People vs.

Gacott, JR
G.R. No. 116049, July 13, 1995

Facts:

Respondent Judge Gacott was reprimanded and fined an amount of 10,000

pesos by the Supreme Court for gross ignorance of law when he granted the motion to
quash the criminal complaint filed against accused Strom and Reyes. As a result, he
(respondent judge) filed for a motion for reconsideration pleading that the spreading of
the aforesaid decision on his personal records be reconsidered for doing so will
foreclose any chance for his promotion.

Issue:

Whether the sanction imposed to respondent is constitutional considering

respondent’s contention that it is only the full court, not a division thereof, can
administratively punish him?

Ruling:

Yes, the sanction imposed to respondent judge is constitutional.

Under Section 11, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which states in the second
sentence that “The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of
lower courts, or, order their dismissal by a vote of majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberation on the issues in the case and voted thereon.”

In this case, the first clause of the said constitutional provisional is merely a
declaration of the grant of that disciplinary power to, and determination of the procedure
in the exercise thereof by, the Court en banc, so it was not therein intended that all
administrative disciplinary cases should be heard and decided by the whole Court.
Thus, the punishment imposed to him by the Second Division of the Court is valid and
constitutional.
 Cunanan vs. Tan
5 SCRA 1, 1962

Facts:

Petitioner Cunanan, who was the Acting Deputy Administrator of the

Reforestration, Department of Agriculture, was extended by the President an ad interim
appointment. However, said ad interim appointment was rejected by six senators and
seven members of the House of Representatives, purporting to act as the Commission
on Appointments when the seats of its 12 members were declared vacant. As a result,
the President designated respondent Tan as the Acting Deputy Administrator of
Reforestration, Department of Agriculture and immediately performed said functions
without the consent of the petitioner. Hence, this present petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the rejection of petitioner’s ad interim appointment was valid

considering that it was decided by 13 members of Congress who were just purporting to
act as the members of aforesaid commission?

Ruling:

No, the rejection of petitioner’s ad interim is invalid.

Under Section 11, Article VI of the 1935 Constitution which states that “there
shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of twelve (12) Senators and twelve
(12) members of the House of Representatives elected by each House, respectively, on
the basis of proportional representation of the political parties therein.”

In this case, the resolution declaring vacant the seats of the 12 members of
aforesaid commission is null for said resolution was voted by the Congress without the
consent of the other House. Furthermore, said resolution was made based on a shifting
of votes at a given time, thus, said reorganization of the membership of the Commission
of Appointments is not authorized. Otherwise, the Commission on Appointments may
have to be reorganized as often as votes shift from one side to another in the House.
With this, the rejection of the ad interim appointment of petitioner is invalid because it
was decided by 13 alleged members of the Commission on Appointments which was
invalidly reorganized.
 Liban vs. Gordon
593 SCRA, 2009

Facts:
Respondent Gordon was elected Chairman of the PNRC while still being a
member of the Senate. Hence, this present petition to declare the respondent as having
forfeited his seat in the Senate when he accepted the chairmanship of the PNRC.

Issue:
Whether or not PNRC is a government-owned or controlled corporation, thus, the
President appoints its Chairman or any other officers of said corporation?

Ruling:
No, the PNRC is not a government-owned or controlled corporation, thus, the
President cannot appoint its Chairman.
Under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which states in the third
sentence of its first paragraph that “the Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of
other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of
departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.”
In this case, the PNRC is not government owned or controlled corporation but
privately owned performing public functions, so the PNRC Chairman is not an official or
employee of the Executive branch or any other branch for that matter. Likewise, its
appointment does not fall under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. Thus,
the President does not have the power to appoint its Chairman.