ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST REYNALDO C.

ALCANTARA,
UTILITY WORKER I, BR. 70, AND JOSEPH C. JACINTO, ELECTRICIAN, HALL OF
JUSTICE, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BURGOS, PANGASINAN

A.M. No. P-15-3296,[Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-4364-P],February 17, 2015

En Banc, Per Curiam:
Grave Misconduct
Alcantara admitted to stealing and encashing the checks of Tugade and Español and put up the
lame excuse that he was forced to do it because of his dire financial situation at the time. The
Office of the Court Administrator found them guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty. Is the
OCA correct in ruling as such?
Yes, There is no doubt that their acts of repeatedly stealing the checks and forging the signatures
of their coworkers constitute grave misconduct and dishonesty. Their alleged remorse for what
they have done does not erase the transgression they committed. "This Court will not hesitate to
rid its ranks of undesirables who undermine its efforts toward an effective and efficient
administration of justice, thus tainting its image in the eyes of the public. Serious dishonesty and
grave misconduct are punishable by dismissal from service even if for the first offense.

Mary-Ann S. Tordilla vs. Lorna H. Amilano, Court Stenographer III, Branch 61, Regional
Trial Court, Naga City, Camarines Sur, A.M. No. P-14-3241, February 4, 2015, First
Division, Perlas Bernabe
Just Debts
11 Stenographers solicited funds from the City Government of Naga. The complainant was
included in the cash advance solicited. Upon inspection of the Disbursement Voucher the
complainant found out that the respondent signed and received the amount of the cash advance
on her behalf. The OCA found respondent guilty of simple misconduct instead of willful refusal
to pay just debts, as her alleged debt to complainant was not a claim adjudicated by a court of
law. Was the OCA correct?
Partly. It was not simple misconduct because the term "just debts" refers also to claims the
existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor, as respondent in this case.
However, she committed willful refusal to pay just debts. When the gravamen of the offense is
the unwillingness to pay a just obligation, the more accurate finding would be to hold the
errant employee liable for willful failure to pay just debts.

Leave Division - O.A.S., Office of the Court Administrator vs. Tyke J. Sarceno

A.M. No. P-11-2930 ,February 17, 2015

EN BANC, PER CURIAM
Conduct Prejudicial to Public Service
The OCA found that Sarceno(Clerk III of RTC Branch Manila) had incurred absences
totaling 92 days spread in months of June to September all in 2009 and 37 absences in 2010
without justifiable reasons. He was found to be guilty of habitual absenteeism and meted
out with penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of benefits. Whether or not he
should also be held liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

Yes, Sarceno’s habitual absenteeism has caused inefficiency in the public service. This Court has
made the pronouncement that any act which falls short of the exacting standards for public
service, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image of the judiciary shall not
be countenanced. Conduct is prejudicial to the public service if it violates the norm of public
accountability and diminishes or tends to diminish the people’s faith in the judiciary.

RE: REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT THE MUNICIPAL

TRIAL COURT, BALIUAG, BULACAN
A.M. No. P-15-3298, February 4, 2015
First Division, Sereno
Gross Misconduct

Miranda, former OIC-Clerk of Court, failed to explain the shortages incurred for the different
fund accounts. Cruz, former clerk of court, failed to deposit her collections on time. Ms. Cruz
explained that the delay in the remittances of Fiduciary Fund collections amounting to 1,230,780,
as of September 2004, admittedly occurred when she lost track of her duties as accountable
officer because of family problems and health conditions. Are they administratively liable?

YES. Ms. Miranda’s failure to deposit her collections constitutes gross neglect of duties and
dishonesty as an accountable officer entrusted with the collection of money belonging to the
court. She is guilty of dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, and grave misconduct.
With respect to Ms. Cruz, while she has admitted the delay in the deposit of her collections, she
has also explained that the reason for her shortcomings. While her explanation and supporting
documents do not absolve her of liability, she is directed to pay a fine.

SM LAND, INC. vs Bases Conversion and Development Authority

and Arnel Paciano D. Casanova, Esq., in his official capacity as President and CEO of BCDA
G.R. No. 203655, March 18, 2015,
Special Third Division, Velasco, Jr.
 Administrative Issuances

SMLI submitted to the BCDA unsolicited proposals for the development of the latter’s
‘Bonifacio Southroad Property’ through a public-private joint venture agreement. BCDA,
through Joint Venture Selection Committee it created after following NEDA JV Guidelines,
issued a Certification of Successful Negotiations. As mandated by the guidelines, the Joint
Venture activity, upon the successful completion of the detailed negotiation phase, shall be
subjected to a competitive challenge to determine whether or not there are other private sector
entitles that can match SMLI’s proposal. While it is not disputed that respondents failed to
comply with the pertinent provisions of the NEDA JV Guidelines, they postulate that it is
justifiable since it is a mere guideline and not law. Are the respondents correct?
No. Administrative issuances, such as the NEDA JV Guidelines, duly promulgated pursuant to
the rule-making power granted by statute, have the force and effect of law.

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SOCORRO T. POSADA, RENATO

BUENO, ALICE BALIN, ADRIAN TABLIZO, TEOFILO TABLIZO, AND LYDIA T.
OLIVO, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, ALFREDO M. OLIVO, ALICIA O.
SALAZAR, ANITA O. ORDONO, ANGELITA O. LIM, AND ADELFA O.
ESPINAS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 191945, March 11, 2015

SECOND DIVISION, Leonen, J.
Expropriation
The National Power Corporation instituted expropriation proceedings. Subsequently, the NPC
informed its counsel that it no longer needed the properties as it was set to acquire an alternative
site and requested its counsel to withdraw the expropriation proceedings before the trial court.
May the NPC may be allowed to withdraw the expropriation proceedings?
Yes. Considering that eminent domain is the taking of private property for public use, no
expropriation proceeding can continue if the property to be expropriated will not be for public
use. This is however subject to different exceptions: First, the trial court's order already became
final and executory; second, the government already took possession of the property; lastly, the
expropriation case already caused prejudice to the landowner. The expropriation case is not
automatically dismissed when the property ceases to be for public use. The state must first
file the appropriate Motion to Withdraw before the trial court having jurisdiction over the
proceedings.

General Mariano Alvarez Services Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO) v. National Housing

Authority (NHA) and General Mariano Alvarez Water District (GMAWD), G.R. No.
175417 and 198923, February 9, 2015, Third Division, Peralta.
Water system
NHA awarded a water work system to GEMASCO. GEMASCO, however, experienced internal
problems. NHA temporarily intervened and took the management and supervision of the water
work system. NHA, subsequently, entered into a Deed of Transfer and Acceptance (DTA) with
GMAWD and transferred to the latter the operations and management of the water system.
GEMASCO now assails the validity of the DTA entered into by NHA and GMAWD. Is the DTA
valid?

Yes. NHA being the government agency with the authority to award water system management
and administration, verily, it also has the power to revoke such award and look for another
qualified entity to operate the system. When the operation and management of GEMASCO
suffered conflicts, the NHA properly intervened and took over, and subsequently, replaced
GEMASCO with GMAWD.
ATTY. JACINTO C. GONZALES, v. MAILA CLEMEN F. SERRANO, G.R. No. 175433,
March 11, 2015, Third Division, Peralta.
Purpose of Administrative Proceedings
An administrative complaint filed by respondent against her direct superior, petitioner, for grave
misconduct, sexual harassment and acts of lasciviousness. (1)Does the petitioner’s act amounts
to grave misconduct worthy of dismissal from service? (2) May the issue of sexual harassment
be addressed in an administrative case despite the existence of a pending criminal case for sexual
harassment before the MTC?

(1)No. According Civil Service Commission Resolution (CSC) No. 01-0940 entitled the
Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases the sexual harassment offense
petitioner committed falls under less grave offenses with a penalty of 6 months suspension.

(2)Yes. Administrative and criminal charges are separate and distinct from each other even if
they arise from the same act or omission. The purpose of the administrative proceedings is
mainly to protect the public service, based on the principle that a public office is a public trust.
The purpose of the criminal prosecution is the punishment of crime.

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS vs.

ALFREDO S. LIM, in his capacity as mayor of the City of Manila G.R. No. 187836,
November 25, 2014.

JOSE L. ATIENZA, et.al vs. MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, et.al, G.R. No. 187916 En Banc,
Perez,J.

Police Power
The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8017 which prohibited Oil Companies from
maintaining oil depots in Pandacan, which was about to be implemented pursuant to a court
decision upholding its validity. Subsequently however, Ordinance No. 8187 was enacted,
allowing the oil companies to continue their stay in Pandacan. Should Ordinance 8017 still be
implemented?

Yes. In G.R. No. 156052, the court held that the enactment of the said ordinance was a valid
exercise of police power with the concurrence of the two requisites: a lawful subject – "to
safeguard the rights to life, security and safety of all the inhabitants of Manila;" and a lawful
method – the enactment of Ordinance No. 8027 reclassifying the land use from industrial to
commercial, which ends the continued stay of the oil depots in Pandacan. Any delay in its
implementation due to the subsequent issuance of a contrary ordinance is invalid.

Marrieta De Castro vs. People of the Philippines

GR No. 171672, February 02, 2015
Right Against Self-Incrimination
De Castro, was convicted for four counts of estafa through falsification of a commercial
document. On the course of the trial, pieces of evidence were presented which includes the
withdrawal slips, her written and signed confession letter, and answers she wrote to the question
of the branch cluster head auditors. The last two pieces of evidence were made during
administrative investigation of her superiors. She now contends that her conviction was invalid
as her constitutional rights against self-incrimination, to due process and to counsel were denied.
Is De Castro’s contention meritorious?
No. The rights against self-incrimination and to counsel guaranteed under the Constitution
applies only during custodial interrogation of a suspect. The proceeding should be in the context
of an official proceeding for the investigation and prosecution for crime. In her case, she was not
subjected to any investigation by the police or any other law enforcement agents. Instead, she
underwent an administrative investigation.

The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections and the Election Officer of Bacolod
City, Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon | GR No. 205728
Freedom of Expression
Diocese of Bacolod placed 2 tarpaulins in front of the Bacolod Cathedral with the message
Conscience Vote with names of Anti- and Pro-Reproductive Health Law senatorial candidates.
Comelec ordered to remove the 6x10 ft. tarpaulin. Is Comelec’s order unconstitutional for
infringing on petitioner’s right to freedom of expression on their own private property and a
violation of church and state?
YES. Petitioner’s message was a matter of public concern, the message and mode of conveyance
used for its communication and expression to the public is entitled to protection under the Free
Expression clause. There is no compelling and substantial State interest that will be endangered.
YES. The views and position of the petitioners on the RH bill is inextricably connected to its
Catholic dogma, it’s a right of the Church to propagate its teachings which should be insulated
from any encroachment on the part of the State by virtue of the principle of the Separation of
Church and State.
ANA THERESIA “RISA” HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, et.al. v. TOLL REGULATORY
BOARD, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS (DOTC),et.al.
G.R. No. 181293, February 23, 2015
First Division, Sereno
Qualified Political Agency

Petitioners filed a complaint to prohibit the implementation of the amendment to the

Supplemental Toll Operation Agreement (ASTOA) and the memorandum of agreement (MOA)
executed by the Republic of the Philippines, which was approved by the DOTC Secretary. Under
the ASTOA and MOA, SOMCO replaced PSC in performing the operations and maintenance of
the South Metro Manila Skyway. Is the approval of the ASTOA by the DOTC Secretary valid?

Yes. The doctrine of qualified political agency declares that, save in the matters on which the
Constitution or the circumstances require the President to act personally, executive and
administrative functions are exercised through executive departments headed by the cabinet
secretaries, whose acts are presumptively the acts of the President unless disapprove by the latter.
Approval of the ASTOA by the DOTC Secretary had the same effect as approval by the
President.

The Law Firm of Consulta and Gastardo v. Commission on Audit.

G.R. No. 185544 January 13, 2015.En Banc, Leonen.
Engagement of Private Counsel by a government Entity

Clark Development Corporation (CDC), a GOCC, engaged the law firm of Consulta and
Gastardo for its assistance in handling the corporation’s labor cases without final acquiescence
from the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC). Thus, the OGCC denied the
corporation’s request for clearance and disbursement of funds. Is OGCC correct?

Yes. As a rule, GOCCs are not allowed to engage the legal services of private counsels as
they must refer all their legal matters to the OGCC. However, in exceptional and extraordinary
circumstances, they may do so provided it is with written conformity and acquiescence of the
OSG or the Government Corporate Counsel, as the case may be, and concurrence of the CoA.
Otherwise, its officials bind themselves to be personally liable for compensating private
counsel’s services.

Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Jesus Alsua, GR No. 211351, 4 February 2015,
First Division, Perlas-Bernabe.
Just Compensation
Aldua owned an unregistered parcel of land sold to the government under RA 6657 (CARL).
OCTs in the names of agrarian reform beneficiaries were issued. How should just compensation
be determined?

The FMV of expropriated property is determined by its character and price at the time of taking
or when landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property. Factors enumerated
under Sec. 17, RA 6657 (a) acquisition cost of the land, (b) current value of like properties, (c)
nature and actual use of property and income therefrom, (d) owner’s sworn valuation, (e) tax
declarations, (f) assessment made by government assessors, (g) social and economic benefits
contributed by farmers and farmworkers, and by government to the property, and (h) non-
payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on said land.
Interest may be imposed at 12% p.a. from the time of taking until June 30, 2013 and at 6% p.a.
from July 1, 2013 until fully paid.

A.M. No. P-14-3194 (Formerly A.M. No. 14-1-01-MTC), January 27, 2015, OFFICE OF
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. CONSTANTINO P. REDOÑA,
FORMER CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, TANAUAN, LEYTE,
RESPONDENT.
En Banc, PER CURIAM:

Gross Misconduct

A financial audit on the Books of Accounts of the MTC, Tanauan, Leyte, was conducted by the
Audit Team due to the application for separation benefits under Section 11, paragraph (b) of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8291 of Constantino P. Redoña.
The audit found that Redoña failed to report and remit the collections on time, and tampered the
receipts to cover up missing collections for several instances.
On March 3, 2014, the Court resolved to re-docket the Report dated November 5, 2013 as a
regular administrative matter against Redoña.

RULING

Shortages in the amounts to be remitted and the years of delay in the actual remittances
constitute gross neglect of duty, gross misconduct and dishonesty for which Redoña should be
administratively liable.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, v. AVELINO DE ZOSA and BARTOLOME DELA

CRUZ,
G.R. No. 205433, January 21, 2015, First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Grave Misconduct
The Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Kawit, Cavite, passed a Resolution which
lowered the determined assessed value of a government lot to be sold pursuant to a Municipal
Appraiser Board Resolution. Thereafter, an administrative case was filed against the members of
the SB. The Ombudsman found them guilty of Grave Misconduct, which was reversed by the
Court of Appeals. Was the reversal valid?

Yes, Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence
are conclusive. Conversely, therefore, when the findings of fact by the Ombudsman are not
adequately supported by substantial evidence, they shall not be binding upon the courts."

Further, The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment and
must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer’s
official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to
discharge the duties of the office.

People of the Philippines vs. Tomas Dimacuha, Jr., et. al., GR No. 191060, February 2, 2015
Due Process
Alvarez and Caballero were charged with the crime of murder for the fatal shooting of Agon.
After trial, RTC found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Upon appeal with the Court of
Appeals, the decision of the RTC was affirmed and thus, both appealed the decision to the
Supreme Court alleging that the evidence was insufficient to warrant their conviction and on the
basis that they were denied due process when the RTC ordered the discontinuance of their
presentation of additional witnesses. Are the allegations meritorious?
The court may be allowed to discontinue such if the accuseds intentionally caused delay to the
presentation of their evidence. This is based on the concept of speedy trial, as this is available not
only to the accused but also to the State because the aggrieved also have the same rights.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RAKIM MINANGA Y DUMANSAL;

GR NO. 202837, JANUARY 21, 2015
Search and Seizure

The present petition is on the apparent illegality of the arrest and seizure of the dangerous drugs
taken in a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant Rakim Dumansal. Apellant claims that
there was no inventory of the prohibited items allegedly seized from him and by such omission,
there is doubt as to the identity of the drugs and there was a break in the chain of custody. Is the
accused-appellant correct?
No. According to Sec 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 on the Custody and Disposition of confiscated
dangerous drugs, that non-compliance under justificable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team, shall
NOT render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
Republic of the Philippines v. Huang Te Fu, a.k.a. Robert Uy, GR No. 200983, 18 March
2015, Del Castillo, Second Division
Naturalization
Huang, a citizen of China, sought to become a Filipino citizen by virtue of CA No. 473. His
sworn declaration stated that he is engaged in the manufacturing business, earning a monthly
income of Php15K. His petition was granted. Petitioner filed an appeal alleging that respondent
failed to comply that he must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation,
as respondent was merely given allowances by his parents for the daily expenses of his family. Is
the contention correct?
Yes. An applicant for naturalization must show full and complete compliance with the
requirements of the naturalization law. The monthly income declared by the respondent belies
the conclusion that he is engaged in a lucrative trade as it is not enough for the support of his
family. His family’s daily expenses are still shouldered by his parents, who own the
manufacturing business. Respondent is not an employee of the business as he is not included in
the payroll.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Federico Daclan, et al./Federico Daclan, et al. vs. Republic of the
Philippines, etc., et al., G.R. No. 197115/ G.R. No. 197267, March 23, 2015
Second Division, Del Castillo, J.:
Devolution

In support of the Agoo Breeding project by the Department of Agriculture, plaintiffs donated parcels of
land in favor of Republic. The donations were subject to an automatic reversion in case of non-use,
abandonment of the activities. Pursuant to the Local Government Code, the function of the Department
of Agriculture were devolved to the local government unit, including the operation of the breeding
station. The donors demanded the return of their donated lands.

Devolution cannot have any effect on the donations. Devolution refers to the act by which the national
government confers power and authority upon the local government units to perform specific functions
and responsibilities. While the breeding station was transferred to the Province by the Department of
Agriculture by reason of devolution, it continued to function as a breeding station; and the purpose for
the donations remained and was carried out. The donation did not prohibit the subsequent transfer of
the donated lands by the donee Republic.