charged in conspirac/ &ith the
former
#2$ :hat the public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his or her
official duties in relation to his0her public positions
#6$ :hat he0she causes undue in4ur/ to an/ part/, &hether the go*=t or a pri*ate part/
#E$ :hat the public officer has acted &ith manifest partialit/, e*ident bad faith or gross
ine3cusable negligence
- Undue nDur- re@ures !roo( o( a'tual nDur- or da,a%e and ,ust *e s!e'(ed,
@uant(ed and !roven to t&e !ont o( ,oral 'ertant-
o Undue+ more than necessar/, not proper or illegal
o InDur-+ an/ &rong or damage done to another, either in his person, rights, reputation or
propert/2 the in*asion of an/ legall/ protected interest of another
- "n this case, the allegations of financial stress caused b/ the dela/ in the release of
Huertes= salar/ &as inadeDuate and largel/ speculati*e this does not satisf/ the reDuirement
for undue in4ur/
>e+ Evident ,ad @aith
- "t &as Huertes= failure to submit the reDuired clearance that caused the dela/ in the release
of her salaries
- )uch fault cannot be attributed to the ,lorente
- Bad (at& imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliDuit/ and conscious doing of a
&rong2 a breach of s&orn dut/ through some moti*e or intent or ill &ill2 it parta>es of the nature
of fraud these &ere absent in this case
>e+ violation of Sec.A .e/
- :his section re@ures a don% or a =ISFEASANCE
- :he acts imputed to ,lorente more properl/ falls under a non(easan'e since it in*ol*es a
failure to do something according to the court this offense more properl/ falls under Se'.;/(0
o B#f$ Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or reDuest, &ithout sufficient 4ustification, to
act &ithin a reasonable time on an/ matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining,
directl/ or indirectl/, from an/ person interested in the matter some pecuniar/ or material benefit
or ad*antage, or for purpose of fa*oring his o&n interest or gi*ing undue ad*antage in fa*or of or
discriminating against an/ other interested part/.B
o In t&s 'ase, t&e 'r,nal a't s t&e ne%le't or re(usal to a't )Bn reasona*le t,e
and not t&e undue nDur-
- +o&e*er, since this is not the crime charged to ,lorente, the )C refused to rule on his
liabilit/ under this pro*ision
<I. DISABILITIES AND INHIBITIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
.avellana v. DIL5 and Santos,
Au%ust "$, "11#
%tt/. 1a*ellana &as elected councilor. 7hile holding such position he handled cases, in one of
&hich he represented emplo/ees &ho &ere dismissed b/ the Cit/ Engineer. % case &as filed
against him for *iolation of a -,@ 9emorandum Circular #in relation to R% OC16, Code of
Conduct and Ethical )tandards for Public Officials and Emplo/ees$ &hich imposes limitations on
the practice of profession of public officers.
Held5 %tt/. 1a*ellana, as a councilor, cannot handle cases that &ould represent interests
ad*erse to the go*ernment.
Complaints against public officers and emplo/ees relating or incidental to the performance of
their duties are impressed &ith public interest.
:he illegal dismissal case handled b/ 1a*ellana against the Cit/ Engineer is in effect a complaint
against the Cit/ @o*ernment, the emplo/ees= real emplo/er, of &hich 1a*ellana is a councilman.
+ence, Dud%,ent a%anst t&e Ct- En%neer )ould *e Dud%,ent a%anst t&e Ct-
5overn,ent. ./ ser*ing as counsel for the complaining emplo/ees 1a*ellana *iolated the -,@
9emo Circular #in relation to R% OC16$ !ro&*tn% a %overn,ent o(('al (ro, en%a%n% n
t&e !rvate !ra't'e o( &s !ro(esson, ( su'& !ra't'e )ould re!resent nterests adverse
to t&e %overn,ent.
1a*ellana=s contention that )ection A of the ,@C and the circular &hich pro*ides that onl/ the
)C has the authorit/ to regulate the practice of la&, is untenable. Neither the statute nor the
circular trenches upon the )upreme CourtIs po&er and authorit/ to prescribe rules on the
practice of la&. T&e L5C and DL5 =e,orandu, Cr'ular No. 1$3J" s,!l- !res'r*e rules
o( 'ondu't (or !u*l' o(('als to avod 'on(l'ts o( nterest *et)een t&e ds'&ar%e o( t&er
!u*l' dutes and t&e !rvate !ra't'e o( t&er !ro(esson, n t&ose nstan'es )&ere t&e
la) allo)s t.
TuHon and =a!a%u v. CA and .urado,
Au%ust #", "11#
Petitioners are the ma/or and treasurer of the municipalit/ of Camalaniugan. :he )angguniang
.a/an enacted a resolution reDuiring pala/ thresher operators to donate! 1W of the pala/
threshed b/ them &hen the/ appl/ for a permit. 1urado &as reDuired b/ the petitioners to
compl/ &ith the resolution, &hich the former refused. +e filed a ci*il case against them in*o>ing
%rt. 2C, CC.
1
1
Art. #9, CC. %n/ person suffering material or moral loss because a public ser*ant or
emplo/ee refuses or neglects, &ithout 4ust cause, to perform his official dut/ ma/ file an action
for damages and other relief against the latter, &ithout pre4udice to an/ disciplinar/
administrati*e action that ma/ be ta>en.
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 12
Held5 Petitioners cannot be held liable since the/ acted &ithin the scope of their authorit/ and
&ithout malice.
One purpose of %rt. 2C is to end the briber/ s/stem, &here the public official, for some flims/
e3cuse, dela/s or refuses the performance of his dut/ until he gets a bribe. :he pro*ision
!resu!!oses t&at t&e re(usal or o,sson o( a !u*l' o(('al to !er(or, &s o(('al dut- s
attr*uta*le to ,al'e or ne8'usa*le ne%l%en'e.
"t has not e*en been alleged that the 9a/or Ps refusal to act on the application &as an attempt
to compel him to resort to briber/. "t cannot be said either that the ma/or and the municipal
treasurer &ere moti*ated b/ personal spite or &ere grossl/ negligent in refusing to issue the
permit and license to 1urado. "t &as not sho&n also that the petitioners singled out the pri*ate
respondent for persecution. Neither does it appear that the petitioners stood to gain personall/
from refusing to issue to 1urado the ma/orIs permit and license he needed.
Pettoners a'ted )t&n t&e s'o!e o( t&er aut&ort- and n 'onsonan'e )t& t&er
&onest nter!retaton o( t&e resoluton. It )as not (or t&e, to rule on ts valdt-. "n the
absence of a 4udicial decision declaring it in*alid, its legalit/ &ould ha*e to be presumed. %s
e3ecuti*e officials of the municipalit/, the/ had the dut/ to enforce it as long as it had not been
repealed b/ the )angguniang .a/an or annulled b/ the courts.
W-le v. Raran%,
=a- #J, "11#
:he petitioners, officers of the ?nited )tates Na*/ stationed in the countr/, &ere responsible for
a column read b/ the base personnel &hich mentioned 4Aurn%G in relation to the prohibited act
of appropriating confiscated items for personal use, and described her as a disgrace to her
di*ision! and the Office of Pro*ost 9arshal. Prior to the publication, the Office of the Pro*ost
9arshal e3plicitl/ recommended the deletion of the name %uring! if the article &ere to be
published. Not&ithstanding the same, the article &hich continued to contain the name %uring!
&as appro*ed b/ petitioners and published.
Respondent %urora is the onl/ %uring! in the Office of the Pro*ost 9arshal and it &as also
conclusi*el/ pro*en that she &as the person mentioned in the column &hen one of the
petitioners &rote her an apolog/ letter for the inad*ertent publication. %urora filed a suit for
damages. Petitioners countered that the/ acted in the performance of their official functions as
officers of the ?) Na*/ and are therefore immune from suit.
Held5 Petitioner officers are liable in their personal capacities, for a tortious act, for damages
caused to %urora.
T&e la) does not allo) t&e 'o,,sson o( 'r,es n t&e na,e o( o(('al dut-. Pu*l'
o(('als 'an *e &eld !ersonall- a''ounta*le, (or a'ts 'la,ed to &ave *een !er(or,ed n
'onne'ton )t& o(('al dutes, )&ere t&e- a'ted ultra#vires or in (ad fait). +ere, the acts
of petitioners are ultra *ires and cannot be part of official dut/. "t &as a tortious act &hich
ridiculed the pri*ate respondent. +ence, Petitioners are liable in their personal capacities for the
damages the/ caused the pri*ate respondent.
<II. LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Re-es, Do,o3on% and Prn'!o v. Rural BanA o( San =%uel,
Fe*ruar- #9, #$$?
Re/es #+ead of .)P )uper*ision and E3amination )ector$ and -omo(ong #-irector of the .)P
-ept of Rural .an>s$ &ere held liable for *iolation of the standards of professionalism! as
prescribed in R%OC16 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical standards for Public Officers and
Emplo/ees. :he a'ts o( un!ro(essonals, imputed to petitioners &ere t&at t&e- used t&e
dstressed (nan'al 'ondton o( t&e Rural BanA o( San =%uel /RBS=0 as t&e su*De't o( a
'ase stud- n a se,nar *- t&e BSP and t&at t&e- dd t&e *roAern% o( t&e sale o( RBS=
the/ urged R.9" to sell the ban> and e*en introduced the President to possible bu/ers.
+o&e*er, according to Re/es and -omo(ong, the seminars &ere not conducted under their
auspices and the/ did not do an/ act that constituted bro>ering.
Issue+ 7ON Re/es and -omo(ong are guilt/ of unprofessionalism. NO.
>e+ use of >,S0-s distressed financial condition as a sub=ect of a case study
- Court found that their culpabilit/ is not grounded on an established fact but on an mere
inference that the seminar &as conducted under their auspices
- :he entit/ that conduct the seminar &as the Resource 9anagement )ector, a separate
office under the control and super*ision of another -eput/ @o*ernor and not the )uper*ision
and E3amination )ector #)E)$ of the .)P &hich is headed b/ Re/es
- E*en the allegation of R.)9 that )E) disclosed information about the former=s difficulties
is not anchored on an/ concrete piece of e*idence
- :he Court noted that the acts imputed in*ol*ed the preparation of bids for the conduct of
the seminar, purchase of supplies and contract negotiations done b/ their subordinates
Re-es and Do,o3on% are &oldn% &%& ranAn% !ostons and t&e- 'annot *e e8!e'ted to
Ano) o( ,nute detals su'& as t&e (lo) o( (les and do'u,ents t&at leave t&er desAs
- Court also noted that the negligence of the subordinate cannot be attributed to the superior
in the absence of e*idence sho&ing the latter=s negligence.
>e+ %lleged bro:ering
- Pro(essonals,+ conduct, aims, or Dualities that characteri<e or mar> a profession
o Pertain to competence, efficienc/, e3perience and proficienc/
- )C eDuates bro>ering &ith unprofessionalism but the @ueston s )&et&er t&e a'ts o(
Re-es 'onsttute *roAern%
- BroAer+ one &ho is engaged, for others, on a commission, negotiating contracts relati*e to
propert/ &ith the custod/ of &hich he has no concern2 one &hose occupation is to bring the
parties together, in matters of trade, commerce or na*igation
- )C stated that *roAern% nd'ates t&e !er(or,an'e o( 'ertan a'ts (or ,onetar-
'onsderaton or 'o,!ensaton
- "n this case, there &as no sufficient e*idence to pro*e that Re/es had a financial interest in
introducing the President of R.)9 to different possible bu/ers. 9oreo*er, the court noted that it
is the polic/ of the .)P #the entit/ under &hich Re/es &or>s$ to promote mergers and
consolidations to ban>s that &ould undergo such corporate combinations. +is act of introducing
different bu/ers &ere done in furtherance of such polic/
Ta*uena v. Sand%an*a-an,
Fe*ruar- "9, "119
:abuena and Peralta &ere charged &ith ,alversaton b/ the )andiganba/an. :he/ &ere
alleged to ha*e mal*ersed P22=llon (ro, t&e =anla Internatonal Ar!ort Aut&ort- /=IAA0
(unds )&le t&e- )ere a'tn% as t&e entt-Is 5en. =ana%er and Fnan'e Serv'es =ana%er.
%ccording to :abuena, the amounts &ere disbursed in fa*or of the Philippine National
Construction Corporation #PNCC$ in settlement of an outstanding obligation. +o&e*er, the
)andiganba/an found that no such outstanding obligation e3isted so it con*icted :abuena and
Peralta of the crime charged.
:abuena=s defense &as that he &as *erball/ instructed b/ President 9arcos to cause such
disbursements. Hurthermore, he recei*ed, from 9s. @imene<, the pri*ate secretar/ of Pres.
9arcos, a Presidential 9emorandum, &hich the/ referred to as 9arcos 9emorandum,
reiterating the *erbal instruction to pa/ PNCC the amount of PQQ9 through the Office of the
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 16
President. "n obedience to the memorandum, :abuena sought the help of Peralta and caused
the &ithdra&al of the said amount form 9"%%=s funds and the same &as turned o*er to 9s.
@imene< &ho issued a receipt.
Issue+ 7ON :abuena &as guilt/ of mal*ersation. NO.
Held+ ?pon presentation of the 9arcos 9emorandum, the )C ruled in fa*or of :abuena
- :he )C opined that :abuena had no other choice but to ma>e the &ithdra&als because
the memorandum reDuired him to do so. He 'ould not *e (aulted ( &s a't )as n o*eden'e
and 'o,!lan'e )t& t&e !resdental dre'tve. "t is undisputed that Pres. 9arcos &as
:abuena=s superior and that the former e3ercised control o*er go*ernment agencies such as
9"%% and PNCC
- :he )C conceded that t&e ,e,orandu, )as le%al on ts (a'e and t&e de(ense o(
%ood (at& !ro((ered *- Ta*uena ,ust *e 'onsdered he acted under the honest belief
that the PQQ9 &as a due and demandable debt
- )C noted that even ( t&e order s su*se@uentl- (ound lle%al, ( t s le%al on ts (a'e,
and t&e su*ordnate s not a)are o( ts lle%alt-, t&e su*ordnate s not la*le in this
case, there &ould onl/ be a mista>e of fact committed in good faith.
- Not ever- unaut&orHed !a-,ent o( !u*l' (unds n ,alversaton.
- T&ere s ,alversaton &hen the public officer &ho has the custod/ of the public funds
should appropriate the same, or shall ta>e or misappropriate or shall consent, or through
abandonment or negligence shall permit an/ other person to ta>e such public funds. 7here the
pa/ment of public funds has been made in good faith, and there is reasonable ground to belie*e
that the public officer to &hom the fund had been paid &as entitled thereto, he is deemed to
ha*e acted in good faith, there is no criminal intent, and the pa/ment, if it turns out that it is
unauthori<ed, renders him onl/ ci*ill/ but not criminall/ liable
- )C noted that there &as no proof that :abuena had an/thing to do &ith the 9arcos
9emorandum there &as no proof of conspirac/ to ma>e him liable for the act
- :a>ing e*er/thing in consideration, )C found Ta*uena enttled to t&e Dust(-n%
'r'u,stan'e o( o*eden'e to an order ssued *- a su!eror (or so,e la)(ul !ur!ose.
5ar'a v. Sand%an*a-an and O(('e o( t&e O,*uds,an,
.une ##, #$$2
5eneral 5ar'a, P=A 'o,!troller, along &ith his &ife and >ids, &ere charged &ith *iolation of
R%16C. +e &as alleged to ha*e amassed mone/ and propert/ &hich &as manifestl/
disproportionate to his la&ful income as a soldier. % ci*il case for forfeiture &as filed &ith the
)andiganba/an among the other criminal cases against @arcia. @arcia filed a 9otion to -ismiss
on the ground that the )andiganba/an did not ha*e 4urisdiction o*er the ci*il case of forfeiture
under R%16C. +e alleges that the proper court for such action is the R:C as pro*ided for in
)ec.2#$ of the said la&. Hurthermore, he argues that the 4urisdiction of the )andiganba/an in
ci*il actions pertains onl/ to separate actions for reco*er/ of unla&full/ acDuired propert/ against
Pres. 9arcos, his famil/ and cronies as can be gleaned from P-1OAO.
Issue+ 7ON )andiganba/an has 4urisdiction o*er petitions for forfeiture under R%16C. 8E)
Held+ T&e SC &as alread- ruled n *epu(lic v. Sandi!an(ayan t&at Dursd'ton over
volatons o( RA;$"1 and RA";91 s lod%ed )t& t&e Sand%an*a-an
- )C noted R%82E under &hich la&, the Sand%an*a-an s vested )t& E8'lusve
Or%nal .ursd'ton n all 'ases nvolvn% volatons o( RA;$"1, RA";91 and so,e
!rovsons o( t&e RPC
- Republic *. )andiganba/an also recogni<ed that an action for forfeiture is an action in rem
and is of a ci*il nature. Ho)ever, t&e SC noted t&at t&e (or(eture o( lle%all-3a'@ured
!ro!ert- !artaAes t&e nature o( a !enalt- and the court &ent further to cite 4urisprudence and
authorities in its declaration of the penal nature of forfeiture proceedings
- For(eture+ di*estiture of propert/ &ithout compensation, in conseDuence of a default or an
offense2 imposed b/ &a/ of punishment not b/ the mere con*ention of the parties, but b/ the
la&ma>ing po&er, to insure a prescribed course of conduct
- )C then ruled that volatons o( RA";91 are !la'ed under t&e Dursd'ton o( t&e
Sand%an*a-an, even t&ou%& t&e !ro'eedn% s 'vl n nature *e'ause t&e (or(eture o(
t&e lle%all- a'@ured !ro!ert- a,ounts to a !enalt-. :he soundness of this reasoning
becomes e*en more ob*ious &hen &e consider that the respondent in such forfeiture
proceedings is a public officer or emplo/ee and the *iolation of R%16C &as committed during
the respondent officer or emplo/ee=s incumbenc/ and in relation to his office e3ercise of
4urisdiction o*er such cases are, t&ere(ore, n lne )t& t&e !ur!ose *e&nd t&e 'reaton o(
t&e Sand%an*a-an as an ant3%ra(t 'ourtLto address t&e ur%ent !ro*le, o( ds&onest-
n !u*l' serv'e
<III. TER=INATION OF OFFICIAL RELATIONS
CSC v. Salas,
.une "1, "119
Salas &as appointed b/ PA5COR Chairman as "nternal )ecurit/ )taff but he &as terminated b/
the .oard of -irectors for loss o( 'on(den'e because he allegedl/ engaged in !ro8- *ettn%.
)alas appealed to the Chairman and .O- of P%@COR but such &as denied. +is appeal to the
9erit )/stems Protection .oard &as also denied on the ground that he &as a confidential
emplo/ee &hich meant that he &as not dismissed from ser*ice, rather, his term of office merel/
e3pired. C)C affirmed the decision of the 9)P.. C% found that )alas is not a confidential
emplo/ee and ma/ not be dismissed for loss of confidence citing the pro3imit/ rule! as basis.
Pagcor filed an appeal before the )C.
Issue+ 7ON )alas is a confidential emplo/ee. NO.
%"C'>+ )ec.1O of P-18O states that %ll emplo/ees of the casinos and related ser*ices shall
be classified as confidential appointees.! :his means that )alas &as properl/ classified as a
confidential emplo/ee
Salas- contention+ "t is the actual nature of an emplo/ee=s functions &hich determined &hether or
not a position is primaril/ confidential
'ccordin! to SC+ Pagcor=s contention must fail. :he classification under P-18O is NO:
absolute and all(encompassing
Be(ore t&e !assa%e o( t&e Cvl Serv'e A't, t&ere )ere # nstan'es )&en a !oston s
'onsdered to *e !r,arl- 'on(dental
7hen the president declared the position as such
7hen the nature of the functions of the office sho& a close intimac/! bet&een the
appointee and the appointing po&er &hich insures freedom of intercourse &ithout
embarrassment or freedom from misgi*ings of betra/als of personal trust or
confidential matters of state
Wt& t&e ena't,ent o( Cvl Serv'e A't o( "121, t&e nature o( t&e !oston deter,nes
)&et&er a !oston s !r,arl- 'on(dental, !ol'-3deter,nn% or &%&l- te'&n'al
- E3ecuti*e pronouncements li>e the Duoted portion of P-18O can be no more than initial
determinations that are not conclusi*e in case of conflict a strict reading of the Duoted
pro*ision &ill *iolate the constitutionall/ protected right of an emplo/ee to securit/ of tenure
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 1E
- 7ho &ill determine the nature of the position! in case of conflict5 the 'ourt has the final
&ord such nature s deter,ned not *- t&e ttle *ut *- t&e nature o( t&e tasA t&at s
entrusted to t
- )%,%) is NO: % CONH"-EN:"%, E9P,O8EE
- C% correctl/ applied the 4!ro8,t- ruleG enunciated in -e los )antos *. 9allare case5
BE*er/ appointment implies confidence, but much more than ordinar/ confidence is
reposed in the occupant of a position that is primaril/ confidential. :he latter phrase denotes not
onl/ confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but primaril/ close
intimac/ &hich ensures freedom of intercourse &ithout embarrassment or freedom from
misgi*ings of betra/als of personal trust or confidential matters of state. . . .B
- Con(dental e,!lo-ee+ predominant reason &h/ he &as chosen for the office &as
because the appointing authorit/ belie*ed that he can share a close intimate relationship &ith
the former &hich ensures freedom of discussion &0o fear of embarrassment or misgi*ings of
possible betra/al of personal trust or confidential matters of state
- Pro8,t- Rule+ "f the position occupied is remote from that of the appointing authorit/,
element of trust is no longer predominant
- )alas= position in*ol*es ordinar/ and routinar/ duties and functions. %lso his meager salar/
of P2,2AA a month belies the confidential nature of his duties
Le'aroH v. Sand%an*a-an,
=ar'& #2, "111
Hrancisco ,ecaro< #father$ &as the 9a/or &hile his son ,enlie &as the outgoing chairman of the
Mabataang .aranga/ #M.$ and also a member of the )angguniang .a/an #).$. :he/ &ere
con*icted of 16 counts of estafa through falsification of public documents committed in this &a/.
"n 18Q election, 1oel Red &on as M. Chairman and &as subseDuentl/ appointed b/ Pres.
9arcos as member of the ).. +e recei*ed a telegram from the Nat=l Chairperson of the
organi<ation confirming his appointment and he for&arded this to 9a/or ,ecaro<. +o&e*er, the
latter informed him that his appointment still needed clearance from the @o*ernor of
9arinduDue. Red recei*ed his appointment papers on 1anuar/ 18O but for&arded them onl/ on
%pril 26, 18O &hen Pres. %Duino &as alread/ in po&er. -espite his appointment papers, he
&as still not allo&ed b/ 9a/or ,ecaro< to sit as sectoral representati*e in the )..
9ean&hile, 9a/or ,ecaro< prepared and appro*ed 2O sets of pa/rolls for ,enlie ,ecaro<
co*ering the period 1anuar/ 1O, 18O to 1anuar/ 6A, 18C. ,enlie signed the pa/roll for 1an1(1Q,
18O and authori<ed someone else to sign all the other pa/rolls.
Red &as finall/ able to recei*e his appointment papers from the %Duino %dministration on
October 18. +e filed se*eral criminal complaints against 9a/or and ,enlie ,ecaro< because
of their refusal to let him assume his position as M. representati*e in the ).. %fter preliminar/
in*estigation, Ombudsman filed &th the )andiganba/an 16 informations for estafa through
falsification of public documents against both 9a/or Y son and 1count of *iolation of )ec.6 #e$ of
R%6A1 but onl/ against the 9a/or. )andiganba/an found them guilt/ of the estafa ruling that
Red=s assumption of the M. Presidenc/ &as *alid since he &as elected for the position and too>
his oath of office before a member of the .atasang Pambansa. +o&e*er, )andiganba/an
acDuitted ,ecaro< on the *iolation of R%6A1 stating that he &as 4ustified in not allo&ing Red to
assume his position in the ). as the latter &as not properl/ appointed.
,ecaro<es appealed the Ombudsman=s decision to the )C, hence this petition.
Issue+ 7hether ,enlie *alidl/ held office in a &oldover 'a!a't- (or t&e !erod t&at RedIs
a!!ont,ent )as stll n'o,!leteK 8E)
>e+ ,oldover Capacity
- "mplies that the office has a fi3ed term and the incumbent is holding unto the
succeeding term
- ?suall/ pro*ided b/ la& that the officers elected0appointed for a fi3ed term shall
remain in office not onl/ for that term but until their successors ha*e been elected
and Dualified
T&e la) a*&ors a va'uu, n !u*l' o(('e and this is &hat is sought to be a*oided b/ the
concept of holdo*er capacit/
- "n this case, Red &as elected as M. Chairman but he failed to Dualif/ to ta>e the position of
). member because his oath &as in*alid and he lac>ed his appointment papers
- .ecause Red failed to Dualif/ to ta>e the office as M. Chairman and ). 9ember, ,enlie
,ecaro< *alidl/ sta/ed in office in a holdo*er capacit/
>e+ -at) of -ffice
- a Dualif/ing reDuirement for a public office and a prereDuisite to his ta>ing office
- Onl/ &hen the public officer has ta>en his oath does his right to enter into the office plenar/
and complete
- "n this case, Red too> his oath before %ssembl/&oman Re/es. +o&e*er, %dmin code then
in force stated that members of the .atasang Pambansa &ere not authori<ed to administer
oaths
- :his meant that Red=s oath &as made before someone &ho had no authorit/ to administer
the same this mean that his oath &as in*alid or amounted to no oath as all
>e+ .alsification C)ar!es
- )C noted that the crime charged reDuired a sho&ing that the malefactors acted &ith
criminal intent or malice. =ere Dud%,ental error cannot be considered to amount to the
reDuired criminal intent or malice
"n this case, )C found clear manifestations of good faith and lac> of criminal intent :here is a
!resu,!ton o( %ood (at& )&en a'ts are done n t&e !er(or,an'e o( o(('al dut- 9a/or
,ecaro<= belie*ed that his son &as still *alidl/ holding the position of M. Chairman, albeit in a
holdo*er capacit/, and this &arranted his inclusion in the pa/roll
- 9oreo*er, )C found that the facts of the case do not sho& that all the elements of the crime
&as present
#a$ offender ma>es in a document statements in a narration of facts2
#b$ offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated2
#c$ facts narrated b/ the offender are absolutel/ false2 and,
#d$ per*ersion of truth in the narration of facts &as made &ith the &rongful intent of in4uring
a third person
- "
st
and ;
rd
ele,ents are ,ssn% since the 9a/or &as not ma>ing a narration of facts
&hen he certified to the correctness of the pa/roll &hich included his son=s name and his belief
that ,enlie &as still in a holdo*er capacit/ had *alid basis and is not absolutel/ false
San%%unan% Ba-an o( San Andres, Catanduanes, v. CA,
.anuar- "F, "11J
%ntonio &as elected baranga/ captain, and later president of the %ssociation of .aranga/
Councils #%.C$. "n such capacit/ and pursuant to ,@C of 186, he &as appointed b/ the
President as member of the )angguniang .a/an #).$. -",@ )ec declared the election for
president of Hederation of %ssociation of .aranga/ Councils #H%.C$, in &hich %ntonio &as a
*oting member, *oid for &ant of Duorum. % reorgani<ation being necessar/, -",@ )ec
designated %ntonio as a temporar/ member of the )angguniang Panlala&igan #)P$. :hus, &e
tendered &s res%naton as ,e,*er o( t&e San%%unan% Ba-an to t&e =a-or #cc5 go*ernor,
-",@ and municipal treasurer$. %Duino, then 'P of %.C, &as appointed in his stead and
assumed office after ta>ing his oath.
)C re*ersed -",@ secretar/=s ruling Y %ntonio=s appointment to )P &as declared *oid. +e &rote
the members of the )., ad*ising them of his re(assumption of his original position. ). passed a
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 1Q
Resolution declaring that he had no legal basis for such claim. -",@ opined that %ntonio did not
*acate his position because he &as merel/ designated to )P. ). refused to budge.
TC5 resignation ineffecti*e Y inoperati*e because there &as no acceptance. C% affirmed.
Issue"+ 7ON resignation &as *alid and complete
Held+ No. RESI5NATION N act of gi*ing up or the act of an officer b/ &hich he declines his
office and renounces the further right to use it.
For a 'o,!lete and o!eratve res%naton (ro, !u*l' o(('e, there must be5
#a$ intention to relinDuish a part of the term2
#b$ an act of relinDuishment2 Y
#c$ an acceptance b/ the proper authorit/.
L5C "1J; pro*ides that the resignation of a member of the sanggunian shall be acted upon b/
the sanggunian concerned. Here, &s res%naton letter )as addressed onl- to t&e ,un'!al
,a-or.
?nder established 4urisprudence, resignations, in the absence of statutor/ pro*isions as to
&hom the/ should be submitted, should be tendered to t&e a!!ontn% !erson or *od-.
Se'. "?F, BP ;;9+ "t is the President that appoints members of the sangguniang ba/an. :hus,
Antono s&ould &ave su*,tted &s letter o( res%naton to t&e Presdent, or &s alter e%o,
t&e DIL5 Se'retar-.
%lthough he supposedl/ furnished the -",@ &ith a cop/ of his letter, there is no sho&ing that it
&as dul/ recei*ed, much less, that it &as acted upon.
6
rd
reDuisite &as therefore lac>ing.
Issue#+ 7ON %ntonio abandoned his office
Held+ 8es. ABANDON=ENT OF OFFICE N *oluntar/ relinDuishment of an office b/ the holder,
&ith the intention of terminating his possession and control thereof. "t is a s!e'es o(
res%naton2 )&le res%naton n %eneral s a (or,al reln@us&,ent, a*andon,ent s a
voluntar- reln@us&,ent t&rou%& non3user.
NON3USER N neglect to use a pri*ilege or a right or to e3ercise an easement or an office.
( :he ntent to a*andon ,ust *e 'lear. )uch intention ma/ be e3press or inferred from his o&n
conduct.
# essental ele,ents o( a*andon,ent+
#a$ intention to abandon2 and
#b$ an o*ert or e3ternal! act b/ &hich the intention is carried into effect.
7hen an officer is 4des%natedG to another post, he is usuall/ called upon to discharge dutes
n addton to his regular responsibilities. :he la& does not reDuire the public ser*ant to resign
from his original post. Rather, the la) allo)s &, to 'on'urrentl- ds'&ar%e t&e (un'tons o(
*ot& o(('es.
%ntonio=s o*ert acts, silence, inaction and acDuiescence, &hen %Duino succeeded him to his
original position, sho& that he had abandoned the contested office. 7hile a temporar/ or
accidental failure to perform his duties in a single instance or during a short period &ill not
operate as an abandonment, /et if the officer refuses or neglects to e3ercise the functions of the
office for so long a period as to reasonable &arrant the presumption that he does not desire or
intend to perform the duties of the office at all, he &ill be held to ha*e abandoned it.
Pu*l' Interest Center, In'. v. El,a,
.une ;$, #$$F
Elma &as first appointed as PC@@ Chairman. ,ater, during his tenure as such, he &as also
appointed as Chief Presidential ,egal Counsel #CP,C$. +e too> his oath of office, but )aved
an- re,uneraton &e ,a- re'eve as CPLC.
Issue+ 7ON position of PC@@ Chairman or that of CP,C falls under the proh"bition against
multiple offices
Held+ 8es.( )ec. 16, %rt. '"" inapplicable. .ut )ec. C, %rt. ";(. &as *iolated.
( )ec. C is meant to la/ do&n the general rule applicable to all electi*e and appointi*e public
officials and emplo/ees, &hile )ec. 16 is meant to be the e3ception applicable onl/ to the
President, 'ice President, 9embers of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants.
#1$ :he general rule in Se'. 9, Art. I:3B permits an appointi*e official to hold more than 1 office
onl/ if allo&ed b/ la& or b/ the primar/ functions of his position.!
Occup/ing 2 go*ernment offices and performing the functions of both is o>a/ as lon% as t&ere
s no n'o,!at*lt-. TEST+ &hether one office is subordinate to the other, in the sense that
one office has the right to interfere &ith the other.
+ere, an incompatibilit/ e3ists bet&een the positions of the PC@@ Chairman and the CP,C. %s
CP,C, Elma &ill be reDuired to gi*e his legal opinion on his o&n actions as PC@@ Chairman
and re*ie& an/ in*estigation conducted b/ the P%@C, &hich ma/ in*ol*e himself as PC@@
Chairman.
#2$ Se'. ";, Art. <II applies in particular to Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries and asst.
secretaries. :hus, this pro*ision is not applicable to the PC@@ Chairman nor to the CP,C, as
neither of them is a )ec, ?)ec or %s)ec.
E:CEPTIONS TO THE RULE A5AINST =ULTIPLE OFFICES+
a$ those pro*ided for under the Constitution
b$ posts occupied in an ex officio capacit/ as pro*ided b/ la& and as reDuired
b/ the primar/ functions of the official=s office.
( E; OHH"C"O C%P%C":8 N denotes an act done in an official character, or as a conseDuence of
office, and &ithout an/ other appointment or authorit/ than that conferred b/ the office.
( :hus, it &ill not suffice that no additional compensation &as recei*ed b/ *irtue of the 2
nd
appointment. "t is mandator/ that the 2
nd
post is reDuired b/ the primar/ functions of the 1
st
appointment and is e3ercised in an ex officio capacit/.
CanonHado v. A%urre,
Fe*ruar- "2, #$$"
9R of )C decision holding that petitioners= remo*al as Commissioners of NAPOLCO= and the
appointment of ne& Commissioners in their stead &ere nullities, and ordering their reinstatement
and pa/ment of full bac>&ages. Resps point out that Canoni<ado &as appointed b/ Pres.
Estrada to the position of "nspector @eneral of the "nternal %ffairs )er*ice #"%)$ of the PNP in the
interim. %ccording to resps, b/ *irtue of that fact, Canoni<ado is deemed to ha*e abandoned his
claim for reinstatement, since the offices of N%PO,CO9 Commissioner and "nspector @en of
"%) are incompatible.
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 1O
Issue+ 7ON there e3isted an incompatibilit/
Held. No "ncompatibilit/ but ABANDON=ENT OF OFC N *oluntar/ relinDuishment of an office
b/ the holder, &ith the intention of terminating his possession and control thereof.
E;CEP:"ON) :O NON(?)ER5
#1$ temporar/ disabilit/
#2$ in*oluntar/ failure to perform
7here, &hile desiring and intending to hold office, and &ith no &illful desire or intention to
abandon it, the public officer *acates it in deference to the reDuirements of a statute &hich is
after&ards declared unconstitutional, such a surrender &ill not be deemed an abandonment and
the officer ma/ reco*er the office.
./ accepting the appointment to the 2
nd
office, Canoni<ado cannot be deemed to ha*e
abandoned his claim for reinstatement to the latter position.
He )&o, )&le o''u!-n% one o(('e, a''e!ts anot&er n'o,!at*le )t& t&e (rst, ipso
facto va'ates t&e (rst o(('e and &s ttle s t&ere*- ter,nated )t&out an- ot&er a't or
!ro'eedn%.
:he n'o,!at*lt- contemplated is not the mere ph/sical impossibilit/ of one person=s
performing the duties of the 2 offices due to lac> of time or the inabilit/ to be in 2 places at the
same moment, but that &hich proceeds from the nature and relations of the 2 positions to each
other as to gi*e rise to contrariet/ and antagonism should one person attempt to faithfull/ and
impartiall/ discharge the duties of one to&ard the incumbent of the other.
:here is no Duestion that the 2 positions are incompatible. Ho)ever, t&e rule )ll not a!!l-
*e'ause at no !ont dd CanonHado ds'&ar%e t&e (un'tons o( t&e # o(('es
s,ultaneousl-.
Rosales v. =Dares,
No*ember 1C, 2AAE
7hen Rosales assumed office as 9a/or, he told 9i4ares #municipal engineer$ to resign, under
pain of abolition of position. )o as not to antagoni<e the ma/or, 9i4ares later responded that he
&as o!en to t&e !oss*lt- o( *en% trans(erred to the Pro*incial Engineering Office. :hus,
the ma/or indorsed him to the Pro*incial @o*ernor. 9a/or sent a letter to 9i4ares stating that his
reDuest for transfer &as granted for 6A da/s. +o&e*er, no action &as ta>en b/ the @o*ernor.
9ean&hile, 9i4ares continued reporting for &or> at the 9unicipal Engineer=s Office. 7hen the
6A(da/ period elapsed, ma/or sent another letter to 9i4ares, informing him that since he did not
as> for an e3tension of his transfer, he is considered resigned. 9i4ares a*ers that since the
reDuest for transfer &as not acted upon b/ the @o*ernor, it ne*er became effecti*e.
Issue+ 7ON there &as a *alid transfer
Held+ No. TRANSFER N mo*ement from one position &ithout brea> in ser*ice in*ol*ing the
issuance of an appointment.
%ccording to the C)C 9emorandum Circular5
B%n employee who see:s transfer to another office shall first secure permission from the
head of the department or agency where he is employed, stating the effective date of the
transfer.C
B?f, for whatever reason, the employee fails to transfer on the specified date, he shall be
considered resigned and his reemployment in his former office shall be at the discretion of his
head.C
:hus, t&ere &as to *e a )rtten and not ,erel- a ver*al re@uest (or an e,!lo-ee to
trans(er to anot&er o(('e. T&e re@uest ,ust *e su'& t&at &e ntended to surrender &s
!er,anent o(('e. It ,ust also *e voluntar-.
"f done &ithout the emplo/ee=s consent, that &ould constitute remo*al from office.
Un'onsented trans(er is anathema to securit/ of tenure. % transfer that aims b/ indirect method
to terminate ser*ices or to force resignation constitutes remo*al.
9i4ares &as coerced into resigning b/ ma/or Rosales. 9i4ares ne*er e*en filed an/ &ritten
reDuest for transfer.
O(('e o( t&e O,*uds,an v. CA,
.une "F, #$$F
Corominas spouses filed an administrati*e complaint against -ENR emplo/ees for trespassing
on their land. Ombudsman found them guilt/ and imposed the penalt/ of 1 month suspension.
C%, rel/ing on )apiador case, affirmed the guilt/ finding, but ruled that Ombudsman cannot
impose a penalt/ because its po&er is limited onl/ to the recommendation of a penalt/.
Issue+ 7ON O,*uds,an has the !o)er to ,!ose a !enalt- to an officer or emplo/ee found
to be at fault.
Held+ 8es. )apiador+ mere obiter.
./ stating that the Ombudsman recommends! the action to be ta>en against an erring officer or
emplo/ee, the pro*isions in the Constitution and in R% OCCA intended that the implementation of
the order be coursed through the proper officer.
:he functions and duties enumerated in )ec. 16, %rt. ;" of the Constitution is not e3clusi*e.
Congress &as gi*en lee&a/ to prescribe, subseDuent legislation, additional po&ers to the
Ombudsman.
:he pro*isions of R% OCCA re*eal the manifest intent of the la&ma>ers to *esto) on t&e O(('e
o( t&e O,*uds,an full ad,nstratve ds'!lnar- aut&ort-. :hese pro*isions co*er the
entire gamut of administrati*e ad4udication &hich entails the authorit/ to recei*e complaints,
conduct in*estigations, hold hearings in accordance &ith its rules of procedure, summon
&itnesses and reDuire the production of documents, place under pre*enti*e suspension public
officers and emplo/ees pending an in*estigation, determine the appropriate penalt/ imposable
on erring public officers or emplo/ees as &arranted b/ the e*idence, and, necessaril/, impose
the said penalt/. Ot&er)se, t&e O,*uds,an )ould *e a 4toot&less t%er.G
De Ra,a v. CA,
Fe*ruar- #J, #$$"
?pon his assumption to the position of 9a/or, de Rama &rote C)C, see>ing the recall of the
appointments of 1E municipal emplo/ees, alleging that these &ere 4,dn%&t a!!ont,entsG
o( t&e (or,er ,a-or. C)C denied recall.
Issue+ 7ON appointments made b/ former ma/or &ere *alid
Held+ :he 1E emplo/ees &ere dul/ appointed. :here &as no sho&ing that an/ of the, &ere not
Dualified for the positions the/ &ere appointed to. 9oreo*er, their appointments too> effect as
soon as the/ &ere dul/ attested to b/ the C)C +ead.
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 1C
( ?pon the issuance of an appointment and the appointee=s assumption of the position in the ci*il
ser*ice, he acDuires a legal right &hich cannot be ta>en a&a/ either b/ re*ocation of the
appointment or b/ remo*al e3cept for cause and &ith pre*ious notice and hearing.
( "t is &ell(settled that the !erson assu,n% a !oston n t&e 'vl serv'e under a 'o,!leted
a!!ont,ent a'@ures a le%al, and not Dust an e@uta*le, r%&t to t&e !oston. :his right is
protected not onl/ b/ statute, but b/ the Constitution as &ell.
( +ere, there &as no pre*ious notice, much less a hearing. -e Rama did not accord them due
process.
( ?nder the Omnibus "mplementing Regulations of the %dmin Code, an appointment accepted
b/ the appointee cannot be &ithdra&n or re*o>ed b/ the appointing authorit/ and shall remain in
force and in effect until disappro*ed b/ the C)C.
An a!!roved a!!ont,ent ,a- stll *e re'alled on an- o( t&e (( %rounds+
#a$ non(compliance &ith the procedures0 criteria pro*ided in the agenc/=s 9erit Promotion
Plan2
#b$ failure to pass through the agenc/=s )election0Promotion .oard2
#c$ *iolation of the e3isting collecti*e agreement bet&een management and emplo/ees
relati*e to promotion2
#d$ *iolation of other e3isting ci*il ser*ice la&, rules and regulations.
,astl/, the constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments! applies onl/ to the President or
acting President.
De Leon v. CA and =ontesa,
.anuar- ##, #$$"
Pri*ate respondent %tt/. 9ontesa ( not a Career E3ecuti*e )er*ice Officer #CE)O$ or a member
of the Career E3ecuti*e )er*ice #CE)$ ( &as appointed 9inistr/ ,egal Counsel CE)O "' in the
9inistr/ of ,ocal @o*ernment b/ then 9inister Pimentel. +is appointment &as appro*ed as
permanent b/ the C)C.
President %Duino promulgated EO 2O2 reorgani<ing the 9inistr/0-epartment. )ecretar/ )antos,
&ho succeeded 9inister Pimentel, designated Patricio as Chief of ,egal )er*ice replacing
9ontesa.

9ontesa filed petition for Duo &arranto before )C against Patricio and )ecretar/ )antos )C
ordered his reinstatement. J.ecause R% OCQ8 #)alar/ )tandardi<ation ,a&$ too> effect, &herein
the position of -epartment )er*ice Chiefs, &hich include the -epartment ,egal Counsel, &as
reclassified and ran>ed &ith %ssistant .ureau -irectors under the generic title -irector """,
9ontesa &as reinstated as -epartment ,egal Counsel and0or -irector """.L
)ubseDuentl/, -",@ )ecretar/ %lunan issued a -epartment Order relie*ing 9ontesa of his
current duties and reassigning him as -irector """ #%ssistant Regional -irector$ of Region ;" in
the interest of public ser*ice and the smooth flo& of operations in the concerned offices.!
9ontesa did not report to this ne&l/ assigned position and instead filed a A(da/ sic> lea*e.
?pon e3piration thereof, he submitted a memorandum signif/ing his intent to re(assume his
position as -epartment ,egal Counsel0Chief of ,egal )er*ice to acting )ecretar/ %guirre, &ho
ad*ised 9ontesa to report to Region ;" immediatel/. C)C affirmed 9ontesa=s reassignment
through Resolution.
9ontesa did not report for &or> still2 he filed a petition for re*ie& &ith the C% &hich did not issue
a :RO0preliminar/ in4unction against the C)C et al.
16 -ec 1Q5 President Ramos, upon recommendation of the -epartment, issued %O 26Q,
dropping pri*ate respondent 9ontesa, -irector """, ,egal )er*ice, from the roster of public
ser*ants for serious neglect of dut/ and absences &ithout lea*e.
2Q %pril 1O5 C% ruled in fa*or of pri*ate respondent. "t declared the -epartment Order
reassigning 9ontesa null and *oid, insofar as it affects the latter and ordered his reinstatement
as -epartment ,egal Counsel0Chief of ,egal )er*ices, &ith pa/ment of bac> salaries.
.oth sides mo*ed for reconsideration N 9ontesa &anting his benefits and petitioners citing
Ramos=s %O. C% modified its decision, holding the %O null and *oid insofar as it affects 9ontesa
and also granting him his other allo&ances and stuff.
HELDBRATIO+
/"0 =ontesa does not &ave t&e re@ured Career E8e'utve Serv'e el%*lt-. :he position of
9inistr/ ,egal Counsel ( CE)O "' is embraced in the CE), and to be eligible therefor, a CE)
e3amination should be ta>en Jand passed, duhL. Not ha*ing ta>en the necessar/ CE) e3am,
9ontesa did not at the time of his appointment up to the present, possess eligibilit/ for a position
in the CE).
/#0 =ontesaIs a!!ont,ent dd not attan !er,anen'-. ConseDuentl/, his appointment as
9inistr/ ,egal Counsel CE)O "'0 -epartment ,egal Counsel and0or -irector """, &as merel/
temporar/. :hus, he could be transferred or reassigned &ithout *iolating his right to securit/ of
tenure, and arguments regarding his unconsented transfer are not applicable.
Non(eligibles holding permanent appointments to CE) positions &ere ne*er meant to remain
immobile in their status. Other&ise, their lac> of eligibilit/ &ould be a premium *esting them &ith
permanenc/ in CE) positions, a pri*ilege e*en their eligible counterparts do not en4o/.
A*ella, .r. v. CSC,
Nove,*er "9, #$$?
1O5 Petitioner %bella 1r, la&/er, retired as -epartment 9anager of the ,egal )er*ices
-epartment of the no& Philippine Economic Uone %uthorit/. +e held a ci*il ser*ice eligibilit/ for
the position of -epartment 9anager pursuant to C)C Resolution 8QA J1CL.

C)C issued 9emorandum Circular 21 J1EL &hich redefined the eligibilit/ for positions in the
CE) and pro*ides that "ncumbents of positions &hich are declared to be Career E3ecuti*e
)er*ice positions for the first time pursuant to this Resolution &ho hold permanent appointments
thereto shall remain under permanent status in their respecti*e positions. +o&e*er, upon
promotion or transfer to other Career E3ecuti*e )er*ice positions, these incumbents shall be
under temporar/ status in said other CE) positions until the/ Dualif/.!

185 Petitioner &as hired b/ )ubic .a/ 9etropolitan %uthorit/ on a contractual basis. +e &as
issued a permanent emplo/ment b/ ).9% as -epartment 9anager """, ,abor and Emplo/ment
Center . ?pon submission to the C)C ho&e*er, it &as disappro*ed on the ground that
petitioner=s eligibilit/ &as not appropriate. +ence, pursuant to the 1E Circular, he &as issued
a temporar/ appointment to the same position. C)C affirmed ).9%=s action.

Petitioner filed a petition for re*ie& &ith the C%, assailing the constitutionalit/ of the 1E
Circular as it rendered his earned ci*il ser*ice eligibilit/ ineffecti*e for the position of -epartment
9anager """.

C% s>irted the constitutionalit/ issue and held that5 Onl/ the appointing officer, Citing C)C
9emorandum Circular EA 18 and 9atha/ *. Ci*il )er*ice Commission, ma/ reDuest
reconsideration of the action ta>en b/ the C)C on appointments. :hus, petitioner did not ha*e
legal standing to Duestion the disappro*al of his appointment.

4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 18
On reconsideration, C% added that petitioner &as not the real part/ in interest, as his
appointment &as dependent on the C)C=s appro*al. +e had no *ested right in the office, since
his appointment &as disappro*ed.

HELDBRATIO+
/"0 Pettoner &as standn% to '&allen%e CSCIs dsa!!rovalM &e s also t&e real !art- n
nterest.
Z )C discussed diff bet&een standing and RP"" N the former has constitutional underpinnings,
the latter is one &ho &ould be benefited or in4ured b/ the 4udgment, or one entitled to the a*ails
of the suit.

"f legal standing is granted to challenge the constitutionalit/ or *alidit/ of a la& or go*ernmental
act despite lac> of personal in4ur/ on the challenger=s part, then more so should petitioner be
allo&ed to contest the C)C Order disappro*ing his appointment. +e &as clearl/ pre4udiced b/
the disappro*al, since he could not continue his office.

%lso, &hile the appointing authorit/ is indeed ad*ersel/ affected b/ the C)C Order and is a real
part/ in interest, the appointee is rightl/ a real part/ in interest too ( he is pre*ented from
assuming the office in a permanent capacit/ and he &ould necessaril/ benefit if a fa*orable
4udgment is obtained, as an appro*ed appointment &ould confer on him all the rights and
pri*ileges of a permanent appointee.

/#0 But t&e CSC 'orre'tl- dened &s !er,anent a!!ont,ent, !ettoner not !ossessn%
CES el%*lt-. Positions in the career ser*ice, for &hich appointments reDuire e3aminations,
are grouped into three ma4or le*els ( those in the third le*el #CE) positions$ reDuire Career
)er*ice E3ecuti*e Eligibilit/ #C)EE$ as a reDuirement for permanent appointment.

Petitioner argues that his eligibilit/, through the E3ecuti*e ,eadership and 9anagement training
program Junder the 1C C)C ResolutionL, could no longer be affected b/ a ne& eligibilit/
reDuirement. +e claims that being eligible as -epartment 9anager of the ,egal )er*ices
-epartment, PEU% he should retain his eligibilit/ for the position of -epartment 9anager """,
,abor and Emplo/ment Center , ).9%, not&ithstanding the classification of the latter as a CE)
position.
(:he Circular did not re*o>e petitioner=s E,9 eligibilit/. "t=s 4ust that under it, his eligibilit/ for a
CE) position &as inadeDuate. Eligibilit/ must conform to the reDuirements of the position ( in
petitioner=s case, a C)EE &as necessar/.

:hus, petitioner=s right to securit/ of tenure &as not impaired. Hirst, securit/ of tenure in the CE)
( e3cept in the case of first and second le*el emplo/ees in the ci*il ser*ice ( pertains onl/ to
ran>, not to the position to &hich the emplo/ee ma/ be appointed. )econd, petitioner had
neither ran> nor position prior to his reemplo/ment.

/;0 No need (or !ror not'e and &earn%. Classification of positions in career ser*ice &as a
Duasi(legislati*e, not a Duasi(4udicial, issuance. :he C)C, in appro*ing or disappro*ing an
appointment, merel/ e3amines the conformit/ of the appointment &ith the la& and the
appointee=s possession of all the minimum Dualifications and none of the disDualification.
Re,olona v. CSC,
Au%ust #, #$$"
Remolona is the Postmaster at the Postal Office )er*ice in "nfanta, Sue<on2 his &ife Ner/
Remolona is a teacher at the Miborosa Elementar/ )chool .

6 1an 115 Hrancisco %merica, -istrict )uper*isor of -EC) at "nfanta, Sue<on, inDuired &ith
the C)C re5 the ci*il ser*ice eligibilit/ of Ner/ Remolona &ho purportedl/ got a rating of 81.2QW
as per Report of Rating issued b/ the National .oard for :eachers. %merica also disclosed he
recei*ed information that Ner/ &as campaigning for a fee of P8M per e3aminee for a passing
mar> in the teacherIs board e3aminations.

C)C Chairman issued an order directing an in*estigation. "t &as disco*ered that Ner/
Remolona=s name &as not in the list of passing and failing e3aminees2 furthermore, the
e3amination number she claimed as hers actuall/ corresponds to one 9arlou 9adelo, &ho too>
the e3amination in Caga/an de Oro and got a rating of OQW.

-uring the preliminar/ in*estigation conducted b/ -irector Pasion, onl/ petitioner appeared and
signed a &ritten statement of facts &hich summari<ed ho& he paid for and procured for his &ife
the alleged fa>e eligibilit/. +e also said that his &ife had no >no&ledge thereof. -irector
recommended the filing of the appropriate administrati*e action against petitioner but absol*ed
the 9rs. since it has not been sho&n that she &illfull/ participated in the offense.

% formal charge &as filed against both the spouses for possession of fa>e eligibilit/, falsification
and dishonest/. C)C Regional -irector, after hearing, issued a 9emorandum recommending
that the spouses be found guilt/ as charged. C)C adopted the recommendation and meted the
penalt/ of dismissal to spouses Remolona, but on 9R, C)C absol*ed Ner/. C% dismissed the
petition for re*ie& filed b/ the petitioner.

ISSUE+ 7ON a ci*il ser*ice emplo/ee can be dismissed from the go*ernment ser*ice for an
offense &hich is not &or>(related or &hich is not connected &ith the performance of his official
dut/.

HELDBRATIO+ 6ES.
/"0 Re,olona, %ult- o( ds&onest-, a %rave o((ense )&'& need not *e 'o,,tted n t&e
'ourse o( t&e !er(or,an'e o( dut- *- t&e !erson '&ar%ed.

-ishonest/ is considered a gra*e offense punishable b/ dismissal for the first offense under
)ection 26, Rule ;"' of the Rules "mplementing .oo> ' of %dministrati*e Code of 18C. %nd the
rule is that dishonest/, in order to &arrant dismissal, need not be committed in the course of the
performance of dut/ b/ the person charged.

Rationale5 if a go*ernment officer or emplo/ee is dishonest or is guilt/ of oppression or gra*e
misconduct, e*en if said defects of character are not connected connected &ith his office, the/
affect his right to continue in office. :he @o*ernment cannot tolerate in its ser*ice a dishonest
official, e*en if he performs his duties correctl/ and &ell, because b/ reason of his go*ernment
position, he is gi*en more and ample opportunit/ to commit acts of dishonest/ against his fello&
men, e*en against offices and entities of the go*ernment other than the office &here he is
emplo/ed2 and b/ reason of his office, he en4o/s and possesses a certain influence and po&er
&hich renders the *ictims of his gra*e misconduct, oppression and dishonest/ less disposed
and prepared to resist and to counteract his e*il acts and actuations. :he pri*ate life of an
emplo/ee cannot be segregated from his public life. -ishonest/ ine*itabl/ reflects on the fitness
of the officer or emplo/ee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the ser*ice.

/#0 Re,olonaIs r%&t to due !ro'ess )as not volated )&en &e )as not asssted *-
'ounsel durn% t&e !rel,nar- nvest%aton and &s 'on(esson ,a- *e used as evden'e
to Dust(- ds,ssal. :he right to counsel in the .ill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a
criminal case under custodial in*estigation. 7hile in*estigations conducted b/ an administrati*e
bod/ ma/ at times be a>in to a criminal proceeding, under e3isting la&s JCi*il )er*ice %ct and
"mplementing Rules of the %dmin CodeL, a part/ in an administrati*e inDuir/ ma/ or ma/ not be
assisted b/ counsel, irrespecti*e of the nature of the charges and of the respondentIs capacit/ to
represent himself, and no dut/ rests on such bod/ to furnish the person being in*estigated &ith
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 1
counsel. "n an administrati*e proceeding, respondent has the option of engaging the ser*ices of
counsel or not.

Remolona &as not accused of an/ crime in the in*estigation &hich &as conducted merel/ for
the purpose of ascertaining the facts and &hether there is prima facie e*idence sufficient to form
a belief that an offense cogni<able b/ the C)C has been committed and that petitioner is
probabl/ guilt/ thereof and should be administrati*el/ charged. +ence, admissions made b/
Remolona during such in*estigation ma/ be used as e*idence to 4ustif/ his dismissal.

/;0 Ds,ssal not too &ars& a !enalt-. %lthough no pecuniar/ damage &as incurred b/ the
go*ernment, as petitioner posits, there &as still falsification of an official document that
constitutes gross dishonest/ &hich cannot be countenanced, considering he &as an
accountable officer and occupied a sensiti*e position. :he Code of Conduct and Ethical
)tandards for Public Officials and Emplo/ees enunciates the )tate polic/ of promoting a high
standard of ethics and utmost responsibilit/ in the public ser*ice.
CSC v. Lu'as,
.anuar- #", "111
RaDuel ,inato>, assistant information officer at the %gricultural "nformation -i*ision, -epartment
of %griculture, filed &ith the office of the )ecretar/ an affida*it(complaint against 1ose ,ucas, a
photographer of the same agenc/, for misconduct #allegedl/ touching the former=s thigh, and
thro&ing her out of the office after she >ic>ed him for touching her$.
-%=s .oard of Personnel "nDuir/ issued summons reDuiring ,ucas to ans&er the complaint.
,ucas submitted a letter to the .OP" assistant head den/ing the charges ( that he accidentall/
brushed ,inato>=s leg &hen he reached for his shoes and there &as no malicious intent &hen
such happened.
%fter formal in*estigation, the .OP" issued a resolution finding ,ucas guilt/ of simple misconduct
and recommending a penalt/ of suspension for 1 month and 1 da/. )ecretar/ of %griculture
appro*ed the recommendation.
,ucas appealed to the C)C &hich issued a resolution finding ,ucas guilt/ of gra*e misconduct
and imposed on him the penalt/ of dismissal from the ser*ice. ,ucas=s reconsideration &as
denied.
,ucas appealed to the C% &hich set aside the C)C resolution and reinstated the .OP" one.
+ence, this petition for re*ie& on certiorari. )C affirmed C%.
/"0 S,!le and %rave ,s'ondu't are dstn't o((enses. 9emorandum Circular No. E(8
classifies administrati*e offenses into gra*e, less gra*e and light. @ra*e misconduct falls under
gra*e offenses2 simple misconduct is classified as a less gra*e offense. :he former is
punishable b/ dismissal &hile the latter is punishable either b/ suspension #1 month and 1 da/
to O months$, if it is the first offense2 or b/ dismissal, if it is the second. :hus, the/ should be
treated as separate and distinct offenses.
/#0 Ele,ents o( 'orru!ton, 'lear ntent to volate la) or (la%rant dsre%ard o( esta*ls&
rule, la'An% n 'ase at *ar. ,andrito *s. C)C5 "n gra*e misconduct, as distinguished from
simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to *iolate the la& or flagrant
disregard of established rule, must be manifest.!
/;0 Lu'as )as not dul- n(or,ed o( t&e %rave ,s'ondu't '&ar%e. % basic reDuirement of
due process is that a person must be dul/ informed of the charges against him and that a
person can not be con*icted of a crime &ith &hich he &as not charged. ,ucas came to >no& of
the modification of the charge against him onl/ &hen he recei*ed notice of the resolution
dismissing him from the ser*ice.
/?0 Ad,nstratve !ro'eedn%s not e8e,!t (ro, (unda,ental !rn'!les su'& as due
!ro'ess. :he right to substanti*e and procedural due process is applicable in administrati*e
proceedings.
/20 Lu'asIs a't, )&le not 'ondoned *- t&e Court re,ans to *e a less %rave o((ense. E*en
in 4est, ,ucas had no right to touch ,inato>=s leg. +o&e*er, under the circumstances, such act is
not constituti*e of gra*e misconduct, in the absence of proof that ,ucas &as maliciousl/
moti*ated. "t is also noted that ,ucas has been in the ser*ice for 2A /ears and this is his first
offense.
Bernardo v. CA,
=a- #9, #$$?
Petitioner .ernardo entered the go*ernment ser*ice as Claims %d4uster of ,and .an>, .aliuag
.ranch.

2C 1an 18O5 .ernardo deposited PQAAM in his sa*ings account.

%fter ma>ing the deposit, he
photocopied that page in his ban> passboo> &here the deposit &as reflected and, on the same
da/, &ithdre& the amount.

+e e3ecuted, in his capacit/ as treasurer(in(trust of 9ar>a/ :rading and 9anpo&er )er*ices
J&hich &as still in the process of incorporationL a :reasurer=s %ffida*it, falsel/ certif/ing that at
least 2QW of the authori<ed capital stoc> of the corporation has been subscribed and 2QW of the
total subscription has been paid and recei*ed b/ me in cash or propert/ in the amount of PQAAM
in accordance &ith the Corporation Code.!

On the same da/, .ernardo e3ecuted a letter(authorit/ to the )EC authori<ing it to e3amine and
*erif/ the deposit in ,and .an> .aliuag, in his name as :reasurer(in(:rust for the said
corporation.

6A 1an 18O5 9ar>a/ :rading submitted its %rticles, signed b/ .ernardo as one of the
incorporators, to )EC. +e also e3ecuted an affida*it that he &as elected treasurer. :urns out,
.ernardo ne*er opened an account &ith ,and .an> .aliuag for the account of the corporation.
9ean&hile, .ernardo &as promoted to %ssistant .ranch 9anager.

18 )ept 185 ,and .an> filed a formal charge against .ernardo for gross neglect, gra*e
misconduct, conduct pre4udicial to the best interest of the ban>, and serious *iolation of C)C
rules and regulations.

:he +earing Officer, after formal in*estigation, found .ernardo guilt/ of 1$ engaging in business,
occupation or *ocation &ithout securing the permission of ,and .an> in *iolation of C)C Rules
and 2$ committing acts of falsification amounting to gra*e misconduct in office, and further
recommended that the penalt/ of forced resignation be meted out, in light of the fact that there
&ere 2 other administrati*e cases pending against him. ,and .an> appro*ed the +O=s
recommendations.

On appeal, the 9erit )/stems Protection .oard affirmed ,and .an> and additionall/ found
.ernardo guilt/ of misrepresentation of a material fact amounting to dishonest/ for engaging
directl/ in a pri*ate business &ithout the permission reDuired b/ the C)C rules and regulations.

C)C found .ernardo guilt/ of gra*e misconduct, conduct pre4udicial to the best interest of the
ser*ice, and engaging in pri*ate business &ithout prior authorit/ from the head of office and
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 2A
anchored its ruling on the ground that .ernardo, being a ban> emplo/ee, utili<ed such position
to commit irregular acts Jdepositing and &ithdra&ing the PQAAM.

HELDBRATIO+
#1$ Petitioner &as depri*ed of his right to be informed of the charges against him insofar as
C)C=s finding that he=s administrati*el/ liable for depositing PQAAM in his name as treasurer(in(
trust of 9:9)", and &ithdra&ing the amount prior to the incorporation thereof in the absence of
an/ resolution of its .oard of -irectors authori<ing him to do so, although not alleged in the
formal charges.

#2$ )till, he is guilt/ of gra*e misconduct and conduct pre4udicial to the best interest of the
ser*ice based on the e*idence.
+e &as guilt/ of 9isrepresentation amounting to -ishonest/ for the ff acts5 ma>ing a false
statement in his letter to the )EC Jthat PQAAM &as deposited ( but in his personal account, not
the corporation=s, and &ithdra&n the same da/L2 ma>ing a statement in a s&orn affida*it that he
recei*ed mone/ and propert/ for the pa/ment of the corporation=s subscription &hen he did not
in fact recei*e an/thing, etc
9isrepresentation! ( a false statement about a material fact in an/ contract or other
transaction that misleads the part/ to &hom it is made. -ishonest/! ( concealment or distortion
of truth in a matter of fact. "t signifies absence of integrit/, a disposition to betra/, cheat decei*e
or defraud, bad faith
Hurthermore, he &as guilt/ of 9isrepresentation of a 9aterial Hact &hen he represented his
personal account to be the corporation=s, thus putting the .an>=s integrit/ in 4eopard/ and also to
the pre4udice of the corporation=s creditors, if an/.
Petitioner not guilt/ of 9isrepresentation amounting to Halsification of -ocuments because the
latter contemplates that he must ha*e acted in his capacit/ as an emplo/ee or official and must
ha*e altered the genuine document or e3ecute the false document rele*ant to or in connection
&ith the performance of his dut/ as such. ( .ernardo acted in his capacit/ as :reasurer of
9ar>a/ :rading

#6$ Reiterating Remolona5 causes &hich &arrant the dismissal of a ci*il ser*ant need not
necessaril/ be &or>(related or committed in the course of the performance of dut/ b/ the person
charged.
:he principle is that &hen an officer or emplo/ee is disciplined, the ob4ect sought is not the
punishment of such officer or emplo/ee but the impro*ement of the public ser*ice and the
preser*ation of the public=s faith and confidence in the go*ernment.
CSC v. Bela%an,
O'to*er "1, #$$?
9agdalena and ,iga/a filed separate complaints against respondent -r. .elagan, -EC)
)uperintendent.

9agdalena ( for se3ual indignities and harassment. :hat she filed an application for a permit to
operate a pre(school, a condition precedent for the appro*al of &hich is the inspection of the
school premises for &hich respondent *olunteered. -uring inspection, respondent put his arms
around her and >issed her chee>. +e also as>ed her for a date &hen she follo&ed up on the
application.

,iga/a N for se3ual harassment and *arious malfeasances. :hat on E separate occasions,
respondent touched her breasts, >issed her chee>, touched her groins, embraced her from
behind and pulled her close to him, his organ pressing the lo&er part of her bac>. %lso, that
respondent #1$ dela/ed pa/ment of the teachers= salaries2 #2$ failed to release pa/ differentials of
substitute teachers2 #6$ &illfull/ refused to release the teachers= uniforms, proportionate
allo&ances and producti*it/ pa/2 and #E$ failed to constitute the )election and Promotion .oard,
as reDuired b/ the -EC) rules and regulations.

-EC) conducted a 4oint in*estigation, found respondent guilt/, and ordered his dismissal from
ser*ice.

C)C affirmed decision &ith respect to 9agdalena, but dismissed ,iga/a=s complaint. "t found
respondent guilt/ of gra*e misconduct and ordered his dismissal.

.elagan filed 9HR alleging a string of cases filed against 9agdalena before 9:C .aguio Cit/,
that these cast doubt on her character, integrit/, and credibilit/.

C)C denied paren his 9HR. .ut on appeal, C% re*ersed C)C5 that 9agdalena is an unreliable
&itness, her character being Duestionable. :hat gi*en her aggressi*eness and propensit/ for
trouble, she is not one &hom an/ male &ould attempt to steal a >iss.! "n fact, her record
immediatel/ raises an alarm in an/ one &ho ma/ cross her path.! :he C% also absol*ed
respondent from the charges, considering his unblemished! ser*ice record for 6C /ears.

HELDBRATIO+
#1$ @eneral Rule5 the character of a part/ is regarded as legall/ irrele*ant in determining a
contro*ers/.

:he e3ception to this, in*o>ed b/ respondent is )ection Q1 #a$ 6, Rule 16A of the Re*ised Rules
on E*idence5 :he good or bad moral character of the offended part/ ma/ be pro*ed if it tends to
establish in an/ reasonable degree the probabilit/ or improbabilit/ of the offense charged.!
.ut this applies onl/ in criminal, not administrati*e, cases[[[

%ssuming the e3ception applies in case at bar, respondent=s argument cannot be sustained
because the character e*idence must be onl/ those &hich &ould establish the probabilit/ or
improbabilit/ of the offense charged.
"n the present administrati*e case for se3ual harassment, respondent did not offer e*idence
that has a bearing on 9agdalena=s chastit/. 7hat he presented are charges for gra*e oral
defamation, gra*e threats, un4ust *e3ation, ph/sical in4uries, malicious mischief, etc. filed against
her &hich do not establish the probabilit/ or improbabilit/ of the offense charged.

#2$ 7ith respect to attac>ing 9agdalena=s credibilit/, a different pro*ision applies. )ection 11,
Rule 162 of the same Re*ised Rules on E*idence renders a &itness impeachable b/ e*idence
attac>ing his general reputation for truth, honest/, or integrit/.

%lthough she is the offended part/, 9agdalena , b/ testif/ing in her o&n behalf, opened herself
to character or reputation attac> pursuant to the principle that a part/ &ho becomes a &itness in
his o&n behalf places himself in the same position as an/ other &itness, and ma/ be impeached
b/ an attac> on his character or reputation.

#6$ .?:, 9agdalena=s derogator/ record is not sufficient to discredit her credibilit/.
Hirst, it is &ell(settled that e*idence of one=s character or reputation must be confined to a time
not too remote from the time in Duestion. 7hat is to be determined is the character or reputation
of the person at t&e t,e o( t&e tral and !ror t&ereto, *ut not at a !erod re,ote (ro, t&e
'o,,en'e,ent o( t&e sut.
"n the case at bar, the complaints against 9agdalena &ere filed in li>e, the 8A=s, &hile the
instant administrati*e case &as filed in 1E.
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 21
"t is unfair to presume that a person &ho has &andered from the path of moral righteousness
can ne*er retrace his steps again. Certainl/, e*er/ person is capable to change or reform.!

)econd, respondent did not pro*e that 9agdalena &as con*icted in an/ of these cases.

#E$ Respondent=s act clearl/ constitutes gra*e misconduct, &hich should be punishable b/
dismissal.

"n gra*e misconduct as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear
intent to *iolate the la& or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest.
Corruption as an element of gra*e misconduct consists in the act of an official or fiduciar/
person &ho unla&full/ and &rongfull/ uses his station or character to procure some benefit for
himself or for another person, contrar/ to dut/ and the rights of others.

:his is apparentl/ present in respondent=s case as it concerns not onl/ a stolen >iss but also a
demand for a date,! an unla&ful consideration for the issuance of a permit to operate a pre(
school.

#Q$ +o&e*er, in light of respondent=s 6C /ears in the ser*ice, length of ser*ice being a 9itigating
Circumstance, and the fact that this is his first administrati*e charge, the penalt/ meted out &as
merel/ suspension &ithout pa/ for 1 /ear.
<llanueva v. CA,
.ul- #$, #$$F
#na>ed in the couch case$
'illanue*a &as a ,egislati*e %ssistant "" at the time he and a married &oman &ere found na>ed
asleep on the couch. :he +ouse -isciplinar/ .oard found him guilt/ of gra*e misconduct,
disgraceful and immoral conduc pre4udicial to best interest of ser*ice. +e &as suspened for 1
/ear. %fter the 9R, he &as dismissed b/ the .oard and all his benefits forfeited. :he C)C found
him guilt/ of disgraceful and immoral conduct and &as suspended. On appeal to the C%, it
reinstated the .oardIs decision and dismissed him, finding that the offense related to his official
conduct as it &as made possible precisel/ b/ his functions2 moreo*er, he had used his office to
commit the misconduct.
Issue+ 7ON 'illanue*a &as guilt/ of gra*e misconduct in office
Held+ NO. :he offense here &as in no &a/ connected to the performance of his functions and
duties. "t falls short of the gra*e misconduct as defined b/ la&. +e &as guilt/ of disgraceful and
immoral conduct ha*ing engaged in an illicit affair, for &hich he can be administrati*el/ liable.
Hor first offense of such, penalt/ is 4ust suspension.
9isconduct means intentional &rongdoing. .ut =s'ondu't IN OFFICE &as a de(nte
,eann% &hich is such that it affects the performance of duties as an officer and not such onl/
as affects his character as a pri*ate indi*idual. To 'onsttute an ad,nstratve o((ense, t
,ust RELATE TO or BE CONNECTED )t& t&e !er(or,an'e o( &s o(('al (un'tons and
dutes. 7e separate the personal from the public. :he misconduct herein &as not related to his
functions or duties.
Laurel < v. CSC,
O'to*er #J, "11"
#nepotic appointment of the brother$
,aurel ' as go*ernor appointed his brother as senior e3ecuti*e assistant, and later to be
pro*incial administrator. ,ater on, also as ci*il securit/ officer. %fter being Duestioned, C)C
remo*ed his brother from the post of acting pro*incial administrator as the same &as a nepotic
appointment.
Issue+ 7ON the post of pro*incial administrator &as primaril/ confidential such that it &as
e3empt from nepotism prohibition
Held+ NO. "t is a nepotic appointment.
Hirstl/, ,aurel &as estopped b/ his o&n prior admission that the post &as part of the career
ser*ice.
)econdl/, loo>ing at the characteristics of the position, it is indeed career ser*ice in nature. :he
post is thus sub4ect to the prohibition against nepotic appointments. :here is also a standing
prohibition from desigating one to a career ser*ice position and a non(career position #the latter
embraced the brothersI 2 other appointments$. Hinall/, the Court said that as bet&een
BdesignationB and BappointmentB there is no distinction, based on the intent of P- 8AC. Hor
purposes of nepotism, the/ are the same.
Ha%ad v. 5oHo3Dadole,
De'e,*er "#, "112
Criminal and administrati*e complaints &ere filed against respondents #officials of 9andaue
Cit/$ &ith the Office of the -eput/ Ombudsman for *iolation of R% 6A1, %rts. 1CA Y 1C1, RPC,
and R% OC16. :he respondents &ere put under pre*enti*e suspension. Respondents opposed
this and filed a 9:-, assailing the 4urisdiction of the Ombudsman, claiming that under the ,ocal
@o*ernment Code, the Office of the President and not the Office of the Ombudsman could
la&full/ ta>e cogni<ance of the administrati*e complaints against an/ electi*e official of a
pro*ince, a highl/ urbani<ed cit/, or an independent component cit/ to impose disciplinar/
sanctions including pre*enti*e suspensions.
Issue"+ 7ON the ,@C di*ested the Ombudsman of his in*estigator/ po&ers o*er local
go*ernment officialsK
Held+ NO. :he general in*estigator/ po&er of the Ombudsman is decreed b/ )ec. 16#1$, %rt. ;"
of the Consti, &hile his statutor/ mandate to act on administrati*e complaints is in sec. 1 of R%
OCCA #Ombudsman %ct$. )ec. 21 names the officials sub4ect to the disciplinar/ authorit/ of the
Ombudsman and )ec. 2E gi*es him authorit/ to put these officials under pre*enti*e suspension.
T&e L5C &as 'on(erred, *ut not on an e8'lusve *ass, on t&e O(('e o( t&e Presdent
ds'!lnar- aut&ort- over lo'al ele'tve o(('als. T&e L5C dd not )t&dra) t&e !o)er o(
t&e O,*uds,an t&ereto(ore vested under RA F99$ conformabl/ &ith the constitutional
mandate. :here is nothing in the ,@C to indicate that it has repealed the pertinent pro*isions of
the Ombudsman %ct.
Issue#+ 7ON the O(month pre*enti*e suspension under the Ombudsman %ct is repugnant to
the OA(da/ pre*enti*e suspension under the ,@C
Held+ No. :he t&o pro*isions go*ern differentl/. "n order to 4ustif/ the pre*enti*e suspension of a
public official under )ection 2E R% OCCA, the e*idence of guilt should be strong, and #a$ the
charge against the officer or emplo/ee should in*ol*e dishonest/, oppression or gra*e
misconduct or neglect in the performance of dut/2 #b$ the charges should &arrant remo*al from
the ser*ice2 or #c$ the respondentIs continued sta/ in office &ould pre4udice the case filed against
him. :he Ombudsman can impose the O(month pre*enti*e suspension to all public officials,
&hether electi*e or appointi*e, &ho are under in*estigation. ?pon the other hand, in imposing
the shorter period of si3t/ #OA$ da/s of pre*enti*e suspension prescribed in the ,ocal
@o*ernment Code of 11 on an electi*e local official #at an/ time after the issues are 4oined$, it
&ould be enough that #a$ there is reasonable ground to belie*e that the respondent has
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 22
committed the act or acts complained of, #b$ the e*idence of culpabilit/ is strong, #c$ the gra*it/
of the offense so &arrants, or #d$ the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the
&itnesses or pose a threat to the safet/ and integrit/ of the records and other e*idence.
Issue;+ 7ON the Ombudsman committed gra*e abuse of discretion &hen it issued the
pre*enti*e suspension &ithout an/ hearing.
Held+ No. :he records re*eal that petitioner issued the order of pre*enti*e suspension after the
filing #a$ b/ respondent officials of their opposition on the motion for pre*enti*e suspension and
#b$ b/ 9a/or Ouano of his memorandum in compliance &ith the directi*e of petitioner. .e that,
as it ma/, &e ha*e heretofore held that, not being in the nature of a penalt/, a !reventve
sus!enson can be decreed on an official under in*estigation after charges are brought and
e*en before the charges are heard. Naturall/, such a preventive suspension &ould occur prior to
an/ finding of guilt or innocence. 9oreo*er, the respondents &ere put on pre*enti*e suspension
onl/ after it &as found that the e*idence of guilt &as strong.
Pa*l'o v. <lla!ando,
.ul- ;", #$$#
% complaint for abuse of authorit/ and culpable *iolation of the Consti &as filed against 9a/or
'illapando for entering into a 'onsultan'- a%ree,ent )t& a de(eated =a-oralt- 'anddate in
the recent elections. :he/ argued that the consultanc/ agreement amounted to an appointment
to a go*ernment position &ithin the prohibited 1(/ear period. :he Office of the President affirmed
the )angguniang Panlala&igan=s penalt/ of dismissal. '(9a/or Pablico assumed his office. :he
C% declared *oid these decisions and ordered 'illapando=s reinstatement.
Issue+ 7ON local legislati*e bodies and0or the Office of the President, on appeal, *alidl/ impose
the penalt/ of dismissal from ser*ice on erring local electi*e officials.
Held+ No. ?nder the ,@C #)ec. OA$ onl/ a court of la& ma/ do that. :he Rules and Regulations
implementing the ,@C cannot amend or contra*ene the la&. +ence, t&e !o)er to re,ove
errn% lo'al ele'tve o(('als (ro, serv'e s lod%ed e8'lusvel- )t& t&e 'ourts. :he "RR
insofar as it *ests po&er on the disciplining authorit/! to remo*e from office these officials, is
*oid for being repugnant to the la& it see>s to implement.
CSC v. Da'o-'o-,
A!rl #1, "111
% complaint for habitual drun>enness, misconduct and nepotism &as filed against -aco/co/, a
'ocational )chool %dministrator. :he C)C found -aco/co/ guilt/ of # 'ounts o( ne!ots,
because his 2 sons &ere &or>ing as a utilit/ man and a dri*er in the school , and ordered his
dismissal. :he C% said that since there &as neither appointment nor recommendation, there=s
no nepotism. "t re*ersed the C)C. :he C)C appealed.
Issue"+ )cope of Nepotism
Held+ :here=s Nepotism in this case. ?nder the definition of nepotism, one s %ult- o(
ne!ots, ( an a!!ont,ent s ssued n (avor o( a relatve )t&n t&e t&rd 'vl de%ree o(
'onsan%unt- or a((nt- o( an- o( t&e (ollo)n%+
a$ appointing authorit/2
b$ recommending authorit/2
c$ chief of the bureau or office, and
d$ person e3ercising immediate super*ision o*er the appointee.
Clearl/, there are four situations co*ered. In t&e last t)o ,entoned stuatons, t s
,,ateral )&o t&e a!!ontn% or re'o,,endn% aut&ort- s. :o constitute a *iolation of the
la&, it suffices that an appointment is e3tended or issued in fa*or of a relati*e &ithin the third ci*il
degree of consanguinit/ or affinit/ of the chief of the bureau or office, or the person e3ercising
immediate super*ision o*er the appointee.
"n this case, though -aco/co/ neither appointed nor recommended directl/, the ban on nepotism
&as circum*ented &hen the recommending authorit/ &as -aco/co/=s subordinate.
Issue#+ 4t&e !art- adversel- a((e'tedG &ho ma/ ta>e an appeal from an ad*erse decision of
the appellate court in an administrati*e ci*il ser*ice disciplinar/ case.
Held+ Ruling that the part/ ad*ersel/ affected b/ the decision refers to the go*ernment
emplo/ee against &hom the administrati*e case &as filed is e3pressl/ abandoned. In t&s 'ase,
t s t&e CSC )&o &as *e'o,e t&e !art- adversel- a((e'ted *- t&e CAIs ruln%, )&'&
serousl- !reDud'es t&e 'vl serv'e s-ste,.
Dssents+ la& does not contemplate re*ie& of decisions e3onerating officers or emplo/ees from
administrati*e charges. :o allo& this &ould be stoc>ing the sta>es too much against our ci*il
ser*ants.
C)C is not the aggrie*ed part/, hence it has no legal personalit/ to ele*ate the case to the
appellate authorit/. T&e a%%reved !art-, &as lon% *een &eld, s t&e %overn,ent e,!lo-ee
a%anst )&o, an ad,nstratve 'o,!lant s (led.
Ru*ene'a v. CSC,
=a- ;", "112
:eachers of Catarman +igh )chool filed before the 9)P. a complaint against Rubenecia for
dishonest/, nepotism, oppression and *iolation of Ci*il )er*ice Rules. -uring the pendenc/ of
the case, the C)C issued a Resolution &hich pro*ided that cases then pending before the
9)P. &ere to be ele*ated to the C)C for decision. :he C)C, accordingl/, too> o*er
Rubenecia=s case and found him guilt/ and ordered his dismissal.
Issue"+ 7ON C)C had authorit/ to issue its Resolution and assume 4urisdiction o*er the case5
Held+ 8es. #Rubenecia=s argument is that since 9)P. &as created b/ la&, it could onl/ be
abolished b/ la&$. :he 9)P. &as originall/ created b/ P- 1EA, &hich states5 :here is hereb/
created n the C)C a 9erit )/stems .oard.! )ec. 1O of the present Ci*il )er*ice ,a& found in
the %dministrati*e code of 18C follo&ed the same line and re(created the 9erit )/stems .oard
as an office of the C)C and ga*e it a ne& name5 9erit )/stem Protection .oard. =SPB )as
ntended to *e an o(('e o( t&e CSC. It )as not an autono,ous entt- 'reated *- la).
:he Resolution sought to streamline the operations of the C)C and eliminate the duplication of
functions. :he pre*ious procedure made it difficult for cases to be resol*ed &ithin a reasonable
period of time.
9oreo*er, the resolution did not purport to abolish the 9)P. nor to effect the termination of
public emplo/ment bet&een the C)C and an/ of its officers or emplo/ees. Even ( t&e t&e
Resoluton &ad !ur!orted to do so /a*ols& =SPB0, Ru*ene'a, not *en% an e,!lo-ee o(
t&e =SPB, &as no !ersonalt- or standn% to 'ontest su'& ter,naton o( !u*l'
e,!lo-,ent.
Issue#+ 7ON Rubenecia &as denied due process
Held+ No. :he fundamental rule of -P reDuires that a person be accorded notice and an
opportunit/ to be heard. :hese &ere present in this case. :he Hormal Charge against Rubenecia
&as sufficient notice, &hich enabled him to prepare his defense. +is ans&er to the formal charge
&as considered. "n an/ case, his 9HR cured &hate*er defect might ha*e e3isted in respect of
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 26
the alleged denial of procedural dp. -enial of dp cannot be successfull/ in*o>ed b/ a part/ &ho
has had the opportunit/ to be heard on his 9HR.
CSC v. CorteH,
.une ;, #$$?
Corte<, Chief Personnel )pecialist of the E3amination and Placement )er*ices -i*ision #EP)-$
of Ci*il )er*ice Regional Office No. ;, Caga/an de Oro Cit/ &as formall/ charged &ith
dishonest/, gra*e misconduct and conduct pre4udicial to the best interest of the ser*ice for
issuing stamps that ha*e been pre*iousl/ issued to be able to poc>et the mone/ #price of the
stamps$. :he C)C found her guilt/ and dismissed her. :he C% said that dismissal is too harsh
considering that this is her 1st offense and she had been in ser*ice for 21 /ears. :he C%
considered her forcibl/ resigned &ith a right to all the benefits she ma/ be entitled to. :he C)C
said that &hat she did constituted dishonest/, gra*e misconduct and pre4udicial to the best
interest of the ser*ice &hich under the rules are all gra*e offenses punishable b/ dismissal.
Corte< sa/s that her length of ser*ice and the fact that this is her 1
st
offense, and that there &as
no damage to the go*ernment should be ta>en into consideration.
Issue+ 7ON the penalt/ of dismissal is too harsh
Held+ No. Cvl Serv'e La) sa-s ds,ssal (or t&e (ollo)n% o((enses+ dishonest/, gra*e
misconduct, and conduct pre4udicial to the best interest of the ser*ice. %lthough in some cases,
the )C lo&ered the penalt/ of dismissal to either forced resignation or suspension, under the
facts, Corte< is not entitled to a lo&er penalt/. Len%t& o( serv'e is an alternati*e circumstance
&hich can be ta>en for or against the respondent. "n this case, Corte<=s length of ser*ice should
be ta>en against her because it &as her length of ser*ice &hich helped her in the commission of
the offense. Corte< earned her position as Chief of EP)- because of her length of ser*ice. :his
position allo&ed her to ha*e access to pre*iousl/ issued stamps. +er act irreparabl/ tarnished
the integrit/ of the C)C. :he gra*it/ of her offense is the reason &h/ the circumstance of 1
st
offense! cannot be considered in her fa*our. C)C ruling reinstated.
CanonHado v. A%urre,
.anuar- #2, #$$$
#N%PO,CO9 office &as not abolished$
R% 8QQ1 &hich effecti*el/ shortened the terms of the incumbent N%PO,CO9 commissioners
and remo*ed them from office &as being assailed for being unconstitutional. "n defense of the
la&, the )@ argues that the la& intended to impliedl/ abolish the N%PO,CO9 b/ means of
reorgani<ation b/ changing the functions and composition of the same.
Issue+ 7ON there &as a *alid abolition of the N%PO,CO9
Held+ NO there &as None. Petitioners reinstated.
Re@ure,ent (or an a*olton to *e vald s t&at t&e sa,e *e done n 5OOD FAITH and not
for political or personal reasons or to circum*ent the securit/ of tenure of ci*il ser*ice
emplo/ees. A*olton connotes the intention to do a&a/ &ith the office &holl/ and permanentl/.
+ere there &as a su*stantal dentt- o( (un'tons bet&een the old and ne& office2 and the/
&ere not irreconcilable. :he changes introduced are not essential as the or%anHatonal
stru'ture )as !rett- ,u'& t&e sa,e.
:here is a vald reor%anHaton &hen there is an alteration of the e3isting structure of the
go*ernment office including lines of control, authorit/ and responsibilit/ bet&een them.
Eu%eno v. CSC,
=ar'& ;", "112
#office created b/ la& has to be abolished b/ la& also$
C)C issued a resolution &hich streamlined the organi<ational structure of the CESB and
BabolishedB the same. No&, it &as to become the O(('e o( t&e CES /Career E8e'utve
Serv'e0 of the C)C. Petitioner Eugenio &as gi*en CE) eligibilit/ and recommended b/ the
CE). #no& abolished$ for a CE)O ran>. 7ith the abolition, she &as effecti*el/ put Bon holdB and
&as unable to get her ran>. )he filed this petition to anul the resolution assailing the authorit/ of
the C)C to abolish b/ a mere resolution, an office created b/ la&.
Issue+ 7ON the CE). could be abolished b/ the C)C resolution
Held+ NO. CESB )as 'reated *- PD No. " and as su'& t 'an onl- *e a*ols&ed *- anot&er
la), !assed *- t&e le%slature. Here t&ere )as no su'& la), in fact it &as e*en included in
the @%% that /ear. )ection 1O and 1C must be read together ( to sho& that the offices under
C)C do not include the CE)., as such, its po&er to reorgani<e does not co*er it. :he CE). is
merel/ administrati*el/ attached to the C)C, meaning solel/ for purposes of polic/ and program
coordination.
FernandeH v. Sto. To,as,
=ar'& 9, "112
:he OP"% &as merged &ith the OPR to create the R-O. :his &as effected b/ the C)C *ia
resolution. "t is being assailed b/ petitioners as *iolati*e of their right to securit/ of tenure.
Issue+ 7ON the resolution *alidl/ merged the said offices.
Held+ 8es. No *iolation of securit/ of tenure. :he resolution formed a ne& grouping, renamed
some of the offices of the C)C#&hich included the OPR and OP"%$ and it reallocated some
functions. :he purpose &as to decentrali<e and de*ol*e the functions of the C)C. :he )C found
that the ,otves )ere le%t,ate and t&at t&e sa,e dd not a,ount to an a*olton o( a
!u*l' o(('e. None of the changes in the organi<ation in*ol*ed a termination of a relationship of
public emplo/ment bet&een the C)C and an/ of its officers. T&e la) !re'sel- allo)ed t&e
CSC to e((e't reor%anHaton as t&e need arses. :here &as also a *alid delegation of the
legislati*e function to the C)C. :here &as no *iolation of their right to securit/ of tenure since
their appointment &as to the ran>, not to a particular post. Pettoners )ere ,erel- reass%ned
3 valdl- at t&at.
BuAlod n% Na)ann% EIIB v. Oa,ora,
.ul- "$, #$$"
President %Duino issued EO 12C &hich established E"". #Economic "ntelligence and
"n*estigation .ureau$
- E"". &as an agenc/ primaril/ responsible for anti(smuggling operations
- 11 /ears later, President Estrada issued EO 11 &hich deacti*ated EIIB on the ground that
there &as an o*erlapping of functions &ith the .ureau of Customs and N."
- +e then issued EO 1O &hich created the Presdental Ant3S,u%%ln% TasA For'e
L4AduanaG
- .ecause of the issuance of both EOs E"". personnel &ere separated from ser*ice
- .u>lod ng Ma&aning E"". then filed this case alleging that EO 11 and EO 1O are
unconstitutional for being *iolati*e of their securit/ of tenure and that it &as a usurpation of the
po&er of Congress to abolish E"".
Issue+ 7ON EO 11 and EO 1O are unconstitutional.
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 2E
Held+ NO[ the/ are constitutional. Hurther, t&e Presdent &as t&e aut&ort- to reor%anHe t&e
e8e'utve de!art,ent.
@eneral Rule5 the po&er to abolish a public office is lodged &ith the legislature. :his proceeds
from the legal precept that the po&er to create includes the po&er to destro/.
E3ception5 as far as bureaus, agencies or offices in the e3ecuti*e department are concerned, the
President=s po&er of control ma/ 4ustif/ him to inacti*ate the functions of a particular office, or
certain la&s ma/ grant him the broad authorit/ to carr/ out reorgani<ation measures.
:his case reiterates the ruling in ,arin *. E3ecuti*e )ecretar/ &here the court held that President
has the authorit/ to effect organi<ational changes in the department or agenc/ under the
e3ecuti*e structure.
EO 22 #%dministrati*e Code of 18C$5 also has an e3press grant of such po&er.
+ere, E"". falls under the Office of the President and hence, sub4ect to the President=s
continuing authorit/ to reorgani<eT&hich includes the reduction of personnel, consolidation of
offices, or abolition thereof.
DE>) the validity of the reorgani&ation
Reor%anHatons are *alid pro*ided the/ are pursued in good faith and it is in @H if it is for the
purpose of econom/ or to ma>e bureaucrac/ more efficient.
Evden'e o( BF+
1. &here there is a significant increase in the number of positions in the ne& staffing
pattern of the department or agenc/ concerned
2. &here an office is abolished and another performing substantiall/ the same
functions is created
6. &here incumbents are replaced / those less Dualified in terms of status of
appointment, performance and merit
E. &here there is a classification of offices in the department or agenc/ concerned
and the reclassified offices perform substantiall/ the same functions as the original
offices
Q. &here the remo*al *iolates the order of separation
+ERE, the deacti*ation of E"". and creation of %duana &as in @H. :here is no emplo/ment of
ne& personnel since the staff &ill be composed of people &ho are alread/ in the public ser*ice.
Hurther, it &as sho&n that %duana=s allocation of funds is much lesser than that of E""..
<ald a*olton o( o(('es s net&er re,oval nor se!araton o( t&e n'u,*ents.
ELECTION LAW
I. 5ENERAL PRINCIPLES
Rela,!a%os v. Cu,*a,
A!rl #9, "112
Relampagos and Cumba &ere candidates for the position of 9a/or. Cumba &as then
proclaimed &inner.
( Relampagos filed an election protest before the R:C
R:C5 Relampagos &on in the election and not Cumba
- Cumba then filed an appeal before the CO9E,EC
- Relampagos filed a motion for e3ecution pending appeal and R:C then issued the &rit of
e3ecution. 9HR filed b/ Cumba &a denied
- Cumba filed before the CO9E,EC a petition for certiorari to annul the decision granting the
&rit of e3ecution
CO9E,EC5 granted Cumba=s petition for certiorari and held that it has 4urisdiction in certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus cases citing )ection QA of .P OC &hich allegedl/ still remains in
force in *ie& of the fact that .P 881 did not e3pressl/ repeal such pro*ision.
Issue+ 7ON the CO9E,EC has 4urisdiction o*er petitions for, certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus in election cases &here it has e3clusi*e appellate 4urisdiction.
Held+ 8E). .P OC &hich is entitled an act to go*ern the election of members of the .atasang
Pambasa on 9a/ 1E, 18E and the selection of sectoral representati*es thereafter, appropriating
funds therefor or for other purposes! pro*ides in )ection QA that CO9E,EC is *ested &ith
e3clusi*e authorit/ to hear and decide petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
in*ol*ing election cases.
:his pro*ision has NO: been repealed b/ .P 881. )ection 282 of .P 881 &hich is the repealing
clause did not e3pressl/ repeal .P OC.
Hurther, )ection QA of .P OC is not inconsistent &ith the pro*isions of .P 881 or our election
la&s.
CO9E,EC is the most logical bod/ &hene*er it performs 4udicial functions to ta>e 4urisdiction of
petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus because it has appellate 4urisdiction in election
cases granted b/ the Constitution itself. :he C% has no more appellate 4urisdiction.
9oreo*er, certiorari 4urisdiction of the )upreme Court in election cases should properl/ be
limited to decisions, orders or rulings of the Commission on Elections, not from lo&er courts.
)ince the CO9E,EC, in discharging its appellate 4urisdiction pursuant to )ec. 2 #2$, %rt. ";(C,
acts as a court of 4ustice performing 4udicial po&er and said po&er includes the determination of
&hether or not there has been gra*e abuse of discretion amounting to lac> or e3cess of
4urisdiction, it necessaril/ follo&s that the Comelec, b/ constitutional mandate, is *ested &ith
4urisdiction to issue &rits of certiorari in aid of its appellate 4urisdiction.
R:C also committed gra*e abuse of discretion &hen it issued the &rit of e3ecution. ?pon
perfection of the appeal filed b/ Cumba, it &as then di*ested of 4urisdiction.
A@uno v. CO=ELEC, Se!te,*er "J, "112
Fa'ts+%Duino filed his certificate of candidac/ for the position of Congressman in the 2
nd
district
of 9a>ati Cit/ and in such certificate, he indicated that he resided in 9a>ati for 1A months
- 9o*e 9a>ati, a political part/, filed a petition to disDualif/ %Duino on the ground that he
lac>ed the necessar/ residence reDuirementTshould be at least 1 /ear.
- % da/ after, %Duino then filed another certificate of candidac/ amending the first one he
filed. :his time stating that he resided in 9a>ati for 1 /ear and 16 da/s.
- CO9E,EC5 dismissed the petition for disDualification
- 9HR &as filed &ith the CO9E,EC en banc
- Elections &ere held and %Duino &on
- 9o*e 9a>ati then filed an urgent motion ad cautelam to suspend the proclamation of
%Duino
- %Duino opposed such order. +e filed a motion to lift the suspension of proclamation and
also raised the issue of 7ON the determination of his Dualifications after the elections is lodged
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 2Q
e3clusi*el/ in the +RE:.
- CO9E,EC en banc5 granted the petition to disDualif/ %Duino.
Issue+ 7ON CO9E,EC still has 4urisdiction to determine the disDualification of %Duino.
Held+ 8E)[ :he court made a distinction bet&een an unproclaimed candidate to the +ouse of
Representati*es and a member of the same. Obtaining the highest number of *otes in an
election does not automaticall/ *est the position of the &ining candidate.
?nder )ection 1C %rticle '" of the 18C Constitution, the electoral tribunal clearl/ assumes
4urisdiction o*er all contests relati*e to the election, returns and Dualifications of candidates for
either the )enate or the +ouse onl/ &hen the latter become members of either the )enate or the
+ouse of Representati*es. % candidate &ho has not been proclaimed and &ho has not ta>en his
oath of office cannot be said to be a member of the +ouse of Representati*es.
7hile the proclamation of a &inning candidate in an election is ministerial, .P 881 allo&s
suspension of proclamation. E*en after the elections, the CO9E,EC is empo&ered to continue
to hear and decide Duestions relating to the Dualifications of candidates. :his rule is applicable
not onl/ in disDualification cases but also to den/ due course to or cancel a certificate of
candidac/.
Hurther, CO9E,EC erred in its order proclaiming the candidate obtaining the second highest
number of *otes. :he ineligibilit/ of a candidate recei*ing ma4orit/ *otes does not entitle the
eligible candidate recei*ing the ne3t highest number of *otes to be declared elected. % minorit/
or defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office.
So'al Weat&er Statons. In'. v. CO=ELEC, =a- 2, #$$"
Fa'ts+ )7) is a research institution &hich conducts sur*e/s &hile Mamahalan Publishing
publishes such election sur*e/s.
- :he/ filed this action for prohibiton to en4oin CO9E,EC from enforcing )ection Q.E of R%
AAO #Hair Election %ct$
2
arguing that it constitutes a prior restraint on the e3ercise of freedom of
speech &ithout an/ clear and present danger to 4ustif/ such restraint.
o :hese sur*e/s did not cause confusion among the *oters and there is no e*idence to
sho& that there is an immediate and ine*itable danger in the *oting process.
- CO9E,EC 4ustifies such as necessar/ to pre*ent the manipulation and corruption of the
electoral process b/ unscrupulous and erroneous sur*e/s 4ust before the election
o Hurther, the restriction is onl/ for a limited duration. :here is no total ban
Issue+ 7ON )ection Q.E of R% AAO constitutes an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of
speech, e3pression and the press.
Held+ 8E)[ :he ban on election sur*e/s cannot be 4ustified on the ground that there are other
countries &hich has a similar restriction. :he court noted that the ?) has no such restriction.
:he test to determine the constitutional *alidit/ of )ection Q.E of R% AAO is the O=brien test #?)
*. O=.rien$5 % go*ernment regulation is sufficientl/ 4ustified5
1. if it is &ithin the constitutional po&er of the @o*ernment2
2. if it furthers an important or substantial go*ernmental interest2
6. if the go*ernmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free e3pression2 and
E. if the incidental restriction on alleged Hreedoms of speech, e3pression and press is no
greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.
2
)ur*e/s affecting national candidates shall not be published fifteen #1Q$ da/s before an
election and sur*e/s affecting local candidates shall not be published se*en #C$ da/s be( fore an
election.
?nder this test, e*en if a la& furthers an important or substantial go*ernmental interest, it should
be in*alidated if such go*ernmental interest is Bnot unrelated to the E3pression of free
e3pression.B 9oreo*er, e*en if the purpose is unrelated to the suppression of free speech, the
la& should ne*ertheless be in*alidated if the restriction on freedom of e3pression is greater than
is necessar/ to achie*e the go*ernmental purpose in Duestion.
+ERE, )ection Q.E fails to meet the abo*e criteria.
@irst, it fails to meet the 6
rd
criterion. :the purpose of the restriction is for the integrit/
of election. +o&e*er, such go*ernmental interest in fact suppresses a &hole class of e3pression
and not 4ust election sur*e/s. )uch go*ernmental interest is not limited to a class of e3pression
&hich ma/ be proscribed.
Hurther, the prohibition ma/ onl/ be for a limited time but the curtailment of the right of
e3pression is direct, absolute, and substantial. "t constitutes a total suppression of a categor/ of
speech and is not made less so because it is onl/ for a period of fifteen #1Q$ da/s immediatel/
before a national election and se*en #C$ da/s immediatel/ before a local election.
Second. "t fails to meet the E
th
criterion of the O=.rien test. )ection Q.E aims at the
pre*ention of last(minute pressure on *oters, the creation of band&agon effect, B4un>ingB of &ea>
or BlosingB candidates, and resort to the form of election cheating called Bdagdag(ba&as.B
+o&e*er, these cannot be attained at the sacrifice of the fundamental right of e3pression, &hen
such aim can be more narro&l/ pursued b/ punishing unla&ful acts, rather than speech because
of apprehension that such speech creates the danger of such e*ils.
:hese aims can be achie*ed b/ other means. :he CO9E,EC has the po&er to confiscate
bogus sur*e/ results calculated to mislead *oters.
%s to the band&agon effect, such cannot 4ustif/ the restriction of free speech.
ABS3CBN Broad'astn% Cor!. v. CO=ELEC, .anuar- #J, #$$$
Fa'ts+ CO9E,EC issued a resolution &hich restrained %.)(C.N or other groups from
conducting e3it sur*e/ on the ground that the/ might conflict &ith the official CO9E,EC count
and the unofficial count of N%9HRE,.
Issue+ 7ON CO9E,EC=s resolution is *alid.
Held+ NO[ :he holding of e3it polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media
constitute an essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the press. +ence, the CO9E,EC
cannot ban them totall/ in the guise of promoting clean, honest, orderl/ and credible elections.
Suite the contrar/, e3it polls properl/ conducted and publici<ed can be *ital tools in eliminating
the e*ils of election(fi3ing and fraud. Narro&l/ tailored countermeasures ma/ be prescribed b/
the CO9E,EC so as to minimi<e or suppress the incidental problems in the conduct of e3it
polls, &ithout transgressing in an/ manner the fundamental rights of our people.
%n e8t !oll is a species of electoral sur*e/ conducted b/ Dualified indi*iduals or groups of
indi*iduals for the purpose of determining the probable result of an election b/ confidentiall/
as>ing randoml/ selected *oters &hom the/ ha*e *oted for, immediatel/ after the/ ha*e officiall/
cast their ballots. :he results of the sur*e/ are announced to the public, usuall/ through the
mass media, to gi*e an ad*ance o*er*ie& of ho&, in the opinion of the polling indi*iduals or
organi<ations, the electorate *oted.
"n determining &hether there &as an abridgment of freedom of speech, the court applied the
clear and present danger test(( :he Duestion in e*er/ case is &hether the &ords used are used
in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that
the/ &ill bring about the substanti*e e*ils that Congress has a right to pre*ent. "t is a Duestion of
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 2O
pro3imit/ and degree.
+ERE, the ban &as aimed at ensuring a free, orderl/, honest, credible and peaceful election.
CO9E,EC contends that an e3it poll has the tendenc/ to so& confusion considering the
randomness of selecting inter*ie&ees, &hich further ma>es the e3it poll highl/ unreliable. "n
other &ords, the e3it poll has a clear and present danger of destro/ing the credibilit/ and
integrit/ of the electoral process.
+O7E'ER, the )C held that such arguments are purel/ speculati*e. :he e3it polls merel/
consist of the opinion of the polling group as to &ho the electorate has probabl/ *oted for.
Hurther, there is no sho&ing that conducting such e3it poll is disrupti*e.
:here are other &a/s b/ &hich CO9E,EC can achie*e the purposes mentioned b/ limiting the
area for conducting e3it polls or onl/ allo&ing a professional sur*e/ to conduct such. :he
inter*ie&ers ma/ be reDuired to e3plain to *oters that the/ are not reDuired to ans&er or that it is
not part of the official balloting process and etc.
9oreo*er, the contention that it *iolates the sanctit/ of the ballot has no merit. %.)(C.N does
not see> to access the ballots cast b/ the *oters. "n e3it polls, the contents of the official ballot
are not actuall/ e3posed. Hurthermore, the re*elation of &hom an elector has *oted for is not
compulsor/, but *oluntar/. 'oters ma/ also choose not to re*eal their identities.
P&l!!ne Press Insttute, In'. v. CO=ELEC, =a- ##, "112
Fa'ts+ PP" is contesting the constitutional *alidit/ of a CO9E,EC resolution No. 2CC2, directing
publishers of mass media to pro*ide free print space as CO9E,EC )pace and it also see>s to
prohibit undue reference to candidates or political parties, on the ground that it amounts to a
ta>ing of a pri*ate propert/ for a public purpose &ithout 4ust compensation, it constitutes
in*oluntar/ ser*itude, and it is *iolati*e of freedom of speech. CO9E,EC alleges that its
subseDuent resolution #res. No. 2CC2(%$ clarified that the former resolution does not force
publishers to pro*ide the space under pain of prosecution.
Held+ )C said that the case is not moot and academic as resolution 2CC2(% did not redraft
pertinent sections of res. No. 2CC2. :he resolution amounts to an undue ta>ing of pri*ate
propert/ as the ta>ing is not 4ustified under the police po&er of the )tate. No attempt &as made
to demonstrate that a real and palpable or urgent necessit/ for the ta>ing of print space
confronted the Comelec and that )ection 2 of Resolution No. 2CC2 &as itself the onl/
reasonable and calibrated response to such necessit/ a*ailable to the Comelec.
7ith regard to the prohibition to undue reference, the issue is not ripe for 4udicial re*ie& due to
the lac> of actual case or contro*ers/.
II. THE CO==ISSION ON ELECTIONS
III. RE7UIRE=ENTS BEFORE THE ELECTION
I<. ELECTION CA=PAI5N AND E:PENDITURES
<. THE ELECTION
<I. CONTESTED ELECTIONS
Balndon% v. CO=ELEC, Au%ust 1, "11F
Fa'ts+ Petitioner contends that the CO9E,EC gra*el/ abused its discretion in refusing to annul
the results in Precinct No. E despite its finding that the transfer of the polling place &as not in
accordance &ith la& and to order a technical e3amination of the signatures and thumbmar>s in
the ,ist of 'oters and in the 'otersI %ffida*its.
Held+ :he )upreme Court held that, although the CO9E,EC declared the transfer of the polling
place to be illegal, the fact is that onl/ OO, out of 2QQ registered *oters in Precinct No. E, &ere
not able to *ote. :his &as not enough to change the outcome of the election as the petitioner=s
ri*al leads b/ 1E *otes.
:echnical e3amination of *oting paraphernalia in*ol*ing anal/sis and comparison of *otersI
signatures and thumbprints thereon is prohibited in pre(proclamation cases.
Loon% v. CO=ELEC, =a- "F, "11F
Fa'ts+ Pri*ate respondent &as successful in ha*ing the election in Parang, )ulu annulled. :he
CO9E,EC, ho&e*er, did not heed the petition of the petitioner in ha*ing the elections in Q other
municipalities in )ulu annulled on the ground of fair pla/! as he has onl/ brought it upon the
a&areness of CO9E,EC after the petition for annulment of pri*ate respondent.
Held+ 7hile, ho&e*er, the CO9E,EC is restricted, in pre(proclamation cases, to an e3amination
of the election returns on their face and is &ithout 4urisdiction to go be/ond or behind them and
in*estigate election irregularities, the CO9E,EC is dut/ bound to in*estigate allegations of
fraud, terrorism, *iolence and other analogous causes in actions for annulment of election
results or for declaration of failure of elections, as the Omnibus Election Code denominates the
same. :hus, the CO9E,EC, in the case of actions for annulment of election results or
declaration of failure of elections, ma/ conduct technical e3amination of election documents and
compare and anal/<e *otersI signatures and fingerprints in order to determine &hether or not the
elections had indeed been free, honest and clean.
:he CO9E,EC acted &ithin its 4urisdiction in ta>ing cogni<ance of the pri*ate respondentsI
petition to annul the election results of or to declare failure of elections in Parang, )ulu, but it
committed gra*e abuse of discretion &hen confronted &ith essentiall/ the same situation in
petitionersI o&n petition to annul the elections of or to declare failure of elections in Q
municipalities.
:he CO9E,EC arbitraril/ and &ithout *alid ground dismissed the said petition respecting the
aforementioned fi*e municipalities. :he untimeliness of the petition is an untenable argument for
such dismissal, because la& pro*ides for a reglementar/ period &ithin &hich to file annulment of
elections &hen there is as /et no proclamation. :he CO9E,EC e3ercised gra*e abuse of
discretion in dimissing the case on the doctrine of fairness although it alread/ noted some
badges of fraud in elections on the said Q municipalities. 1ustice, fairness and eDuit/, therefore,
reDuire that the Commission should conduct a similar technical e3amination to determine if
*oting irregularities in the 9unicipalit/ of Parang &ere similarl/ perpetrated in these fi*e
municipalities
A,!atuan v. CO=ELEC, .anuar- ;", #$$#
Fa'ts+ Petitioner Duestions &hether the Commission on Elections &as di*ested of its 4urisdiction
to hear and decide respondents= petition for declaration of failure of elections after he had been
proclaimed.
Held+ :he )upreme Court held that it &as not di*ested of its 4urisdiction. :he fact that a
candidate proclaimed has assumed office does not depri*e the Comelec of its authorit/ to annul
an/ can*ass and illegal proclamation. :he petitioner=s proclamation and assumption cannot be
presumed to be legal precisel/ because the conduct b/ &hich the elections &ere held &as put in
issue b/ respondents in their petition for annulment of election results and0or declaration of
failure of elections.
Respondents= allegation of massi*e fraud and terrorism that attended the election in the affected
municipalities cannot be ta>en lightl/ as to &arrant the dismissal of their petition b/ the Comelec
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 2C
on the simple prete3t that petitioners had been proclaimed &inners. "f the allegations could be
pro*en, it could &arrant a declaration of failure of elections.
<ela-o v. CO=ELEC, =ar'& 1, #$$$
Fa'ts+ Petitioner &as not gi*en notice about the pre(proclamation proceedings instituted against
him b/ the pri*ate respondent before the CO9E,EC. %ll that he recei*ed &as the en banc
decision of CO9E,EC annulling his proclamation. :he basis of the decision &as the ne& and
additional e*idence submitted b/ the pri*ate respondents &hich &ere not presented before the
9unicipal .oard of Can*assers.
Held+ :he )upreme Court held that although the la& pro*ides that pre(proclamation cases are
summar/ in nature, it cannot be stretched to mean e3 parte. :he ad*erse part/ must at the *er/
least be notified so that he can be apprised of the nature and purpose of the proceeding.
%lso, the decision of CO9E,EC must be based on the official records and e*idence adduced b/
the parties before the .oard of Can*assers. "t appears in this case that the decision &as not
based on that but on ne& and additional e*idence &hich &ere not presented before the .oard of
Can*assers. E*en if these e*idence &ere to be considered, the/ don=t ha*e enough e*identiar/
*alue as the/ &ere onl/ affida*its of &atchers of pri*ate respondent.
Se!arate O!non /=endoHa0+ Noting and hearing is no longer reDuired as effected b/ the
amendment of the Omnibus Election Code. :his is not *iolati*e of -ue Process as the parties
ha*e alread/ been dul/ heard before the board of can*assers, and their case ele*ated to the
CO9E,EC on the basis of the records of the board.
:he CO9E,EC in this case bent o*er to accommodate pri*ate respondent b/ allo&ing ne& and
additional e*idence. :his &as in disregard of the clear mandate of the la& to base its decision on
the records and e*idence ele*ated to it b/ the board of can*assers. :his depri*ed the petitioner
due process.
<II. ELECTION OFFENSES
4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 28