LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS - ELIGIBILITY AND QUALIFICATIONS OF PUBLIC PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION (RED):

OFFICERS
- No holdover period is applicable to Sangunian members.
FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ (Mayor) and LENLIE LECAROZ (Son, Kabataang - Payroll signed by Mayor Lecaroz for Lenlie as SB Member is fraudulent
- He has been qualified to hold office as Sangunian Member since its oath taking
Barangay Chairman) vs. Sandiganbayan
with the Assemblywoman.
(GR NO. 130872 25 March 1999, Bellosillo, J)
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:
DOCTRINE:
- Hold over is applicable to Sangunian Members inspite of absence of express
The concept of holdover when applied to a public officer implies that the office has a provision.
fixed term and the incumbent is holding onto the succeeding term. - Payroll issued to Lenlie is just being issued during the holdover period.
- At the time Red took his oath to an Assemblywoman, such was not yet allowed
Absent an express or implied constitutional or statutory provision to holdover, an officer by law to administer oaths, hence, invalid.
is entitled to stay in office until his successor is appointed or chosen and has qualified.
The legislative intent of not allowing holdover must be clearly expressed or at least ISSUE:
implied in the legislative enactment, otherwise it is reasonable to assume that the law-
1. WON Red is qualified as KB sectoral representative to the SB in 1986?
making body favors the same.
2. WON Lenlie Lecaroz is not qualified to hold over after his term expired?
FACTS:
RULING:
- Francisco Lecaroz who was then the Mayor of Santa Cruz, Marinduque and
1. No. In 1986 when he was initially appointed by Pres. Marcos, what he initially
Lenlie Lecaroz, his son was the outgoing chairman of Kabataang Barangay who
provided was a mere telegram informing of his supposed appointment together
has a co-terminous membership in Sanguniang Bayan.
with the photocopy of Mass Appointment. Absent the authenticated copies of
- Upon the expiration of Lenlie’s term in 1985, Jowil Red won as KB Chairman. He
the appointment papers, Red has no right to assume office as KB representative
then received a telegram informing him that he was appointed by President
to the Sanggunian and Mayor Lecaroz has the right to withhold recognition of
Marcos as member of the Sanguniang Bayan of Santa Cruz attaching therein
Red as member of SB.
photocopy of the subject mass appointment letter.
- Mayor Lecaroz informed him that he cannot sit yet in the Sangunian until he
Another point, it appeared that Red has the appointment papers signed by Pres.
has been cleared by the Governor of Marinduque.
Marcos with him since January 1986 but only forwarded the same on April
- Red had his appointment papers sometime in January 1986 but only submitted
1986 during which time Pres. Marcos is no longer incumbent and was already
the same to Mayor Lecaroz on April 1986 (when President Aquino has already
replaced by Pres. Aquino. Hence, Freedom Constitution (Sec 2. Art. III) being in
taken over). However, Lecaroz still did not allow Red pending clarification from
effect already.
Minister of Interior and Local Government on the validity of Red’s appointment
which conflicts the Sec. 2 of Art III of Freedom Constitution1.
The act of Mayor Lecaroz of clarifying with the Minister of Interior and Local
- Only after three years and nine months from Marcos’ appointment was Red
Gov’t re: the validity of appointment is impelled with prudence as he is duty
able to secure from Aquino Administartion a confirmation of his appointment
bound to observe the provisions Prov. Memo Circular No. 86-02 which requires
as KB Sectoral Representative to the Sanguniang Bayan of Santa Cruz.
authenticated copies of appointment from incumbent president in order for KB
- He then filed criminal complaints for estafa thru falsification against petitioners
Chairman to hold membership position in SB.
for the alleged unlawful payrolls during the holdover period of Lenlie Lecaroz
as SB member.
With regard to the alleged oath taking administered, the court mentioned that
an oath of office is a qualifying requirement for a public office; a prerequisite to
1
the full investiture with the office. Only when the public officer has satisfied
All elective and appointive officials and employees under 1973 Constitution shall continue in office until otherwise
provided by proclamations or executive order or upon designation of their successors if such appointment was made the prerequisite of oath that his right to enter into the position becomes
within a period of one (1) year from 26 February 1986.
 plenary and complete. Until then, he has none at all. And for as long as he has
not qualified, the holdover officer is the rightful occupant. Hence, since Red
took an oath of office to an Assemblywoman (not one of those qualified under
the law), Red did not qualify hence, a holdover officer is the rightful occupant.
2. Yes. Although BP 51 does not say that Sanggunian member can continue to
occupy a post after the expiration of his term in case his successor fails to
qualify, it does not also say that he is proscribed from holding over. Absent an
express or implied constitutional or statutory provision to the contrary, an
officer is entitled to stay in office until his successor is appointed or chosen and
has qualified.
Courts generally indulge in the strong presumption against a legislative intent
to create, by statute, a condition which may result in an executive or
administrative office becoming, for any period of time, wholly vacant or
unoccupied by one lawfully authorized to exercise its functions.
Further, the provisions of Freedom Constitution and implementing MILG
Circulars virtually confirmed right of incumbent KB Federation Presidents to
hold and maintain their positions until duly replaced either by President herself
or by the Interior Minister.
OTHER NOTES:
With regard to the criminal action, court ruled that evil intent is wanting. Hence, they
cannot be held criminally liable for it.
DISQUALIFICATIONS – General and Specific Disqualification
PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER vs MAGDANGAL ELMA as Chief Presidential Legal
Counsel and as Chairman of Presidential Commission on Good Government
(GR No. 138965, 30 June 2006, Chico-Nazario, J.)
DOCTRINES:
Incompatible Offices - The crucial test in determining whether incompatibility exists
between two offices is whether one office is subordinate to the other, in the sense that
one office has the right to interfere with the other.
Section 7, Article IX-B – No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or
designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure. Unless
otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive
official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiairies. THIS APPLIES TO GENERAL DISQUALIFICATIONS.
Section 13, Article VII - The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and
their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold
any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure,
directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be
financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege
granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall
strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. – APPLIES TO SPECIFIC
DISQUALLIFICATIONS.
FACTS:
 30 October 1998 Elma was appointed and took his oath of office as Chairman of
Commission on Good Governance (PCGG)
 11 January 1999 Elma, during his tenure as PCGG Chairman, was appointed and
took his oath next day as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC), however
waived any remuneration arising therefrom.
 In 2001, appointees of Former President Estrada were replaced by appointees
of incumbent President Arroyo. PCGG Chairman now is Camilo Sabio while the
position vacated by the last CPLC (Nachura) has not yet been filled.
ISSUE:
WON Elma is disqualified to hold both office (PCGG Chairman and CPLC) concurrently.
RULING:
YES, the court ruled that Elma is disqualified to hold both offices concurrently under Sec.
7 Art.IX-B of the Constitution. It further ruled that there is incompatibility on the
functions of both offices held concurrently.
CPLC duties include giving independent and impartial legal advice on the actions of the
heads of various executive departments and agencies and to review investigations
involving heads of executive departments and agencies as well as other Presidential
appointees.
On the other hand, PCGG Chairman’s primary function involve the recovery of ill-gotten
wealth accumulated by former President Marcos, his family and associates, the
investigation of graft and corruption cases assigned to him by the President and
adoption of measures to prevent the occurrence of corruption. More importantly, PCGG
is an agency under the Executive Department. Hence, actions of PCGG Chairman are
subject to review of the CPLC.
However, with regard to Sec. 13 Art. VII, the court ruled that it is not applicable in the
instant case. Said provision specifically applies to Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries
and assistant secretaries. Neither the PCGG Chairman nor the CPLC is a secretary,
undersecretary nor an assistant secretary even if the former may have the same rank as
the latter positions.
Putting in harmony the above provisions, it was held that Sec. 7, Art. IX-B is meant to lay
down the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive public officials and
employees while Section 13 Article VII is meant to be the exception applicable only to the
President, VP, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants.
Despite non-applicability of Sec. 13 Art. VII to respondent Elma, he remains covered by
the general prohibition under Sec. 7, Art. IX-B and his appointments musts till comply
with the standard of compatibility of officers laid down therein; failure to do so renders
his appointment unconstitutional.
ELMA is disqualified to hold both office concurrently under general
disqualification.
Guys, please focus on the provision applicable per topic (General Disqualification,
Specific Disqualification). Pinagsama ko lang here.
Other Notes:
Exception to the rule against multiple offices:
1. Sec. 3 Art. VII authorizing VP to become a member of the cabinet.
2. Posts occupied by the Executive officials specified in Sec. 13 Art. VII without
additional compensation in an ex officio capacity as provided by law and as
required by the primary functions of said officials’ office.
It will not suffice that no additional compensation shall be received by virtue of the
second appointment, it is mandatory that the second post is required by primary
functions of the first appointment and is exercised in an ex officio capacity.
COMMENCEMENT OF OFFICIAL RELATIONS – BY APPOINTMENT
Obiasca vs. Basalotte, supra
G.R. No. 176707 February 17, 2010 (Justice Corona)
Facts and ruling copied from last week’s digest.
DOCTRINE:
Section 12, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 amended Section 9(h) of Presidential
Decree 807 by deleting the requirement that all appointments subject to Civil Service
Commission (CSC) approval be submitted to it within 30 days.
It cannot be overemphasized that respondent’s appointment became effective upon its
issuance by the appointing authority and it remained effective until disapproved by the
CSC (if at all it ever was). Disregarding this rule and putting undue importance on the
provision requiring the submission of the appointment to the CSC within 30 days will
reward wrongdoing in the appointment process of public officials and employees. It will
open the door for scheming officials to block the completion and implementation of an
appointment and render it ineffective by the simple expedient of not submitting the
appointment paper to the CSC.
Applying the rule under Article 1186 of the Civil Code that “[t]he condition shall be
deemed fulfilled when the obligor voluntarily prevents its fulfillment” to the
appointment process in the civil service, unless the appointee himself is negligent in
following up the submission of his appointment to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for
approval, he should not be prejudiced by any willful act done in bad faith by the
appointing authority to prevent the timely submission of his appointment to the CSC.
Sec. 9 Rule V of the Omnibus Rules states that, an appointment accepted by the appointee
cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the appointing authority and shall remain in force
and effect until disapproved by the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
There can be no appointment to a non-vacant position. The incumbent must first be
legally removed, or her appointment validly terminated, before another can be
appointed to succeed her.
FACTS:
 City Schools Division Superintendent Beloso appointed respondent Basallote to
the position of Administrative Officer II, of the DepEd, Tabaco National High
School in Albay.
 Subsequently, the City Schools Division Superintendent Oyardo advised School
Principal Gonzales that the papers of the applicants for the position of
Administrative Officer II of the school, including those of respondent, were
being returned and that a school ranking should be accomplished and
submitted to her office for review. In addition, Gonzales was advised that only
qualified applicants should be endorsed.
  Respondent assumed the office of Administrative Officer. Thereafter, however,
she received a letter from Human Resource Management Officer I of Tabaco
Albay that her appointment could not be forwarded to the CSC because of her
failure to submit the PDF duly signed by Gonzales.
 Respondent tried to obtain Gozales’ signature but refused despite repeated
requests. When respondent informed Oyardo of the situation, she was instead
advised to return to her former teaching position of Teacher I. Respondent
followed the advice.
 Meanwhile, Oyardo appointed petitioner Obiasca to the same position of
Administrative Officer II. The appointment was sent to and was properly
attested by the CSC.
 Thereafter, respondent filed a complaint with the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman to which it held that the Ombudsman found Oyardo and Gonzales
administratively liable for withholding information from respondent on the
status of her appointment, and suspended them from the service for three
months. Diaz was absolved of any wrongdoing.
 Respondent also filed a protest with CSC Regional Office but the protest was
dismissed on the ground that it should first be submitted to the Grievance
Committee of the DepEd for appropriate action. On MR, the protest was
reinstated but was eventually dismissed for lack of merit. Respondent appealed
the dismissal of her protest to the CSC Regional Office but dismissed the appeal
for failure to show that her appointment had been received and attested by the
CSC.
 Respondent elevated the matter to the CSC where it granted the appeal,
approved respondent’s appointment and recalled the approval of petitioner’s
appointment. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of
Appeals claiming that the CSC acted without factual and legal bases in recalling
his appointment.
YES. The court ruled that it is incorrect to interpret Section 9(h) of Presidential Decree
(PD) 807 as requiring that an appointment must be submitted by the appointing
authority to the CSC within 30 days from issuance, otherwise, the appointment would
become ineffective. Such interpretation fails to appreciate the relevant part of Section
9(h) which states that “an appointment shall take effect immediately upon issue by the
appointing authority if the appointee assumes his duties immediately and shall remain
effective until it is disapproved by the [CSC].” This provision is reinforced by Section 1,
Rule IV of the Revised Omnibus rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions.2
In this case, respondent promptly assumed her duties as Administrative Officer II when
her appointment was issued by the appointing authority. Thus, her appointment took
effect immediately and remained effective until disapproved by the CSC. Respondent’s
appointment was never disapproved by the CSC. In fact, the CSC was deprived of the
opportunity to act promptly as it was wrongly prevented from doing so. More
importantly, the CSC subsequently approved respondent’s appointment and recalled that
of petitioner, which recall has already become final and immutable. While it is true that
respondent’s appointment was not submitted to the CSC it is not imputable to be her
fault but because of unjustified refusal to sign by the HR Officer.
There is no dispute that the approval of the CSC is a legal requirement to complete the
appointment. Under settled jurisprudence, the appointee acquires a vested legal right to
the position or office pursuant to this completed appointment. Respondent’s
appointment was in fact already approved by the CSC with finality.
DISPOSITION: Petitioner’s appointment was inconsistent with the Law. Respondent’s
appointment was upheld.

CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER:

Petitioner argues that respondent was not validly appointed to the position of
Administrative Officer II because her appointment was never attested by the CSC.
Without such respondent’s appointment in the position was never completed and never
vested her a permanent title. Hence, can still be recalled or withdrawn by the appointing
authority.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:
Respondent points out that her appointment was wrongfully not submitted by the
proper persons to the CSC for attestation. The reason given by Oyardo for the non-
submission of respondent’s appointment papers to the CSC—the alleged failure of
respondent to have her PDF duly signed by Gonzales—was not a valid reason because
the PDF was not even required for the attestation of respondent’s appointment by the
CSC.

ISSUE: Whether or not Basallote’s appointment was valid?

2 An appointment issued in accordance with pertinent laws and rules shall take effect immediately upon
its issuance by the appointing authority, and if the appointee has assumed the duties of the position, he
RULING+RATIO: shall be entitled to receive his salary at once without awaiting the approval of his appointment by the
Commission. The appointment shall remain effective until disapproved by the Commission. x x x”