Locgov

LLLC1IVL CIIICIALS, VACANCILS, SUCCLSSICN, DISCILINAk AC1ICNS
Ak1 III

93

Ak1 III:
A. L|ect|ve Cff|c|a|s
1. ua||f|cat|ons
2. D|squa||f|cat|ons
3. L|ect|on Cases Invo|v|ng L|ect|ve Cff|c|a|s
4. 1erm of Cff|ce, 1he 1hree 1erm L|m|t ku|e
S. 1enure of Cff|ce
6. Vacanc|es and Success|on
8. Appo|nt|ve Loca| Cff|c|a|s Commot to a|| Mun|c|pa||t|s, C|t|es and rov|nces
1. Leagues of Loca| 8arangay Un|ts and L|ect|ve Cff|c|a|s
2. r|vate Counse|]Lawyers for L|ect|ve Loca| Cff|c|a|s
C. D|sc|p||nary Act|ons
1. Sect|ons 60-68, LGC
2. Cases of Sexua| narrasment
3. D|sc|p||nary Act|ons over Loca| Appo|nt|ve Cff|c|a|s
kLCALL
nUMAN kLSCUkCL DLVLLCMLN1
1. ract|ce of rofess|on by Mayors, Governors, and other L|ect|ve Cff|c|a|s
2. C|v|| Serv|ce Law, ku|es, kegu|at|ons
LCCAL 8CAkDS AND CCUNCILS
LCCAL 1AkA1ICN AND IISCAL MA11LkS
LCCAL GCVLkNMLN1 UNI1S
A. 1he 8arangay
1. katarungan ambarangay
2. Sangun|ang kabataan
8. 1he Mun|c|pa||ty
C. 1he C|ty
D. 1he rov|nce
L. Loca| I|sca| Adm|ns|trat|on
I. App||cat|on of LGC to LGUs |n Autonomous keg|on
G. Autonomous keg|on |n Mus||m M|ndanoa
n. Cord|||era Adm|n|strat|ve keg|on
I. 1he Metropo||tan Man||a Deve|opment Author|ty and LGUs
MUNICIAL CCN1kAC1S
A. Corporate owers
8. Author|ty to Negot|ate]Secure Grants and Incurr|ng Indebtedness
C. 8u||d-Cperate-1ransfer
LIA8ILI1
A. L|ab|||ty on Contracts
8. L|ab|||ty on 1orts
C. L|ab||ty on Lxoress rov|s|on of Law and Contracts
D. Sat|sfy|ng]Lxecut|ng Iudgment Aga|nst Mun|c|pa| Corporat|ons
LNAL kCVISICNS AND kLLALING CLAUSL
A. ena| rov|s|ons
8. kepea||ng C|ause
IMLLMLN1ING kULLS AND kLGULA1ICNS

Ak1 III

94

A. LLLC1IVL CIIICIALS
1. UALIIICA1ICNS

Abe||a v. CCMLLLC (1991)

IAC1S:
SllvesLre dela Cruz (8en[amln Abella was allowed Lo lnLervene) flled a peLlLlon wlLh Lhe CCMLLLC Lo dlsquallfy
peLlLloner Larrazabal from runnlng as governor of LeyLe on Lhe ground LhaL she mlsrepresenLed her resldence ln
her cerLlflcaLe of candldacy as kananga, LeyLe. lL was alleged LhaL she was ln facL a resldenL of Crmoc ClLy llke her
husband who was earller dlsquallfled from runnlng for Lhe same offlce.

1he CCMLLLC granLed Lhe peLlLlon. Powever, when Lhe Commlsslon granLed Lhe declslon, Larrazabal was already
proclalmed Lhe Covernor, hence, when she was dlsquallfled, Abella, who gaLhered Lhe second hlghesL voLes ln Lhe
sald area, soughL Lo Lake hls oaLh as governor of kananga, LeyLe.

1he peLlLloner, however, avers LhaL Lhe CCMLLLC declslon ls erroneous when lL relled on Lhe provlslons of Lhe
lamlly Code Lo rule LhaL Lhe peLlLloner lacks Lhe requlred resldence Lo quallfy her Lo run for Lhe poslLlon of
governor of LeyLe.

She oplnes LhaL under "Lhe LlecLlon Law, Lhe maLLer of deLermlnaLlon of Lhe 8LSluLnCL ls more on Lhe prlnclple of
lN1N1lON, Lhe anlmus reverLendl raLher Lhan anyLhlng else."
ln Lhls regard she sLaLes LhaL ... "her subsequenL physlcal Lransfer of resldence Lo Crmoc ClLy LhereafLer, dld noL
necessarlly erased (slc) or removed her kananga resldence, for as long as she had Lhe ANlMu5 kvk1Nul
evldenced by her conLlnuous and regular acLs of reLurnlng Lhere ln Lhe course of Lhe years, alLhough she had
physlcally reslded aL Crmoc ClLy."

lSSuL #1: WCn Lhe peLlLloner ls a reglsLered voLer of kananga, LeyLe

no. SecLlon 12, ArLlcle x of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon ls expllclL ln LhaL aslde from hlghly-urbanlzed clLles, componenL clLles
whose charLers prohlblL Lhelr voLers from voLlng for provlnclal elecLlve offlclals are lndependenL of Lhe provlnce. ln
Lhe same provlslon, lL provldes for oLher compooeot cltles wltblo o ptovloce whose charLers do noL provlde a
slmllar prohlblLlon. necessarlly, componenL clLles llke Crmoc ClLy whose charLers prohlblL Lhelr voLers from voLlng
for provlnclal elecLlve offlclals are LreaLed llke hlghly urbanlzed clLles whlch are ouLslde Lhe supervlsory power of
Lhe provlnce Lo whlch Lhey are geographlcally aLLached. 1hls lndependence from Lhe provlnce carrles wlLh lL Lhe
prohlblLlon or mandaLe dlrecLed Lo Lhelr reglsLered voLers noL Lo voLe and be voLed for Lhe provlnclal elecLlve
offlces. 1he resoluLlon ln C.8. no. 80716 enLlLled letolto v. 1be commlssloo oo lectloos, et ol. daLed uecember 10,
1987 applles Lo Lhls case. Whlle Lhe clLed case lnvolves Clongapo ClLy whlch ls classlfled as a hlghly urbanlzed clLy,
Lhe same prlnclple ls appllcable.

Moreover, SecLlon 89 of 8epubllc AcL 179, lndependenL of Lhe consLlLuLlonal provlslon, prohlblLs reglsLered voLers
of Crmoc ClLy from voLlng and belng voLed for elecLlve offlces ln Lhe provlnce of LeyLe. We agree wlLh Lhe
CCMLLLC eo booc LhaL "Lhe phrase 'shall noL be quallfled and enLlLled Lo voLe ln Lhe elecLlon of Lhe provlnclal
governor and Lhe members of Lhe provlnclal board of Lhe rovlnce of LeyLe' connoLes Lwo prohlblLlons one, from
runnlng for and Lhe second, from voLlng for any provlnclal elecLlve offlclal."

lSSuL #2: WCn Lhe candldaLe who goL Lhe second hlghesL voLe may be proclalmed as governor when Lhe
candldaLe for such poslLlon was dlsquallfled

no. 1he Supreme CourL held LhaL whlle lL ls Lrue LhaL SC no. 88-346 was orlglnally a peLlLlon Lo deny due course Lo
Lhe cerLlflcaLe of candldacy of Larrazabal and was flled before Larrazabal could be proclalmed, Lhe facL remalns
LhaL Lhe local elecLlons of lebruary 1, 1988 ln Lhe provlnce of LeyLe proceeded wlLh Larrazabal consldered as a
Ak1 III

93

bona flde candldaLe. 1he voLers of Lhe provlnce voLed for her ln Lhe slncere bellef LhaL she was a quallfled
candldaLe for Lhe poslLlon of governor. Per voLes were counLed and she obLalned Lhe hlghesL number of voLes. 1he
neL effecL ls LhaL Lhe Abella losL ln Lhe elecLlon. Pe was repudlaLed by Lhe elecLoraLe.

Sound pollcy dlcLaLes LhaL publlc elecLlve offlces are fllled by Lhose who have recelved Lhe hlghesL number of voLes
casL ln Lhe elecLlon for LhaL offlce, and lL ls a fundamenLal ldea ln all republlcan forms of governmenL LhaL no one
can be declared elecLed and no measure can be declared carrled unless he or lL recelves a ma[orlLy or plurallLy of
Lhe legal voLes casL ln Lhe elecLlon.

1he facL LhaL Lhe candldaLe who obLalned Lhe hlghesL number of voLes ls laLer declared Lo be dlsquallfled or noL
ellglble for Lhe offlce Lo whlch he was elecLed does noL necessarlly enLlLle Lhe candldaLe who obLalned Lhe second
hlghesL number of voLes Lo be declared Lhe wlnner of Lhe elecLlve offlce. 1he voLes casL for a dead, dlsquallfled, or
non-ellglble person may noL be valld Lhe voLe Lhe wlnner lnLo offlce or malnLaln hlm Lhere. Powever Lhe absence
of a sLaLuLe whlch clearly asserLs a conLrary pollLlcs and leglslaLlve pollcy on Lhe maLLer, lf Lhe voLes were casL ln
Lhe slncere bellef LhaL Lhe candldaLe was allve, quallfled, or ellglble, Lhey should noL be LreaLed as sLray, vold or
meanlngless.

ln sum, Lhe CourL does noL flnd any reason Lo reverse and seL aslde Lhe quesLloned declslon and resoluLlon of Lhe
CCMLLLC. 1he CCMLLLC has noL acLed wlLhouL or ln excess of [urlsdlcLlon or ln grave abuse of dlscreLlon.

Labo v. CCMLLLC (1989)

IAC1S:
- Labo marrled an AusLrallan clLlzen and was evenLually granLed AusLrallan clLlzenshlp ln 1976. Pls marrlage was
laLer found Lo be blgamous and was declared vold ln 1980.
- Pe reLurned Lo Lhe hlllpplnes and declared LhaL he was an allen. Pe was laLer granLed an lmmlgranL CerLlflcaLe
of 8esldence.
- Labo was goL Lhe hlghesL number of voLes ln Lhe 1988 local elecLlons and was proclalmed mayor-elecL of 8agulo
ClLy on !an. 20, 1988. Lardlzabal flled a peLlLlon for poo wottooto on !an. 26, 1988. 1he flllng fee was pald only on
leb. 10, 1988.
- Labo flled a peLlLlon wlLh Lhe SC Lo resLraln Lhe CCMLLLC from looklng lnLo Lhe quesLlon of hls clLlzenshlp as a
quallflcaLlon of hls offlce as mayor.
lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe requlremenLs of clLlzenshlp can be dlsregarded on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe lnellglble candldaLe goL
Lhe hlghesL number of voLes.
Peld:
- 1he CourL declded Lo rule on Lhe merlLs desplLe Lhe facL LhaL Lhe flllng fee for Lhe poo wottooto was noL pald on
Llme because Lhe resoluLlon of Lhe lssue would affecL publlc lnLeresL.
- 1he CCMLLLC found LhaL Labo was a clLlzen of Lhe hlllpplnes (1982). 1he Commlsslon on lmmlgraLlon and
ueporLaLlon, ln re[ecLlng hls appllcaLlon for Lhe cancellaLlon of hls allen cerLlflcaLe of reglsLraLlon, held LhaL Labo
was noL a clLlzen of Lhe hlllpplnes (1988).
- 1he Clu Look lnLo accounL Lhe offlclal sLaLemenL of Lhe AusLrallan CovernmenL, Lhrough lLs consul, LhaL Labo was
sLlll an AusLrallan clLlzen by reason of hls naLurallzaLlon ln 1976.
- Labo dld noL auLomaLlcally become an AusLrallan clLlzen when he marrled an AusLrallan clLlzen. Pls marrlage
merely slmpllfled Lhe process of naLurallzaLlon. Pe formally Look Lhe CaLh of Alleglance and/or made Lhe
AfflrmaLlon of Alleglance. Pe volunLarlly renounced all oLher alleglance and swore hls alleglance Lo Lhe Cueen of
AusLralla.
- CA no. 63 - hlllpplne clLlzenshlp may be losL by (1) naLurallzaLlon ln a forelgn counLry, (2) express renunclaLlon
of clLlzenshlp, and (3) subscrlblng Lo an oaLh of alleglance Lo supporL Lhe ConsLlLuLlon or laws of a forelgn counLry.
All are appllcable Lo Labo.
- Lven lf AusLralla subsequenLly re[ecLs hlm because hls marrlage Lo an AusLrallan clLlzen was found Lo be blgamous
and declared vold, lL does noL follow LhaL he wlll auLomaLlcally be relnsLaLed as a clLlzen of Lhe hlllpplnes.
Ak1 III

96

- CA no. 63 - hlllpplne clLlzenshlp may be reacqulred by dlrecL acL of Congress, by naLurallzaLlon, or by
repaLrlaLlon. Labo falled Lo show LhaL he has reacqulred hlllpplne clLlzenshlp by any of Lhose meLhods.
- (Cld LCC) Sec. 42 - An elecLlve offlclal musL be a clLlzen of Lhe hlllpplnes, aL leasL LwenLy-Lhree years of age on
elecLlon day, a quallfled voLer reglsLered as such ln Lhe barangay, munlclpallLy, clLy or provlnce where he proposes
Lo be elecLed, a resldenL Lhereln for aL leasL one year aL Lhe Llme of Lhe flllng of hls CoC, and able Lo read and wrlLe
Lngllsh, llllplno, or any oLher local language or dlalecL.
- Labo was lnellglble as a candldaLe for mayor. Pe was noL a clLlzen of Lhe hlllpplnes and could noL have been a
quallfled voLer because of hls allenage.
- 1he facL LhaL Labo goL Lhe hlghesL number of voLes does noL mean LhaL Lhe requlremenL of clLlzenshlp as a
quallflcaLlon for publlc offlce can already be dlsregarded. 1he people who voLed for hlm probably belleved LhaL he
had Lhe quallflcaLlons.
- 1he quallflcaLlons are conLlnulng requlremenLs. lf losL durlng lncumbency, Lhe offlce ls deemed forfelLed.
- Labo dld noL lose Lhe clLlzenshlp and voLlng requlremenLs durlng lncumbency. Pe never possessed Lhem ln Lhe
flrsL place.
- Lardlzabal cannoL replace Labo as mayor. Pe was noL Lhe cholce of Lhe people.
Labo declared noL a clLlzen of Lhe hlllpplnes, dlsquallfled from conLlnulng Lo serve as mayor and ordered Lo vacaLe
hls offlce and surrender Lhe same Lo Lhe vlce-Mayor. 18C llfLed.

Labo v. CCMLLLC (1992)

lacLs:
Labo flled hls cerLlflcaLe of candldacy for mayor ln Lhe 1992 elecLlons. CrLega flled a dlsquallflcaLlon proceedlng
agalnsL Labo, seeklng Lo cancel Labo's CoC on Lhe ground LhaL he made a false represenLaLlon when he sLaLed LhaL
he was a naLural-born" clLlzen of Lhe hlllpplnes.
- Cn May 10, 1992, CCMLLLC ordered Lhe cancellaLlon of Labo's CoC. ln a laLer order, lL allowed hlm Lo be voLed
upon sub[ecL Lo Lhe flnal ouLcome of Lhe case. lL resolved Lo suspend proclamaLlon ln Lhe evenL LhaL Labo wlns Lhe
elecLlon.
- Labo flled peLlLlon for revlew wlLh Lhe SC. Pe prayed for lssuance of 18C, a [udgmenL declarlng hlm a llllplno
clLlzen and an order dlrecLlng Lhe CCMLLLC Lo proceed wlLh Lhe proclamaLlon ln Lhe evenL LhaL he wlns. CrLega
flled wlLh Lhe CCMLLLC an urgenL moLlon for Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of lLs resoluLlon cancelllng Labo's CoC. 1he
CCMLLLC denled CrLega's moLlon ln vlew of Lhe pendlng case wlLh Lhe SC.
lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe flllng of an appllcaLlon for Lhe reacqulslLlon of hlllpplne clLlzenshlp ls consldered as
compllance wlLh Lhe clLlzenshlp requlremenL.

Peld:
- Labo has sLlll falled Lo submlL proof LhaL he has reacqulred hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp.
- Pe was dlsquallfled as a candldaLe for belng an allen. Pls elecLlon does noL auLomaLlcally resLore hls hlllpplne
clLlzenshlp.
- Labo clalmed LhaL he has reacqulred hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp when he flled hls appllcaLlon for reacqulslLlon of
hlllpplne clLlzenshlp. SC held LhaL ln Lhe absence of any offlclal acLlon or approval by Lhe proper auLhorlLles, mere
appllcaLlon for repaLrlaLlon does noL, and cannoL, amounL Lo an auLomaLlc reacqulslLlon of hlllpplne clLlzenshlp.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe person who goL Lhe second hlghesL number of voLes can be proclalmed as wlnner ln Lhe evenL
LhaL Lhe person who goL Lhe hlghesL number of voLes ls dlsquallfled.

Peld:
- CrLega, who recelved Lhe nexL hlghesL number of voLes, ls noL enLlLled Lo proclamaLlon as mayor of 8agulo ClLy.
Pe losL Lhe elecLlon. Pe was noL Lhe cholce of Lhe people.
- 1he lnellglblllLy of a candldaLe recelvlng ma[orlLy voLes does noL enLlLle Lhe ellglble candldaLe recelvlng Lhe nexL
hlghesL number of voLes Lo be declared elecLed.
Ak1 III

97

- 1he CCMLLLC allowed Labo Lo be voLed upon and Lhe people who voLed for Labo probably dld so ln Lhe bellef
LhaL he was quallfled.
- lL would have been dlfferenL lf Lhe elecLoraLe were fully aware of Lhe facL of a candldaLe's dlsquallflcaLlon buL sLlll
casL Lhelr voLes ln favor of Lhe lnellglble candldaLe. lL would be as lf Lhe elecLoraLe Lhrew away Lhelr voLes. ln such
a case, Lhe ellglble candldaLe wlLh Lhe nexL hlghesL number of voLes ls deemed elecLed.
eLlLlons dlsmlssed.

Ir|va|do v. CCMLLLC (1996)

lAC1S:
!uan C. lrlvaldo flled hls CoC for Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Covernor of Sorsogon on 20 March 1993 for Lhe 08 May 1993
elecLlons. SubsequenLly, anoLher candldaLe, 8aul Lee, flled a peLlLlon Lo have lrlvaldo dlsquallfled on Lhe ground
LhaL he was noL yeL a clLlzen aL Lhe Llme of hls flllng hls candldacy and aL Lhe Llme of Lhe elecLlons. 1he CCMLLLC
granLed Lhe peLlLlon buL lrlvaldo flled a MoLlon for 8econslderaLlon whlch was noL declded unLll afLer Lhe
elecLlons. 1hus, lL happened LhaL lrlvaldo was voLed lnLo offlce and proclalmed wlnner of Lhe gubernaLorlal race
wlLhouL resoluLlon Lo Lhe MoLlon for 8econslderaLlon.

SubsequenLly, Lhe CCMLLLC en banc denled lrlvaldo's M8 and lssued an order for Lhe rovlnclal 8oard of
Canvassers Lo reconvene ln order LhaL Lee, who obLalned Lhe second largesL number of voLes, can be proclalmed
as Covernor of Sorsogon. 1hls happened on 30 !une 1993 aL 830pm.

Meanwhlle, on 06 !uly 1993, lrlvaldo flled anoLher peLlLlon, Lhls Llme seeklng Lhe annulmenL of Lee's proclamaLlon.
Pe alleged LhaL he had reacqulred hls llllplno clLlzenshlp upon Laklng hls oaLh of alleglance on 30 !une 1993 aL
2pm. Pe had prevlously flled hls peLlLlon for repaLrlaLlon ln SepLember of 1994. As such, when Lhe order for Lee's
proclamaLlon was recelved, lrlvaldo was no longer under any lmpedlmenL Lo hold offlce. AlLernaLlvely, lrlvaldo
was of Lhe oplnlon LhaL lL should be vlce Covernor Cscar uerl and noL Lee who should occupy Lhe Covernor's offlce
clalmlng LhaL Lhe slLuaLlon was a "permanenL vacancy" as envlsloned ln Lhe LCC.

1he CCMLLLC granLed Lhe peLlLlon whlch Lee now seeks Lo have reconsldered on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe [udlclally
declared dlsquallflcaLlon of lrlvaldo was a conLlnulng condlLlon whlch rendered hlm lnellglble Lo run for, be
elecLed, and hold offlce. Cn Lhe oLher hand, lrlvaldo argues LhaL Lhe CCMLLLC had no [urlsdlcLlon Lo lssue Lhe
resoluLlon dlsquallfylng hlm because lL was noL done so wlLhln Lhe perlod allowed under Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon
Code, l.e. noL laLer Lhan 13 days before an elecLlon.

PLLu:
1he SC dlsmlssed Lee's poslLlon and afflrmed Lhe declslon of Lhe CCMLLLC whlle lL dlsmlssed lrlvaldo's peLlLlon for
belng mooL and academlc.
1. WCn Lhe repaLrlaLlon of lrlvaldo was valld and legal. uld hls repaLrlaLlon cure hls lack of clLlzenshlp? Can Lhe
repaLrlaLlon be glven reLroacLlve effecL? lrom when?

a. 1he repaLrlaLlon of lrlvaldo was valld. ConLrary Lo allegaLlons of Lee, u 723 had noL yeL been repealed. 1he
Memorandum of resldenL Aqulno daLed 27 March 1987 made no menLlon, express or lmplled, of repeallng u
723. All lL dld was suspend Lhe operaLlon of Lhe Speclal CommlLLee on naLurallzaLlon pendlng acLlon fo Lhe llrsL
Congress of Lhe resldenLall uecree. 1here ls furLhermore no basls ln Lhe clalms of Lee LhaL Lhe repaLrlaLlon
proceedlngs were marred wlLh lrregularlLles. lee clalms LhaL lrlvaldo's applclaLlon was approved a day afLer lLs
flllng. 1hls ls noL Lrue. lrlvaldo had flled hls applclaLlon wlLh Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL ln 1994. WhaL was flle don
29 !une 1993 was Lhe form requlred by Lhe re-acLlvaLed Speclal CommlLLee. LasLly, Lhe CourL also found Lee's clalm
LhaL Lhe reconslLuLlon was for Lhe sole beneflL of lrlvaldo compleLely baseless.

b. 1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe clLlzenshlp requlremenL need only be aLLalned on Lhe day when Lhe local elecLlve
offlclal ls elecLed lnLo offlce. SecLlon 39 of Lhe LCC requlres LhaL Lhe offlclal be a hlllppln ClLlzen buL dld noL make
any menLlon when such clLlzenshlp should be held. Conslderlng LhaL Lhe raLlonale of Lhe requlremenL ls so LhaL
Ak1 III

98

no allen would ever govern llllplno people or any porLlo of lLs LerrlLory, Lhe CourL ruled LhaL clLlzenshlp need only
be aLLalned when Lhe candldaLe ls acLually elecLed lnLo offlce. A llLeral readlng of Lhe law would lead us Lo Lhe
same concluslon slnce SecLlon 39 ls enLlrled "CuallflcaLlons of LlecLed Cfflclals," noL candldaLes

c. 1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe voLer requlremenL musL be consldered as a separaLe and dlsLlncL requlremenL from
clLlzenshlp noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe facL LhaL clLlzenshlp ls also a prerequlslLe Lo becomlng a voLer. 1he CourL held LhaL
Lhe voLer requlremenL ls noL Lhere Lo relLeraLe Lhe clLlzenshlp requlremenL buL Lo make sure LhaL Lhe candldaLe
ls a reglsLered voLer ln Lhe area he wanLs Lo govern. 1he records show LhaL lrlvaldo had conslsLenLly alleged
hlmself Lo be a voLer ln Sorsogon whlch Lee never challenged. 1here ls also a courL case where hls sLaLus a valld
reglsLered voLer was challenged buL whlch was declded ln favor of lrlvaldo.

d. SecLlon 233 of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code provldes Lhe only opporLunlLy for anyone Lo quesLlon Lhe ellglblllLy of
a candldaLe arlslng from a fallure Lo meeL quallflcaLlons enumeraLed under SecLlon 39. A quo warranLo can only be
avalled of wlLhln 10 days afLer proclamaLlon. Pence lL ls only aL such Llme LhaL Lhe lssue of lnellglblllLy can be Laken
cognlzance of. As lrlvaldo was already a clLlzen by Lhe Llme Lee was proclalmed, he should have been Lhe
candldaLe proclalmed.

e. 1he SC furLher ruled LhaL u 723 ls a curaLlve sLaLuLe whlch means lL can be glven reLroacLlve effecL. CuraLlve
sLaLuLes underLake Lo ure errors and lrregularlLles, Lhereby valldaLlng [udlclal or admlnlsLraLlve proceedlngs, acLs of
publlc offlclals or prlvaLe deeds or conLracLs whlch oLherwlse would noL produce Lhelr lnLended consequences by
reason of some sLaLuLory dlsablllLy or fallure Lo comply wlLh some Lechnlcal requlremenL. u 723 was enacLed Lo
address Lhe anomalous and lnequlLable slLuaLlon of llllplnos belng unable Lo reacqulre clLlzenshlp whlch Lhey
losL by reason of marrlage Lo a forelgner and whlch Lhey could noL reacqulre unLll Lhe LermlnaLlon of Lhe
marrlage. 1hus u 723 gave a new rlghL and a new remedy Lo such persons. And as Lhe law ls meanL Lo be glven
reLroacLlve effecL such LhaL lL cures evenLs whlch Lransplred before Lhe law came lnLo effecL, all Lhe more reason
should lLs resulLs be applled Lo evenLs afLer lLs enacLmenL. Pence, Lhe order of repaLrlaLlon granLlng lrlvaldo hls
llllplno clLlzenshlp musL be made Lo reLroacL Lo Lhe daLe of flllng. lurLhermore, by glvlng Lhe repaLrlaLlon a
reLroacLlve effecL, lL ls assuered LhaL people who have become sLaLeless by vlruLe of Lhelr renunclaLlon of Lhelr
forelgn naLlonallLy are noL pre[udlced durlng Lhe lnLerregnum beLween flllng and repaLrlaLlon.

2. 8efuLaLlon of uavlde's dlssenL
a. !usLlce uavlde holds LhaL SecLlon 39 refers Lo quallflcaLlons of LLLC1lvL and noL LLLC1Lu offlcleals.
a.1 aragraph (a) speaks of elecLlve offlclals whlle (b) Lo (f) speak of elecLed offlclals.
a.2 aragraph (a) makes no menLlon of a perlod when Lhe clLlzenshlp should be held, (b) Lo (f) do.

Mercado v. Manzano (1999)

lAC1S:
Cn Lhe May 11, 1998 elecLlons for vlce-mayoralLy of MakaLl ClLy, Lhree candldaLes compeLed for Lhe posL: Lduardo
8. Manzano, LrnesLo S. Mercado, and Cabrlel v. uaza lll. Manzano won Lhe elecLlons buL hls proclamaLlon was
suspended due Lo a pendlng peLlLlon for dlsquallflcaLlon flled by a cerLaln LrnesLo Mamarll alleglng LhaL Manzano
was an Amerlcan clLlzen (he was born SepLember 4, 1933 ln San lranclsco, Callfornla, uSA Lo llllplno parenLs)

1he dlsquallflcaLlon of prlvaLe respondenL Manzano ls belng soughL under SecLlon 40(d) of Lhe Local CovernmenL
Code of 1991 (8.A. no. 7160), whlch declares as dlsquallfled from runnlng for any elecLlve local poslLlon: . . . (d)
1hose wlLh dual clLlzenshlp." 1hls provlslon ls lncorporaLed ln Lhe CharLer of Lhe ClLy of MakaLl.

Cn May 7, 1998, Lhe Second ulvlslon of Lhe CCMLLLC cancelled Lhe cerLlflcaLe of candldacy of Manzano on Lhe
grounds of hls dual-clLlzenshlp, whlch dlsquallfles hlm accordlng Lo SecLlon 40(d) of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code.
Manzano flled a moLlon for reconslderaLlon. Mercado soughL Lo lnLervene ln Lhe case for dlsquallflcaLlon. Manzano
opposed Lhe moLlon Lo lnLervene. 1he moLlon was unresolved. 8uL on AugusL 31, 1998, Lhe CCMLLLC eo booc
Ak1 III

99

(wlLh 1 commlssloner absLalnlng) reversed Lhe Second ulvlslon's rullng on Lhe cancellaLlon of Lhe cerLlflcaLe of
candldacy and dlrecLlng Lhe proclamaLlon of Manzano as wlnner, saylng:
Moozooo, beloq boto lo tbe u5A, obtoloeJ u5 cltlzeosblp by opetotloo of tbe u5 coostltotloo ooJ
lows ooJet ptloclple of jos soll (bosls ls ploce of blttb).et, by beloq boto to llllploo poteots,
Moozooo oototol boto llllploo cltlzeo, by opetotloo of tbe 19J5 lblllpploe coostltotloo ooJ lows
ooJet ptloclple jos sooqolols (tbe tlqbt of blooJ).
Altbooqb be ls teqlsteteJ os oo olleo wltb tbe lblllpploe 8oteoo of lmmlqtotloo ooJ bolJs ooJ
Ametlcoo posspott, be bos oot lost bls llllploo cltlzeosblp sloce be bos oot teooooceJ lt ooJ bos
oot tokeo oo ootb of olleqlooce to tbe u5A. Moozooo, oftet tbe oqe of mojotlty, teqlsteteJ
blmself os o votet ooJ voteJ lo tbe 1992, 1995, ooJ 1998 lblllpploe electloos wblcb effectlvely
teooooceJ bls u5 cltlzeosblp ooJet Ametlcoo low. uoJet lblllpploe low, be oo looqet boJ u5
cltlzeosblp.
rlvaLe respondenL Manzano was Lhen proclalmed as vlce-mayor of MakaLl ClLy.
lSSuL:
WCn respondenL Manzano ls a dual clLlzen and lf so, WCn he ls dlsquallfled from belng a candldaLe for vlce-mayor
ln MakaLl ClLy.

PLLu:
no

8A1lC:
1he CourL sald LhaL dual clLlzenshlp ls dlfferenL from dual alleglance. uual clLlzenshlp ls lnvolunLary, lL arlses ouL of
clrcumsLances of blrLh or marrlage, where a person ls recognlzed Lo be a naLlonal by Lwo or more sLaLes. uual
alleglance ls a resulL of a person's vollLlon, lL ls a slLuaLlon whereln a person slmulLaneously owes, by some poslLlve
acL, loyalLy Lo Lwo or more sLaLes.

ln Sec.3 ArLlcle lv of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon on ClLlzenshlp, Lhe concern was noL wlLh dual clLlzenshlp per se, buL wlLh
naLurallzed clLlzens who malnLaln alleglance Lo Lhelr counLrles of orlgln even afLer naLurallzaLlon. Pence, Lhe
phrase dual clLlzenshlp" ln 8.A. no. 7160, SecLlon 40(d) and ln 8.A. no. 7834, SecLlon 20 musL be undersLood as
referrlng Lo dual alleglance." ConsequenLly, persons wlLh mere dual clLlzenshlp do noL fall under Lhls
dlsquallflcaLlon.

lL should sufflce LhaL upon flllng of cerLlflcaLes for candldacy, such persons wlLh dual clLlzenshlps have elecLed Lhelr
hlllpplne clLlzenshlp Lo LermlnaLe Lhelr dual clLlzenshlp. ln prlvaLe respondenL's cerLlflcaLe of candldacy, he made
Lhese sLaLemenLs under oaLh on March 27, 1998: l om o llllploo cltlzeo.Nototol-boto. l om oot o petmooeot
teslJeot of, ot lmmlqtoot to, o fotelqo coootty. l om ellqlble fot tbe offlce l seek to be electeJ. l wlll soppott ooJ
JefeoJ tbe coostltotloo of tbe lblllpploes ooJ wlll molotolo ttoe foltb ooJ olleqlooce tbeteto. 1he flllng of such
cerLlflcaLe of candldacy sufflced Lo renounce hls Amerlcan clLlzenshlp, effecLlvely removlng any dlsquallflcaLlon he
mlghL have as a dual-clLlzen.

Manzano's oaLh of alleglance, LogeLher wlLh Lhe facL he has spenL hls llfe here, recelved hls educaLlon here, and
pracLlced hls professlon here, and has Laken parL ln pasL hlllpplne elecLlons, leaves no doubL of hls elecLlon of
hlllpplne clLlzenshlp.

Coqu|||a v. CCMLLLC (2002)

lacLs:
eLlLloner Coqullla was born on lebruary 17, 1938 of llllplno parenLs ln Cras, LasLern Samar. Pe grew up and
reslded Lhere unLll 1963, when he [olned Lhe unlLed SLaLes navy. Pe was subsequenLly naLurallzed as a u.S. ClLlzen.
lrom 1970 Lo 1973, peLlLloner Lhrlce vlslLed Lhe hlllpplnes whlle on leave from Lhe u.S. navy.

Ak1 III

100

Cn CcLober 13, 1998, peLlLloner came Lo Lhe hlllpplnes and Look ouL a resldence cerLlflcaLe, alLhough he
conLlnued maklng several Lrlps Lo Lhe unlLed SLaLes, Lhe lasL of whlch Look place on !uly 6, 2000 and lasLed unLll
AugusL 3, 2000.

SubsequenLly, peLlLloner applled for repaLrlaLlon under 8.A. no. 81713 Lo Lhe Speclal CommlLLee on naLurallzaLlon.
Pls appllcaLlon was approved on november 7, 2000, and, on november 10, 2000, he Look hls oaLh as a clLlzen of
Lhe hlllpplnes. eLlLloner was lssued CerLlflcaLe of 8epaLrlaLlon no. 000737 on november 10, 2000 and 8ureau of
lmmlgraLlon ldenLlflcaLlon CerLlflcaLe no. 113123 on november 13, 2000.

Cn november 21, 2000, peLlLloner applled for reglsLraLlon as a voLer of 8uLnga, Cras, LasLern Samar. Pls
appllcaLlon was approved by Lhe LlecLlon 8eglsLraLlon 8oard on !anuary 12, 2001. Cn lebruary 27, 2001, he flled
hls cerLlflcaLe of candldacy sLaLlng Lhereln LhaL he had been a resldenL of Cras, LasLern Samar for "Lwo (2) years."

Cn March 3, 2001, respondenL nell M. Alvarez, who was Lhe lncumbenL mayor of Cras and who was runnlng for
reelecLlon, soughL Lhe cancellaLlon of peLlLloner's cerLlflcaLe of candldacy on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe laLLer had made a
maLerlal mlsrepresenLaLlon ln hls cerLlflcaLe of candldacy by sLaLlng LhaL he had been a resldenL of Cras for Lwo
years when ln LruLh he had reslded Lhereln for only abouL slx monLhs slnce november 10, 2000, when he Look hls
oaLh as a clLlzen of Lhe hlllpplnes.

1he CCMLLLC was unable Lo render [udgmenL on Lhe case before Lhe elecLlons on May 14, 2001. Meanwhlle,
peLlLloner was voLed for and recelved Lhe hlghesL number of voLes (6,131) agalnsL prlvaLe respondenL's 3,732
voLes, or a margln of 379 voLes. Cn May 17, 2001, peLlLloner was proclalmed mayor of Cras by Lhe Munlclpal
8oard of Canvassers.

Cn !uly 19, 2001, Lhe Second ulvlslon of Lhe CCMLLLC granLed prlvaLe respondenL's peLlLlon and ordered Lhe
cancellaLlon of peLlLloner's cerLlflcaLe of candldacy.

lssue:
Won peLlLloner had been a resldenL of Cras, LasLern Samar aL leasL one (1) year before Lhe elecLlons held on May
14, 2001 as he represenLed ln hls cerLlflcaLe of candldacy?

Peld:
no

8aLlo:
llrsL, 39(a) of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code (8.A no. 7160) provldes:
Ooollflcotloos. - (a) An elecLlve local offlclal musL be a clLlzen of Lhe hlllpplnes, a reglsLered voLer ln Lhe
barangay, munlclpallLy, clLy, or provlnce or, ln Lhe case of a member of Lhe sanggunlang panlalawlgan,
sanggunlang panlungsod, or sanggunlang bayan, Lhe dlsLrlcL where he lnLends Lo be elecLed, a resldenL
Lhereln for aL leasL one (1) year lmmedlaLely precedlng Lhe day of Lhe elecLlon, and able Lo read and wrlLe
llllplno or any oLher local language or dlalecL. (Lmphasls added)

1he Lerm "resldence" ls Lo be undersLood noL ln lLs common accepLaLlon as referrlng Lo "dwelllng" or "hablLaLlon,"
buL raLher Lo "domlclle" or legal resldence, LhaL ls, "Lhe place where a parLy acLually or consLrucLlvely has hls
permanenL home, where he, no maLLer where he may be found aL any glven Llme, evenLually lnLends Lo reLurn and
remaln (oolmos mooeoJl)." A domlclle of orlgln ls acqulred by every person aL blrLh. lL ls usually Lhe place where
Lhe chlld's parenLs reslde and conLlnues unLll Lhe same ls abandoned by acqulslLlon of new domlclle (domlclle of
cholce).

ln Lhe case aL bar, peLlLloner losL hls domlclle of orlgln ln Cras by becomlng a u.S. clLlzen afLer enllsLlng ln Lhe u.S.
navy ln 1963. lrom Lhen on and unLll november 10, 2000, when he reacqulred hlllpplne clLlzenshlp, peLlLloner
Ak1 III

101

was an allen wlLhouL any rlghL Lo reslde ln Lhe hlllpplnes save as our lmmlgraLlon laws may have allowed hlm Lo
sLay as a vlslLor or as a resldenL allen.

lndeed, resldence ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes ls a requlremenL for naLurallzaLlon as a u.S. clLlzen. 1lLle 8, 1427(a) of Lhe
unlLed SLaLes Code provldes:
kepoltemeots of oototollzotloo. - keslJeoce
(a) no person, excepL as oLherwlse provlded ln Lhls subchapLer, shall be naLurallzed unless such
appllcanL, (1) lmmedlaLely precedlng Lhe daLe of flllng hls appllcaLlon for naLurallzaLlon has reslded
conLlnuously, afLer belng lawfully admlLLed for permanenL resldence, wlLhln Lhe unlLed SLaLes for aL
leasL flve years and durlng Lhe flve years lmmedlaLely precedlng Lhe daLe of flllng hls peLlLlon has
been physlcally presenL Lhereln for perlods LoLallng aL leasL half of LhaL Llme, xxx

ln coosl v. coott of Appeols, Lhls CourL ruled LhaL lmmlgraLlon Lo Lhe unlLed SLaLes by vlrLue of a "greencard,"
whlch enLlLles one Lo reslde permanenLly ln LhaL counLry, consLlLuLes abandonmenL of domlclle ln Lhe hlllpplnes.
WlLh more reason Lhen does naLurallzaLlon ln a forelgn counLry resulL ln an abandonmenL of domlclle ln Lhe
hlllpplnes.

nor can peLlLloner conLend LhaL he was "compelled Lo adopL Amerlcan clLlzenshlp" only by reason of hls servlce ln
Lhe u.S. armed forces. lL ls noLeworLhy LhaL peLlLloner was repaLrlaLed noL under 8.A. no. 2630, whlch applles Lo
Lhe repaLrlaLlon of Lhose who losL Lhelr hlllpplne clLlzenshlp by accepLlng commlsslon ln Lhe Armed lorces of Lhe
unlLed SLaLes, buL under 8.A. no. 8171, whlch, as earller menLloned, provldes for Lhe repaLrlaLlon of, among
oLhers, naLural-born llllplnos who losL Lhelr clLlzenshlp on accounL of pollLlcal or economlc necesslLy. ln any evenL,
Lhe facL ls LhaL, by havlng been naLurallzed abroad, he losL hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp and wlLh lL hls resldence ln Lhe
hlllpplnes. unLll hls reacqulslLlon of hlllpplne clLlzenshlp on november 10, 2000, peLlLloner dld noL reacqulre hls
legal resldence ln Lhls counLry.

Second, lL ls noL Lrue, as peLlLloner conLends, LhaL he reesLabllshed resldence ln Lhls counLry ln 1998 when he came
back Lo prepare for Lhe mayoralLy elecLlons of Cras by securlng a CommunlLy 1ax CerLlflcaLe ln LhaL year and by
"consLanLly declarlng" Lo hls LownmaLes of hls lnLenLlon Lo seek repaLrlaLlon and run for mayor ln Lhe May 14,
2001 elecLlons. 1he sLaLus of belng an allen and a non-resldenL can be walved elLher separaLely, when one acqulres
Lhe sLaLus of a resldenL allen before acqulrlng hlllpplne clLlzenshlp, or aL Lhe same Llme when one acqulres
hlllpplne clLlzenshlp. As an allen, an lndlvldual may obLaln an lmmlgranL vlsa under 1328 of Lhe hlllpplne
lmmlgraLlon AcL of 1948 and an lmmlgranL CerLlflcaLe of 8esldence (lC8)29 and Lhus walve hls sLaLus as a non-
resldenL. Cn Lhe oLher hand, he may acqulre hlllpplne clLlzenshlp by naLurallzaLlon under C.A. no. 473, as
amended, or, lf he ls a former hlllpplne naLlonal, he may reacqulre hlllpplne clLlzenshlp by repaLrlaLlon or by an
acL of Congress, ln whlch case he walves noL only hls sLaLus as an allen buL also hls sLaLus as a non-resldenL allen.

ln Lhe case aL bar, Lhe only evldence of peLlLloner's sLaLus when he enLered Lhe counLry on CcLober 13, 1998,
uecember 20, 1998, CcLober 16, 1999, and !une 23, 2000 ls Lhe sLaLemenL "hlllpplne lmmlgraLlon [-] 8allkbayan"
ln hls 1998-2008 u.S. passporL. As for hls enLry on AugusL 3, 2000, Lhe sLamp bore Lhe added lnscrlpLlon "good for
one year sLay."under 2 of 8.A. no. 6768 (An AcL lnsLlLuLlng a 8ollkboyoo rogram), Lhe Lerm bollkboyoolncludes a
former llllplno clLlzen who had been naLurallzed ln a forelgn counLry and comes or reLurns Lo Lhe hlllpplnes and,
lf so, he ls enLlLled, among oLhers, Lo a "vlsa-free enLry Lo Lhe hlllpplnes for a perlod of one (1) year" (3(c)). lL
would appear Lhen LhaL when peLlLloner enLered Lhe counLry on Lhe daLes ln quesLlon, he dld so as a vlsa-free
bollkboyoo vlslLor whose sLay as such was valld for one year only. Pence, peLlLloner can only be held Lo have
walved hls sLaLus as an allen and as a non-resldenL only on november 10, 2000 upon Laklng hls oaLh as a clLlzen of
Lhe hlllpplnes under 8.A. no. 8171. Pe lacked Lhe requlslLe resldency Lo quallfy hlm for Lhe mayorshlp of Cras,
LasLern, Samar.

1hlrd, peLlLloner noneLheless says LhaL hls reglsLraLlon as a voLer of 8uLnga, Cras, LasLern Samar ln !anuary 2001 ls
concluslve of hls resldency as a candldaLe because 117 of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code requlres LhaL a voLer musL
have reslded ln Lhe hlllpplnes for aL leasL one year and ln Lhe clLy or munlclpallLy whereln he proposes Lo voLe for
Ak1 III

102

aL leasL slx monLhs lmmedlaLely precedlng Lhe elecLlon. As held ln Novol v. Cotoy, however, reglsLraLlon as a voLer
does noL bar Lhe flllng of a subsequenL case quesLlonlng a candldaLe's lack of resldency.

eLlLloner's lnvocaLlon of Lhe llberal lnLerpreLaLlon of elecLlon laws cannoL avall hlm any. As held ln Apoloo v.
commlssloo oo lectloos:
A democraLlc governmenL ls necessarlly a governmenL of laws. ln a republlcan governmenL Lhose laws are
Lhemselves ordalned by Lhe people. 1hrough Lhelr represenLaLlves, Lhey dlcLaLe Lhe quallflcaLlons
necessary for servlce ln governmenL poslLlons. And as peLlLloner clearly lacks one of Lhe essenLlal
quallflcaLlons for runnlng for membershlp ln Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves, noL even Lhe wlll of a ma[orlLy
or plurallLy of Lhe voLers of Lhe Second ulsLrlcL of MakaLl ClLy would subsLlLuLe for a requlremenL
mandaLed by Lhe fundamenLal law lLself.

lourLh, peLlLloner was noL denled due process because Lhe CCMLLLC falled Lo acL on hls moLlon Lo be allowed Lo
presenL evldence. under 3(d), ln relaLlon Lo 7, of 8.A. no. 6646 (LlecLoral 8eforms Law of 1987), proceedlngs for
denlal or cancellaLlon of a cerLlflcaLe of candldacy are summary ln naLure. 1he holdlng of a formal hearlng ls Lhus
noL Je tlqeot. ln any evenL, peLlLloner cannoL clalm denlal of Lhe rlghL Lo be heard slnce he flled a verlfled Answer,
a Memorandum and a ManlfesLaLlon, all daLed March 19, 2001, before Lhe CCMLLLC ln whlch he submlLLed
documenLs relled by hlm ln Lhls peLlLlon, whlch, conLrary Lo peLlLloner's clalm, are compleLe and lnLacL ln Lhe
records.

ueclslon:
eLlLlon ulsmlssed

Iapzon v. CCMLLLC (2009)

lacLs:
eLlLloner Manuel !apzon and prlvaLe respondenL !alme S. 1y ran for Mayor of Lhe MunlclpallLy of Ceneral
MacarLhur, LasLern Samar ln Lhe local elecLlons of 14 May 2007.
!apzon lnsLlLuLed before Lhe CCMLLLC a eLlLlon Lo dlsquallfy and/or cancel 1y's CerLlflcaLe of Candldacy on
Lhe ground of maLerlal mlsrepresenLaLlon. Pe averred LhaL
o 1y ls a uS clLlzen and had been resldlng ln Lhe uSA for Lhe lasL 23 years.
o When 1y flled hls CerLlflcaLe of Candldacy he falsely represenLed Lhereln LhaL he was a resldenL of
8arangay 6, oblaclon, Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Samar (8arangay 6"), for one year before 14 May
2007 and was noL a permanenL resldenL or lmmlgranL of any forelgn counLry.
o Whlle 1y may have applled for Lhe reacqulslLlon of hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp, he never acLually reslded
ln 8arangay 6 for a perlod of one year lmmedlaLely precedlng Lhe daLe of elecLlon as requlred under
SecLlon 39 of LCC
o 8eacqulslLlon of clLlzenshlp does noL auLomaLlcally esLabllsh hls domlclle aL 8arangay 6.
o Pe had also falled Lo renounce hls forelgn clLlzenshlp as requlred by 8epubllc AcL no. 9223, oLherwlse
known as Lhe ClLlzenshlp 8eLenLlon and 8eacqulslLlon AcL of 2003
1y admlLs LhaL he had lndeed losL hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp when he was naLurallzed as a uS clLlzen. Powever,
he alleges LhaL prlor Lo Lhe elecLlon, he had successfully reacqulred hls llllplno clLlzenshlp as shown by hls acL
of execuLlng an CaLh of Alleglance Lo 8 and a duly noLazarled 8enunclaLlon of lorelgn ClLlzenshlp. Pe had
also complled wlLh Lhe 1-year resldencey rule as shown by Lhe followlng:
o C1C from 8arangay 6 (March 2006)
o assporL lndlcaLlng LhaL hls resldence ls ln 8arangay 6 (CcL 2003)
o 8eglsLered voLer aL 8rgy 6 (!uly 2006)
endlng Lhls case, 1y won Lhe elecLlons.
CCMLLLC 1sL ulvlslon ruled for 1y.
CCMLLLC Ln 8anc afflrmed.

lssue: WCn 1y complled wlLh Lhe one (1) year resldency requlremenL under Lhe Local CovernmenL Code.
Ak1 III

103

Peld: ?LS. 1he Lerm "resldence" ls Lo be undersLood noL ln lLs common accepLaLlon as referrlng Lo "dwelllng" or
"hablLaLlon," buL raLher Lo "domlclle" or legal resldence, LhaL ls, "Lhe place where a parLy acLually or consLrucLlvely
has hls permanenL home, where he, no maLLer where he may be found aL any glven Llme, evenLually lnLends Lo
reLurn and remaln (anlmus manendl).

A domlclle of orlgln ls acqulred by every person aL blrLh. lL ls usually Lhe place where Lhe chlld's parenLs reslde and
conLlnues unLll Lhe same ls abandoned by acqulslLlon of new domlclle (domlclle of cholce). ln Coqullla, Lhe CourL
already acknowledged LhaL for an lndlvldual Lo acqulre Amerlcan clLlzenshlp, he musL esLabllsh resldence ln Lhe
uSA. Slnce 1y hlmself admlLLed LhaL he became a naLurallzed Amerlcan clLlzen, Lhen he musL have necessarlly
abandoned 8arangay 6 as hls domlclle of orlgln, and Lransferred Lo Lhe uSA, as hls domlclle of cholce.

1y's reacqulslLlon of hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp under 8A 9223 had no auLomaLlc lmpacL or effecL on hls
resldence/domlclle. Pe could sLlll reLaln hls domlclle ln Lhe uSA, and he dld noL necessarlly regaln hls domlclle ln
8arangay 6. 1y merely had Lhe opLlon Lo agaln esLabllsh hls domlclle ln Lhe MunlclpallLy of Ceneral MacarLhur,
LasLern Samar, hlllpplnes, sald place becomlng hls new domlclle of cholce. 1he lengLh of hls resldence Lhereln
shall be deLermlned from Lhe Llme he made lL hls domlclle of cholce, and lL shall noL reLroacL Lo Lhe Llme of hls
blrLh.

1y's lnLenL Lo esLabllsh a new domlclle of cholce ln 8arangay 6 became apparenL when, lmmedlaLely afLer
reacqulrlng hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp on 2 CcLober 2003, he applled for a hlllpplne passporL lndlcaLlng ln hls
appllcaLlon LhaL hls resldence ln Lhe hlllpplnes was 8arangay 6. lor Lhe years 2006 and 2007, 1y volunLarlly
submlLLed hlmself Lo Lhe local Lax [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe MunlclpallLy of Ceneral MacarLhur, LasLern Samar, by paylng
communlLy Lax and securlng C1Cs from Lhe sald munlclpallLy sLaLlng Lhereln hls address as 8arangay 6. 1hereafLer,
1y applled for and was reglsLered as a voLer on 17 !uly 2006 ln reclncL 0013A, 8arangay 6.

1he case of Mayor !esse 8obredo of naga ClLy (pendlng ln Lhe CourL of Appeals)

V|||afuerte v. kobredo

lacLs:
ln a serles of cases quesLlonlng Lhe clLlzenshlp of former naga ClLy Mayor and currenL ulLC Sec !esse 8obredo, all
have been dlsmlssed excepL Lhe laLesL quo warranLo case flled by !o[o vlllafuerLe, 8obredo's opponenL for Lhe
mayoralLy race ln 2007.

1able 1: ClLlzenshlp cases flled vs naga ClLy Mayor !esse 8obredo
Source: 8ureau of lmmlgraLlon, Comelec, Supreme CourL
CASL CAuSL Cl AC1lCn ClllCL WPL8L
llLLu
S1A1uS
Crlando 1an vs
!esse 8obredo (u.C.
1992-736)
Compulsory
reglsLraLlon of
Chlnese naLlonals
and deporLaLlon
8ureau of
lmmlgraLlon and
ueporLaLlon
ulsmlssed on Lhe grounds of prescrlpLlon (more
Lhan 30 years have lapsed from Lhe Llme of
complalned acL)
Crlando 1an vs
!esse 8obredo (SA
Case no. 1992-040)
eLlLlon Lo deny due
course and/or cancel
cerLlflcaLe of
candldacy
Commlsslon on
LlecLlons
ulsmlssed by Lhe Comelec llrsL ulvlslon on CcLober
6, 1992 for lack of [urlsdlcLlon
8odolfo lorLuno vs
!esse 8obredo (SA
eLlLlon Lo deny due
Commlsslon on
LlecLlons
uenled by Comelec Second ulvlslon on !une 21,
2001, declarlng !esse 8obredo a llllplno clLlzen by
Ak1 III

104

Case no. 2001-020) cerLlflcaLe of
candldacy
lmplled elecLlon
8odolfo lorLuno vs
!esse 8obredo (LC
Case no. 2001-2)
eLlLlon for quo
warranLo
Commlsslon on
LlecLlons
ulsmlssed by Comelec Second ulvlslon for belng
mooL and academlc
ulsmlssed by Comelec en banc, acLlng on
peLlLloner's moLlon for reconslderaLlon, on AugusL
3, 2003 for lack of merlL, declarlng !esse 8obredo a
naLural-born clLlzen
8odolfo lorLuno vs
!esse 8obredo (C8
no. 139493)
eLlLlon for revlew
on cerLlorarl
Supreme CourL ulsmlssed for belng mooL and academlc
!o[o vlllafuerLe vs
!esse 8obredo (SA
Case no. 2004-064)
eLlLlon Lo deny due
cerLlflcaLe of
candldacy
Commlsslon on
LlecLlons
ulsmlssed by Comelec Second ulvlslon
!o[o vlllafuerLe vs
!esse 8obredo (LC
Case no. 2004-20)
eLlLlon for quo
warranLo
Commlsslon on
LlecLlons
endlng
!o[o vlllafuerLe vs
!esse 8obredo
eLlLlon Lo deny due
cerLlflcaLe of
candldacy
Commlsslon on
LlecLlons
endlng, flled on Aprll 3, 2007

AnLecedenL facLs are:
1896- arrlval of a cerLaln Llm 1eng". !esse 8obredo clalms LhaL Llm 1eng laLer adopLed Lhe name !uan
8obredo (!esse's grandfaLher)
1902 - passage of hlllpplne Crganlc acL declarlng all lnhablLanLs conLlnulng Lo reslde Lhereln" as llllplno
ClLlzens
lssue:
whaL ls Lhe clLlzenshlp of !esse 8obredo? chlnese

sub-lssues:
1. ls Llm Leng = !esse 8obredo's grandfaLher? nC. no evldence LhaL Lhey are one and Lhe same person
2. Assumlng no.1 ln Lhe afflrmaLlve, no evldence Lo show LhaL LlM 1LnC" conLlnued Lo reslde Lhereln. Pe
may have arrlved ln Lhe hlllpplnes yeL lefL afLerwards.
3. Slnce !esse 8obredo cannoL clalm llllplno clLlzenshlp Lhru hls faLher, can he clalm under Lhe 1973
ConsLlLuLlon whlch sLaLes LhaL Lhose whose moLhers are llllplno clLlzens Anu upon age of ma[orlLy, elecL
llllplno clLlzenshlps are llLllnCS? nC. 8obredo has forfelLed hls prlvllege of avalllng a hlllpplne
clLlzenshlp by noL performlng any acL showlng hls lnLenLlon Lo become llllplno ln all hls 49 years.

2. DISUALIIICA1ICNS
Caas| v. CA (1990)
lacLs:
rlvaLe respondenL MerlLo Mlguel was elecLed as munlclpal mayor of 8ollnao, angaslnan durlng Lhe local
elecLlons of !anuary 18, 1988. Pls dlsquallflcaLlon, however, was soughL by hereln peLlLloner, MaLeo Caasl, on Lhe
ground LhaL under SecLlon 68 of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code prlvaLe respondenL was noL quallfled because he ls a
green card holder, hence, a permanenL resldenL of Lhe unlLed SLaLes of Amerlca, noL of 8ollnao.
Ak1 III

103

lssues:
1. WheLher or noL a green card ls proof LhaL Lhe holder ls a permanenL resldenL of Lhe unlLed SLaLes.
2. WheLher respondenL Mlguel had walved hls sLaLus as a permanenL resldenL of or lmmlgranL Lo Lhe u.S.A. prlor
Lo Lhe local elecLlons on !anuary 18, 1988.

Peld:
1he Supreme CourL held LhaL Mlguel's appllcaLlon for lmmlgranL sLaLus and permanenL resldence ln Lhe u.S. and
hls possesslon of a green card aLLesLlng Lo such sLaLus are concluslve proof LhaL he ls a permanenL resldenL of Lhe
u.S. desplLe hls occaslonal vlslLs Lo Lhe hlllpplnes. 1he walver of such lmmlgranL sLaLus should be as lndublLable
as hls appllcaLlon for lL. AbsenL clear evldence LhaL he made an lrrevocable walver of LhaL sLaLus or LhaL he
surrendered hls green card Lo Lhe approprlaLe u.S. auLhorlLles before he ran for mayor of 8ollnao ln Lhe local
elecLlon on !anuary 18, 1988, Lhe CourL's concluslon ls LhaL he was dlsquallfled Lo run for sald publlc offlce, hence,
hls elecLlon LhereLo was null and vold.

SecLlon 18, ArLlcle xl of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon provldes:
Sec. 18. ubllc offlcers and employees owe Lhe SLaLe and Lhls coostltotloo olleqlooce ot oll tlmes, ooJ ooy
pobllc offlcet ot employee wbo seeks to cbooqe bls cltlzeosblp ot ocpolte tbe stotos of oo lmmlqtoot of
oootbet coootty Jotloq bls teoote sboll be Jeolt wltb by low.

ln Lhe same veln, buL noL qulLe, SecLlon 68 of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code of Lhe hlllpplnes provldes:
5c. 68. ulspoollflcotloos ... Aoy petsoo wbo ls o petmooeot teslJeot of ot oo lmmlqtoot to o fotelqo
coootty sboll oot be poollfleJ to too fot ooy electlve offlce ooJet tbls coJe, ooless solJ petsoo bos wolveJ
bls stotos os petmooeot teslJeot ot lmmlqtoot of o fotelqo coootty lo occotJooce wltb tbe teslJeoce
tepoltemeot ptovlJeJ fot lo tbe electloo lows.

ln Lhe case of MerlLo Mlguel, Lhe CourL deems lL slgnlflcanL LhaL ln Lhe "AppllcaLlon for lmmlqtoot vlsa and Allen
8eglsLraLlon" whlch Mlguel fllled up ln hls own handwrlLlng and submlLLed Lo Lhe uS Lmbassy ln Manlla before hls
deparLure for Lhe unlLed SLaLes ln 1984, Mlguel's answer Lo CuesLlon no. 21 Lhereln regardlng hls "LengLh of
lnLended sLay ," Mlguel's answer was, "letmooeotly."

Cn lLs face, Lhe green card LhaL was subsequenLly lssued by Lhe unlLed SLaLes ueparLmenL of !usLlce and
lmmlgraLlon and 8eglsLraLlon Servlce Lo Mlguel ldenLlfles hlm ln clear bold leLLers as a 8LSluLn1 ALlLn. Cn Lhe
back of Lhe card, Lhe upper porLlon, Lhe followlng lnformaLlon ls prlnLed: erson ldenLlfled by Lhls card ls enLlLled
Lo teslJe petmooeotly and work ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes."

uesplLe hls vlgorous dlsclalmer, Mlguel's lmmlgraLlon Lo Lhe unlLed SLaLes ln 1984 consLlLuLed an abandonmenL of
hls domlclle and resldence ln Lhe hlllpplnes. lor he dld noL go Lo Lhe unlLed SLaLes merely Lo vlslL hls chlldren or
hls docLor Lhere, he enLered Lhe llmlLed SLaLes wlLh Lhe lnLenLlon Lo have Lhere permanenLly as evldenced by hls
appllcaLlon for an lmmlgranL's (noL a vlslLor's or LourlsL's) vlsa. 8ased on LhaL appllcaLlon of hls, he was lssued by
Lhe u.S. CovernmenL Lhe requlslLe green card or auLhorlLy Lo reslde Lhere permanenLly.

lmmlgraLlon ls Lhe removlng lnLo one place from anoLher, Lhe acL of lmmlgraLlng ls enLerlng lnLo a counLry wlLh Lhe
lnLenLlon of resldlng ln lL. As a resldenL allen ln Lhe u.S., Mlguel owes Lemporary and local alleglance Lo Lhe u.S.,
Lhe counLry ln whlch he resldes. 1hls ls ln reLurn for Lhe proLecLlon glven Lo hlm durlng Lhe perlod of hls resldence
Lhereln.

SecLlon 18, ArLlcle xl of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon whlch provldes LhaL "any publlc offlcer or employee who seeks Lo
change hls clLlzenshlp or acqulre Lhe sLaLus of an lmmlgranL of anoLher counLry durlng hls Lenure shall be dealL
wlLh by law" ls noL appllcable Lo MerlLo Mlguel for he acqulred Lhe sLaLus of an lmmlgranL of Lhe unlLed SLaLes
befote he was elecLed Lo publlc offlce, noL "durlng hls Lenure" as mayor of 8ollnao, angaslnan.

Ak1 III

106

uld Mlguel, by reLurnlng Lo Lhe hlllpplnes ln november 1987 and presenLlng hlmself as a candldaLe for mayor of
8ollnao ln Lhe !anuary 18,1988 local elecLlons, walve hls sLaLus as a permanenL resldenL or lmmlgranL of Lhe unlLed
SLaLes?

1o be "quallfled Lo run for elecLlve offlce" ln Lhe hlllpplnes, Lhe law requlres LhaL Lhe candldaLe who ls a green
card holder musL have "walved hls sLaLus as a permanenL resldenL or lmmlgranL of a forelgn counLry." 1herefore,
hls acL of flllng a cerLlflcaLe of candldacy for elecLlve offlce ln Lhe hlllpplnes dld noL of lLself consLlLuLe a walver of
hls sLaLus as a permanenL resldenL or lmmlgranL of Lhe unlLed SLaLes. 1he walver of hls green card should be
manlfesLed by some acL or acLs lndependenL of and done prlor Lo flllng hls candldacy for elecLlve offlce ln Lhls
counLry. WlLhouL such prlor walver, he was "dlsquallfled Lo run for any elecLlve offlce"

Mlguel admlLs LhaL he holds a green card, whlch proves LhaL he ls a permanenL resldenL or lmmlgranL of Lhe unlLed
SLaLes, buL Lhe records of Lhls case are sLarkly bare of proof LhaL he had walved hls sLaLus as such befote he ran for
elecLlon as munlclpal mayor of 8ollnao on !anuary 18, 1988. We, Lherefore, hold LhaL he was dlsquallfled Lo
become a candldaLe for LhaL offlce.

1he reason for SecLlon 68 of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code ls noL hard Lo flnd. 8esldence ln Lhe munlclpallLy where he
lnLends Lo run for elecLlve offlce for aL leasL 1 year aL Lhe Llme of flllng hls cerLlflcaLe of candldacy ls one of Lhe
quallflcaLlons LhaL a candldaLe for elecLlve publlc offlce musL possess (Sec. 42, LCC). Mlguel dld noL possess LhaL
quallflcaLlon because he was a permanenL resldenL of Lhe unlLed SLaLes and he reslded ln 8ollnao for a perlod of
only 3 monLhs (noL one year) afLer hls reLurn Lo Lhe hlllpplnes ln nov 1987 and before he ran for mayor of LhaL
munlclpallLy on !an 18, 1988.

ln bannlng from elecLlve publlc offlce hlllpplne clLlzens who are permanenL resldenLs or lmmlgranLs of a forelgn
counLry, Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code has lald down a clear pollcy of excludlng from Lhe rlghL Lo hold elecLlve publlc
offlce Lhose hlllpplne clLlzens who possess dual loyalLles and alleglance. 1he law has reserved LhaL prlvllege for lLs
clLlzens who have casL Lhelr loL wlLh our counLry "wlLhouL menLal reservaLlons or purpose of evaslon." 1he
assumpLlon ls LhaL Lhose who are resldenL allens of a forelgn counLry are lncapable of such enLlre devoLlon Lo Lhe
lnLeresL and welfare of Lhelr homeland for wlLh one eye on Lhelr publlc duLles here, Lhey musL keep anoLher eye on
Lhelr duLles under Lhe laws of Lhe forelgn counLry of Lhelr cholce ln order Lo preserve Lhelr sLaLus as permanenL
resldenLs Lhereof.

Mlguel lnslsLs LhaL even Lhough he applled for lmmlgraLlon and permanenL resldence ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes, he
never really lnLended Lo llve Lhere permanenLly, for all LhaL he wanLed was a green card Lo enable hlm Lo come and
go Lo Lhe u.S. wlLh ease. ln oLher words, he would have Lhls CourL belleve LhaL he applled for lmmlgraLlon Lo Lhe
u.S. under false preLenses, LhaL all Lhls Llme he only had one fooL ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes buL kepL hls oLher fooL ln Lhe
hlllpplnes. Lven lf LhaL were Lrue, Lhls CourL wlll noL allow lLself Lo be a parLy Lo hls dupllclLy by permlLLlng hlm Lo
beneflL from lL, and glvlng hlm Lhe besL of boLh worlds so Lo speak.

Mlguel's appllcaLlon for lmmlgranL sLaLus and permanenL resldence ln Lhe u.S. and hls possesslon of a green card
aLLesLlng Lo such sLaLus are concluslve proof LhaL he ls a permanenL resldenL of Lhe u.S. desplLe hls occaslonal vlslLs
Lo Lhe hlllpplnes. 1he walver of such lmmlgranL sLaLus should be as lndublLable as hls appllcaLlon for lL. AbsenL
clear evldence LhaL he made an lrrevocable walver of LhaL sLaLus or LhaL he surrendered hls green card Lo Lhe
approprlaLe u.S. auLhorlLles before he ran for mayor of 8ollnao ln Lhe local elecLlons on !anuary 18, 1988, our
concluslon ls LhaL he was dlsquallfled Lo run for sald publlc offlce, hence, hls elecLlon LhereLo was null and vold.

Marquez v. CCMLLLC (199S)

lacLs:
8lenvenldo Marquez and Lduardo 8odrlguez were candldaLes for Covernor of Lhe provlnce of Cuezon n 1992.
8odrlguez won, and Lhls prompLed Marquez Lo flle poo wottooto proceedlngs agalnsL 8odrlguez for belng
dlsquallfled as a candldaLe because he ls a fuglLlve from [usLlce", whlch ls agalnsL Sec. 40(e) of Lhe Local
Ak1 III

107

CovernmenL Code. 8odrlguez was charged ln Los Angeles, Callfornla for 10 counLs of lnsurance fraud and grand
LhefL of personal properLy. 8ecause of Lhls, he was lssued a warranL, whlch remalned unserved because he already
wenL Lo Lhe hlllpplnes Lhen.
CCMLLLC denled Lhe peLlLlon for poo wottooto, hence, an acLlon for cettlototl was broughL Lo Lhe Supreme CourL.

lssue:
WhaL ls Lhe deflnlLlon of fuglLlve from [usLlce" LhaL should be followed?

8ullng:
Marquez and Lhe CSC argues LhaL a fuglLlve from [usLlce lncludes noL only Lhose who flee afLer convlcLlon Lo avold
punlshmenL buL llkewlse Lhose who, afLer belng charged, flee Lo avold prosecuLlon. Slnce Lhls deflnlLlon ls
supporLed by forelgn [urlsprudence (and Lhe hlllpplne Law ulcLlonary), lL was conceded by Lhe CourL as Lo
expresslng Lhe general and ordlnary connoLaLlon of Lhe Lerm.

8odrlguez, on Lhe oLher hand, clLes Lhe Congresslonal CverslghL CommlLLee who drafLed Lhe l88 for Lhe Local
CovernmenL Code. ln Lhe dellberaLlons, lL could be seen LhaL Lhere was confuslon as Lo Lhe lmpllcaLlons of deflnlng
whaL a fuglLlve from [usLlce really ls. 1here was a pronouncemenL from Lhe Chalrman LhaL fuglLlve means
somebody who ls convlcLed by flnal [udgmenL, and Lhls was adapLed verbaLlm ln ArL. 73 of Lhe l88.

1he CourL belleved LhaL Lhe l88 was an undue clrcumscrlpLlon of Lhe law, and LhaL Lhe clear deflnlLlon should
apply.

1here was no clear rullng on Lhe lnsLance of 8odrlguez because CCMLLLC never made a deLermlnaLlon as Lo hls
sLaLus as a fuglLlve from [usLlce

SeparaLe Cplnlon (uavlde):
ln addlLlon Lo Lhe argumenL of !usLlce vlLug, he also Lhlnks LhaL lf Lhe l88 ls Lo be followed, lL wlll have Lhe effecL of
dlsquallfylng all Lhose who have been convlcLed by flnal [udgmenL (overlncluslon). Powever, he does noL adhere Lo
Lhe apprehenslons on Lhe posslble consLlLuLlonal confllcL wlLh presumpLlon of lnnocence because such
presumpLlon does noL operaLe Lo lnclude quallflcaLlons for publlc offlce slnce lL ls noL a deLermlnanL of Lhe gullL or
lnnocence of Lhe lndlvdual.

kodr|guez v. CCMLLLC (1996)

Iacts:
ln 1992, peLlLloner and respondenL Marquez ran for Covernor of Cuezon rovlnce. eLlLloner won and was
proclalmed as wlnner.
8espondenL challenged hls vlcLory vla a Cuo WarranL on Lhe ground LhaL Lhere ls a charge pendlng agalnsL hlm
aL Lhe Los Angeles Munlclpal CourL for fraudulenL lnsurance clalms, grand LhefL, eLc. 1hus, he ls a fuglLlve from
[usLlce.
CCMLLLC dlsmlssed Lhe case, buL upon CerLlorlarl Lo Lhe Supreme CourL, lL was esLabllshed LhaL:
- luglLlve from [usLlce: lncludes noL only Lhose who flee afLer convlcLlon Lo avold punlshmenL, buL also
Lhose who afLer belng charged, flee Lo avold prosecuLlon.
1he case was remanded Lo Lhe CCMLLLC Lo deLermlne WCn peLlLloner ls a fuglLlve from [usLlce.
ln 1993, peLlLloner and respondenL agaln ran for Covernor, buL Lhls Llme upon peLlLloner's flllng of hls
CerLlflcaLe of Candldacy, respondenL flled a eLlLlon for ulsquallflcaLlon on Lhe same ground LhaL he ls a
fuglLlve from [usLlce.
CCMLLLC Lhen consolldaLed boLh cases: found peLlLloner gullLy based on documenLary evldence:
- AuLhenLlcaLed copy of Lhe warranL of arresL aL LA CourL
- AuLhenLlcaLed copy of Lhe felony complalnL
Sald documenLary evldence were recelved ex-parLe, because peLlLloner walked ouL from Lhe hearlng ! walver
of hls rlghL Lo dlsprove
Ak1 III

108

eLlLloner won agaln, and desplLe a MoLlon Lo suspend hls proclamaLlon, Lhe rovlnclal 8oard of Canvassers
proclalmed hlm
8espondenL flled an Cmnlbus MoLlon Lo declare Lhe proclamaLlon as lnvalld. SC Lhen dlrecLed CCMLLLC Chalr
Lo deslgnaLe a Commlssloner Lo recelve and evaluaLe evldence for peLlLloner.
8espondenL's allegaLlons:
- eLlLloner ls a fuglLlve from [usLlce
- 1he phrase needs a broader concepL - mere facL LhaL he leaves Lhe [urlsdlcLlon where he ls charged,
regardless of wheLher or noL Lhe charge has already been flled aL Lhe Llme of hls fllghL.

lssues/Peld:
1. WCn peLlLloner ls a fuglLlve from [usLlce? nC.
- CCMLLLC: nC1 a fuglLlve
o need for an lnLenL Lo evade
o use of Lhe word crlme" ln [urlsprudence connoLes gullL
o ulsquallflcaLlon ls based on fllghL from [usLlce"
- Pere, Lhe flllng of Lhe felony ln LA was 3 monLhs Al1L8 he lefL Lhe unlLed SLaLes.
- 1here was no sufflclenL evldence Lo conclude LhaL he aLLempLed Lo evade Lhe law. Pls compulslon Lo
reLurn Lo Lhe counLry was due Lo Lhe ousLer of lormer resldenL Marcos
- When ln good falLh, a person leaves Lhe LerrlLory of a sLaLe noL hls own, and he heads home, subsequenLly
learnlng LhaL charges were flled agalnsL hlm whlle ln Lhe relaLlve peace of hls own counLry, Lhe facL LhaL
he does noL sub[ecL hlmself Lo such forelgn [urlsdlcLlon does noL quallfy hlm ouLrlghL as a fuglLlve from
[usLlce.
- ln facL, he was already a publlc offlcer when he reLurned so he could noL have gone back Lo Lhe uS ln Lhe
mlddle of hls Lerm.
- Law of Lhe case docLrlne on Lhe deflnlLlon of a fuglLlve from [usLlce
- 8edeflnlng Lhe phrase would mean lnsLablllLy Lo [urlsprudence

!. 1orres, concurrlng:
1. Pe lefL 3 monLhs earller Lhan when Lhe case was flled. 1o assume LhaL he was nC1 unaware of hls own prlor
mlsdeeds ls LanLamounL Lo presumlng gullL.
2. eLlLloner's lack of knowledge of Lhe charge ls proven by:
- Pe reLurned Lo Lhe uS Lhrlce LhaL year
- Pe lefL hls wlfe Lhere and she was charged also. Pad peLlLloner been aware, he would noL have lefL hls
wlfe
3. 1here ls no law requlrlng peLlLloner Lo Lravel back Lo Lhe uS and sub[ecL hlmself Lo Lhe moneLary burden and
Ledlous process of defendlng hlmself before Lhose courLs (1ereslLa uy-Llacco, Lvldence of Lhe arLles)
4. 1he provlslon dlsquallfylng fuglLlves from [usLlce was allegedly Lallored Lo affecL peLlLloner (Sen. lmenLel: Lhls
ls a camaraderle" provlslon proposed by Lhe Pouse because a congressman ln SouLhern 1agalog rovlnce had
lnLended Lo run for Covernor).
3. 1o dlsquallfy peLlLloner would amounL Lo dlsenfranchlslng Lhe elecLoraLe ln whom Lhe soverelgn resldes.

!. vlLug, dlssenLlng:
1. Sec. 40(e) LCC ls noL an ex posL facLo law slnce lL Look effecL on 01 !anuary 1992, and lLs appllcaLlon was
durlng Lhe 1992 elecLlons
2. nelLher Lhe law (LCC) nor Congress dellberaLlons glve much clue on Lhe leglslaLlve lnLenL of Lhe phrase
fuglLlve from [usLlce." 8uL uslng Lhe case of kobetts v. kellly, lL was sald: lL ls noL necessary LhaL Lhe parLy
charged should have lefL Lhe SLaLe ln whlch Lhe crlme was commlLLed, or for Lhe purpose of avoldlng
prosecuLlon, buL slmply, belng ln anoLher sLaLe when he ls soughL Lo be sub[ecLed Lo lLs crlmlnal process Lo
answer for Lhe offense, and yeL he lefL sald [urlsdlcLlon.
3. lL maLLers noL WP? he lefL, buL Lhe lAC1 LhaL he lefL.
4. 1here ls also sufflclenL evldence adduced as Lo Lhe proceedlngs abroad:
- uocumenLary evldence noL dlsproved
Ak1 III

109

- 1esLlmonles of former [usLlces and colleagues
3. 1he lssue ln Lhe prevlous case was wheLher or noL convlcLlon by flnal [udgmenL of a person aL large was
essenLlal before he could be consldered as a fuglLlve from [usLlce. 1hls was mlsconsLrued by Lhe courL Lo
convey Lhe ldea of excluslvlLy of Lhe deflnlLlon of fuglLlve from [usLlce."

De |a 1orre v. CCMLLLC (1996)

lAC1S:
eLlLloner 8olando . uela 1orre vla a peLlLlon for cettlototl seeks Lhe nulllflcaLlon of Lwo resoluLlons lssued by Lhe
CCMLLLC ln a case for dlsquallflcaLlon flled agalnsL hlm before Lhe CCMLLLC. 1he flrsL resoluLlon declared
eLlLloner dlsquallfled from runnlng for Lhe poslLlon of Mayor of CavlnLl, Laguna ln Lhe lasL May 8, 1993 elecLlons,
clLlng secLlon 40(a) of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code of 1991 whlch dlsquallfles from runnlng for any elecLlve local
poslLlon Lhose senLenced by flnal [udgmenL for an offense lnvolvlng moral LurplLude wlLhln Lwo years afLer servlng
senLence. 1he dlsquallflcaLlon was based on a flndlng by Lhe CCMLLLC of eLlLloner's convlcLlon for vlolaLlon of
Lhe AnLl-lenclng Law, whlch became flnal on !anuary 18, 1991. 1he second assalled resoluLlon denled peLlLloner's
moLlon for reconslderaLlon.

lSSuLS:
1. WCn Lhe crlme of fenclng lnvolves moral LurplLude, and
2. WCn a granL of probaLlon affecLs Lhe appllcablllLy of secLlon 40(a)

8uLlnC:
1. ?LS, because acLual knowledge by Lhe fence" of Lhe facL LhaL properLy recelved ls sLolen dlsplays Lhe same
degree of mallclous deprlvaLlon of one's rlghLful properLy as LhaL whlch anlmaLed Lhe robbery or LhefL whlch, by
Lhelr very naLure, are crlmes of moral LurplLude. AlbelL Lhe parLlclpaLlon of each felon ln Lhe unlawful Laklng
dlffers ln polnL ln Llme and ln degree, boLh Lhe fence" and Lhe acLual perpeLraLor/s of Lhe robbery or LhefL lnvaded
one's peaceful domlnlon for galn - Lhus dellberaLely reneglng ln Lhe process prlvaLe duLles" Lhey owe Lhelr
fellowmen" or socleLy" ln a manner conLrary Lo accepLed and cusLomary rule of rlghL and duLy, [usLlce, honesLy
or good morals."

2. nC, eLlLloner's convlcLlon of fenclng subslsLs and remalns LoLally unaffecLed noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe granL of
probaLlon. ln facL, a [udgmenL of convlcLlon ln a crlmlnal case lpso focto aLLalns flnallLy when Lhe accused applles
for probaLlon, alLhough lL ls noL execuLory pendlng resoluLlon of Lhe appllcaLlon for probaLlon.

8A1lC:
1. Moral LurplLude, as deflned ln 8lack's Law ulcLlonary, ls an acL of baseness, vlleness, or depravlLy ln Lhe prlvaLe
duLles whlch a man owes hls fellowmen, or Lo socleLy ln general, conLrary Lo Lhe accepLed and cusLomary rule of
rlghL and duLy beLween man and woman or conducL conLrary Lo [usLlce, honesLy, modesLy, or good morals.
2. 1he legal effecL of probaLlon ls only Lo suspend Lhe execuLlon of Lhe senLence.

Magno v. CCMLLLC (2002)

lAC1S:
1hls case perLalns Lo Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon of nesLor Magno as mayoralLy candldaLe of San lsldro, nueva Lclha durlng
Lhe 14 May 2001 elecLlons on Lhe ground LhaL he was prevlously convlcLed by Lhe Sandlganbayan of four counLs of
dlrecL brlbery. ConsequenLly, Magno applled for probaLlon and was dlscharged ln March 1998 upon Lhe order of
81C Capan, nueva Lcl[a.

CCMLLLC ruled LhaL Magno should be dlsquallfled from runnlng for Lhe poslLlon of mayor by vlrLue of SecLlon 12
of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code slnce dlrecL brlbery ls a crlme lnvolvlng moral LurplLude. lurLhermore, hls flve-year
Ak1 III

110

dlsquallflcaLlon wlll only end on March 2003 slnce he only compleLed hls servlce of hls senLence ln March 1998.
CCMLLLC denled Lhe moLlon for reconslderaLlon.

MAln lSSuL:
WCn Magno was dlsquallfled Lo run for mayor ln Lhe 2001 elecLlons
Su8-lSSuLS:
(1) WCn Lhe crlme of dlrecL brlbery lnvolves moral LurplLude
(2) WCn lL ls Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code or Lhe Local CovernmenL Code LhaL should apply ln Lhls slLuaLlon

MACnC'S A8CuMLn1S:
ulrecL brlbery ls noL a crlme lnvolvlng moral LurplLude. Moreover, Lhe appllcable law should be SecLlon 40 of Lhe
Local CovernmenL Code (2-year ban afLer servlce of senLence) and noL Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code (3-year ban)
wlLh respecL Lo dlsquallflcaLlons of persons runnlng for local publlc offlce. Slnce he already served hls senLence as
of March 1998, Lhen hls Lwo-year dlsquallflcaLlon perlod should have explred ln March 2000, more Lhan a year
before Lhe elecLlons ln quesLlon.

PLLu/8A1lC:
(1) 1he CourL flrsL deflned whaL moral LurplLude ls. uslng 8lack's Law ulcLlonary, lL ls an acL of baseness, vlleness,
or depravlLy ln Lhe prlvaLe duLles whlch a man owes hls fellow men, or Lo socleLy ln general, conLrary Lo Lhe
accepLed and cusLomary rule of rlghL and duLy beLween man and woman or conducL conLrary Lo [usLlce, honesLy,
modesLy, or good morals."

Powever, noL every crlmlnal acL lnvolves moral LurplLude. lL frequenLly depends on Lhe clrcumsLances surroundlng
Lhe vlolaLlon of Lhe law. ln Lhls case, Lhe SC examlned Lhe elemenLs of dlrecL brlbery Lo deLermlne wheLher lL ls a
crlme lnvolvlng moral LurplLude. ln lLs revlew, Lhe CourL ruled LhaL Lhe Lhlrd elemenL (LhaL a publlc offlcer accepLs
an offer, promlse or glfL wlLh a vlew Lo commlL some crlme, or ln conslderaLlon of Lhe execuLlon of an acL whlch
does noL consLlLuLe a crlme buL Lhe acL musL be un[usL, or Lo refraln from dolng someLhlng whlch lL ls hls offlclal
duLy Lo do) denoLes a mallclous lnLenL on Lhe parL of Lhe offender Lo renege on Lhe duLles whlch he owes hls
fellowmen and socleLy ln general. Also, Lhe facL LhaL Lhe offender Lakes advanLage of hls offlce and poslLlon ls a
beLrayal of Lhe LrusL reposed on hlm by Lhe publlc. lL ls a conducL clearly conLrary Lo Lhe accepLed rules of rlghL and
duLy, [usLlce, honesLy and good morals. ln all respecLs, dlrecL brlbery ls a crlme lnvolvlng moral LurplLude.

(2) 1he Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code was enacLed ln 1983 whlle Lhe Local CovernmenL Code became a law ln 1992. lL ls
baslc ln sLaLuLory consLrucLlon LhaL ln case of lrreconcllable confllcL beLween Lwo laws, Lhe laLer enacLmenL musL
prevall, belng Lhe more recenL expresslon of leglslaLlve wlll. leqls postetlotes ptlotes coottotlos obtoqoot. ln
enacLlng Lhe laLer law, Lhe leglslaLure ls presumed Lo have knowledge of Lhe older law and lnLended Lo change lL.
lurLhermore, Lhe repeallng clause of SecLlon 334 of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code sLaLes LhaL: (f) All general and
speclal laws, acLs, clLy charLers, decrees, execuLlve orders, proclamaLlons and admlnlsLraLlve regulaLlons, or parL or
parLs Lhereof whlch are lnconslsLenL wlLh any provlslons of Lhls Code are hereby repealed or modlfled accordlngly.

ln accordance LherewlLh, SecLlon 40 of Lhe LCC ls deemed Lo have repealed SecLlon 12 of Lhe CLC. lurLhermore,
ArLlcle 7 of Lhe Clvll Code provldes LhaL laws are repealed only by subsequenL ones, and noL Lhe oLher way around.
When a subsequenL law enLlrely encompasses Lhe sub[ecL maLLer of Lhe former enacLmenL, Lhe laLLer ls deemed
repealed.

1he lnLenL of Lhe leglslaLure Lo reduce Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon perlod of candldaLes for local poslLlons from flve Lo Lwo
years ls evldenL. 1he cardlnal rule ln Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon of all laws ls Lo ascerLaln and glve effecL Lo Lhe lnLenL of Lhe
law. 1he reducLlon of Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon perlod from flve Lo Lwo years ls Lhe manlfesL lnLenL.

1herefore, alLhough hls crlme of dlrecL brlbery lnvolved moral LurplLude, peLlLloner noneLheless could noL be
dlsquallfled from runnlng ln Lhe 2001 elecLlons. ArLlcle 12 of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code (8 881) musL yleld Lo
ArLlcle 40 of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code (8A 7160).eLlLloner's dlsquallflcaLlon ceased as of March 2000.
Ak1 III

111

L|ngat|ng v. CCMLLLC (2002)

8ACkC8Cunu:
Cesar Sulong (8espondenL)
1988 !an-18 LlecLed Mayor of Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur (1sL Lerm)
1992 May-11 8e-elecLed Mayor of Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur (2nd Lerm)
1993 May-8 8e-elecLed Mayor of Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur (3rd Lerm)
2001 May-16 LlecLed Mayor of Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur
Cesar Sulong, 4,382 voLes vs Mlguel LlngaLlng, 3,611 voLes

AdmlnlsLraLlve ComplalnL no. 12-91
uurlng Lhe flrsL Lerm of Mayor Sulong, an admlnlsLraLlve complalnL was flled agalnsL hlm and several oLher
lndlvlduals for ulshonesLy, lalslflcaLlon of ubllc uocumenLs, MalversaLlon of ubllc lunds and vlolaLlon of 8A no.
3019. Cn lebruary 4 1992, Lhe Sanggunlang anlalawlgan of Zamboanga del Sur found hlm gullLy of Lhe charges
and ordered hls removal from offlce. Mayor Sulong flled a moLlon for reconslderaLlon and/or noLlce of appeal
shorLly LhereafLer. 1he Sanggunlan ordered Lhe complalnanL ln AC no 12-91 Lo commenL. endlng appeal, Lhen
vlce-Mayor vlcenLe lmblng Look hls oaLh and assumed Lhe offlce of Mayor of Lapuyan on March 3, 1992 pursuanL
Lo SecLlon 68 of Lhe Local Cov'L Code whlch allows for Lhe execuLlon pendlng appeal of admlnlsLraLlve declslons.
lrom lebruary 1992 - AugusL 2001, no commenL was ever flled by Lhe complalnanL ln AC no 12-91 nor has Lhe
Sanggunlan resolved Sulong's M8/Appeal.

May 2001 LlecLlons
CandldaLes for poslLlon of Mayor of Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur: Mlguel LlngaLlng (peLlLloner) and Cesar Sulong
(respondenL)

lAC1S Cl 1PL CASL:
Cn May 3, 2001 LlngaLlng flled wlLh a peLlLlon for dlsquallflcaLlon of Cesar Sulong on Lhe ground LhaL peLlLloner ls
dlsquallfled from runnlng for any elecLlve local poslLlon havlng been removed from offlce durlng hls flrsL Lerm
(1988-1991) as a resulL of an admlnlsLraLlve case (AC no 12-91) pursuanL Lo SecLlon 40(b) of Lhe Local CovernmenL
Code. 8espondenL Sulong denled LhaL Lhe declslon ln AC no 12-91 had ever become flnal and execuLory slnce up Lo
Lhe flllng of Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon case, no commenL has been flled nor has Lhe appeal been resolved. AfLer Lhe
parLles had flled Lhelr memoranda, Lhe case was submlLLed for resoluLlon. 1he CCMLLLC however, was unable Lo
render [udgmenL before Lhe elecLlons of May 14, 2001, where Cesar Sulong was elecLed and proclalmed Mayor of
Lapuyan.

CCMLLLC llrsL ulvlslon (ulsquallfled)
ln a resoluLlon daLed AugusL 1, 2001, Lhe CCMLLLC declared respondenL Cesar 8. Sulong dlsquallfled adherlng Lo
secLlon 40(b) of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code. 8espondenL Sulong flled an M8 argulng LhaL Lhe declslon ln AC no.
12-91 has noL become flnal and execuLory, LhaL aL no Llme had he been removed by vlrLue of Lhe sald declslon, and
LhaL Lhe lssue was mooL and academlc havlng been "overLaken by Lhe local elecLlons of May 11, 1992." eLlLloner
LlngaLlng flled an opposlLlon Lo Lhe M8 conLendlng LhaL Lhe facL LhaL Sulong was succeeded by vlce Mayor lmblng
was proof LhaL AC no. 12-91 had lndeed become flnal. eLlLloner also prayed LhaL he be lnsLalled as Mayor of
Lapuyuan ln vlew of Sulong's dlsquallflcaLlon. 1he CCMLLLC llrsL ulvlslon denled peLlLloner's moLlon on Lhe
ground LhaL Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon of an elecLed candldaLe does noL enLlLle Lhe candldaLe who obLalned Lhe second
hlghesL number of voLes Lo occupy Lhe offlce vacaLed. eLlLloner Lhen flled a moLlon for reconslderaLlon of Lhls
order.

CCMLLLC en banc (noL dlsquallfled)
1he CCMLLLC en banc reversed Lhe declslon of Lhe flrsL dlvlslon, clLlng Agulnaldo v CCMLLLC LhaL re-elecLlon
renders an admlnlsLraLlve case mooL and academlc. lL also ruled LhaL respondenL Sulong was noL enLlLled Lo occupy
Lhe offlce Lhus vacaLed.
Ak1 III

112

eLlLloner conLends LhaL Lhe CCMLLLC en banc erred ln applylng Lhe rullng ln Agulnaldo v. CCMLLLC. lnsLead,
LlngaLlng argues LhaL Lhe appllcable case ls 8eyes v. CCMLLLC where Lhe courL held LhaL an elecLlve local execuLlve
offlcer, who ls removed before Lhe explraLlon of Lhe Lerm for whlch he was elecLed, ls dlsquallfled from belng a
candldaLe for a local elecLlve poslLlon under SecLlon 40(b) of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code. Pence, Lhls peLlLlon.

lSSuL:
WCn respondenL Sulong ls dlsquallfled Lo run for local elecLlon

PLLu:
Sulong ls quallfled.

Agulnaldo and 8eyes Cases lnappllcable.
ln Agulnaldo v CCMLLLC, Lhe courL held LhaL removal cannoL exLend beyond Lhe Lerm durlng whlch Lhe alleged
mlsconducL was commlLLed. lf a publlc offlclal ls noL removed before hls Lerm of offlce explres, he can no longer be
removed lf he ls LhereafLer re-elecLed for anoLher Lerm. Powever, Agulnaldo ls noL appllcable as aL Lhe Llme Lhe
case was declded, Lhere was no provlslon slmllar Lo 40(b) of Lhe LCC and hence, cannoL be glven reLroacLlve effecL.
nelLher ls 8eyes v CCMLLLC appllcable as AC no. 12-91 remalns Lo Lhls day, noL flnal.
AdmlnlsLraLlve case noL flnal.

1he flllng of an M8 by Sulong prevenLed Lhe declslon of Sanggunlang anlalawlgan from becomlng flnal. 1here ls
Lhus no declslon flndlng respondenL gullLy Lo speak of. 1he courL also agreed wlLh Lhe Sanggunlang anlalawlgan
and consldered Lhe maLLer mooL and academlc havlng been overLaken by Lhe local elecLlons of May 1992. nelLher
can Lhe successlon of Lhen vlce-mayor of Lapuyan Lo Lhe offlce of mayor be consldered proof LhaL Lhe declslon ln
AC no. 12-91 had become flnal because lL appears Lo have been made pursuanL Lo SecLlon 6816 of Lhe LCC, whlch
makes declslons ln admlnlsLraLlve cases lmmedlaLely execuLory.

I|ores v. Dr||on (1998)

lAC1S
1he consLlLuLlonallLy of Sec. 13, par. (d) , of 8.A. 7227, oLherwlse known as Lhe "8ases Converslon and
uevelopmenL AcL of 1992," under whlch respondenL Mayor 8lchard !. Cordon of Clongapo ClLy was appolnLed
Chalrman and Chlef LxecuLlve Cfflcer of Lhe Sublc 8ay MeLropollLan AuLhorlLy (S8MA), ls challenged ln Lhls
peLlLlon.
eLlLloners, malnLaln LhaL Lhe provlso ln par. (d) of Sec. 13 lnfrlnges on Sec. 7, flrsL par., ArL. lx-8, of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon, whlch sLaLes LhaL "no elecLlve offlclal shall be ellglble for appolnLmenL or deslgnaLlon ln any capaclLy
Lo any publlc offlcer or poslLlon durlng hls Lenure," because Lhe ClLy Mayor of Clongapo ClLy ls an elecLlve offlclal
and Lhe sub[ecL posLs are publlc offlces,
PLLu:
Cordon ls lnellglble for appolnLmenL as S8MA Chalrman ln llghL of Lhe facL LhaL he ls Lhe elecLlve mayor of
Clongapo.

1he provlso ln Sec. 13 (d) of 8.A. 7227 vlolaLes Lhe consLlLuLlonal proscrlpLlon agalnsL appolnLmenL or deslgnaLlon
of elecLlve offlclals Lo oLher governmenL posLs.

Sec. 7 of ArL. lx-8 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon expresses Lhe pollcy agalnsL Lhe concenLraLlon of several publlc poslLlons ln
one person, so LhaL a publlc offlcer or employee may serve full-Llme wlLh dedlcaLlon and Lhus be efflclenL ln Lhe
dellvery of publlc servlces. lL ls an afflrmaLlon LhaL a publlc offlce ls a full-Llme [ob. Slnce Lhls ls preclsely whaL Lhe
consLlLuLlonal proscrlpLlon seeks Lo prevenL, lL needs no sLreLchlng of Lhe lmaglnaLlon Lo conclude LhaL Lhe provlso
conLravenes Sec. 7, flrsL par., ArL. lx-8 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. 1he facL LhaL Lhe experLlse of an elecLlve offlclal may be
mosL beneflclal Lo Lhe hlgher lnLeresL of Lhe body pollLlc ls of no momenL.

Ak1 III

113

lL ls argued LhaL Sec. 94 of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code (LCC) permlLs Lhe appolnLmenL of a local elecLlve offlclal Lo
anoLher posL lf so allowed by law or by Lhe prlmary funcLlons of hls offlce. 8uL, Lhe conLenLlon ls fallaclous. SecLlon
94 of Lhe LCC ls noL deLermlnaLlve of Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Sec. 13, par. (d), of 8.A. 7227, for no leglslaLlve acL can
prevall over Lhe fundamenLal law of Lhe land.

ln any case, Lhe vlew LhaL an elecLlve offlclal may be appolnLed Lo anoLher posL lf allowed by law or by Lhe prlmary
funcLlons of hls offlce lgnores Lhe clear-cuL dlfference ln Lhe wordlng of Lhe Lwo (2) paragraphs of Sec. 7 ArL. lx-8 of
Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. Whlle Lhe second paragraph auLhorlzes holdlng of mulLlple offlces by an appolnLlve offlclal when
allowed by law or by Lhe prlmary funcLlons of hls poslLlon, Lhe flrsL paragraph appears Lo be more sLrlngenL by noL
provldlng any excepLlon Lo Lhe rule agalnsL appolnLmenL or deslgnaLlon of an elecLlve offlclal Lo Lhe governmenL
posL, excepL as are parLlcularly recognlzed ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon lLself, e.g., Lhe resldenL as head of Lhe economlc
and plannlng agency, Lhe vlce-resldenL, who may be appolnLed Member of Lhe CablneL, and, a member of
Congress who may be deslgnaLed ex offlclo member of Lhe !udlclal and 8ar Councll.

1he dlsLlncLlon belng clear, Lhe exempLlon allowed Lo appolnLlve offlclals ln Lhe second paragraph cannoL be
exLended Lo elecLlve offlclals who are governed by Lhe flrsL paragraph. 1he phrase "shall be appolnLed" ln Lhe
provlso unquesLlonably shows Lhe lnLenL Lo make Lhe S8MA posLs appolnLlve and noL merely ad[uncL Lo Lhe posL of
Mayor of Clongapo ClLy. Pad lL been Lhe leglslaLlve lnLenL Lo make Lhe sub[ecL poslLlons ex offlclo, Congress would
have, aL leasL, avolded Lhe word "appolnLed" and, lnsLead, "ex offlclo" would have been used. 1herefore, as an
lncumbenL elecLlve offlclal, respondenL Cordon ls lnellglble for appolnLmenL Lo Lhe poslLlon of Chalrman of Lhe
8oard and Chlef LxecuLlve of S8MA.

3. L|ect|on Cases Invo|v|ng Loca| L|ect|ve Cff|c|a|s

Ga||do v. CCMLLLC (1991)

lAC1S
eLlLloner Calldo and prlvaLe respondenL Caleon were candldaLes durlng Lhe !anuary 1988 local elecLlons for
mayor of Carcla-Pernandez, 8ohol. Calldo was proclalmed Mayor. Caleon flled an elecLlon proLesL before Lhe 81C
whlch upheld Lhe proclamaLlon of Calldo. Caleon appealed 81C declslon Lo Lhe CCMLLLC. lLs llrsL ulvlslon
reversed Lhe 81C declslon and declared Caleon Lhe duly-elecLed mayor. AfLer Lhe CCMLLLC en banc denled Lhe
Calldo's moLlon for reconslderaLlon and afflrmed Lhe declslon of lLs llrsL ulvlslon. 1he CCMLLLC held LhaL Lhe 13
balloLs ln Lhe same preclncL conLalnlng Lhe lnlLlal C" afLer Lhe name Calldo" were marked balloLs and, Lherefore,
lnvalld.

Calldo flled Lhe presenL peLlLlon for cerLlorarl and ln[uncLlon before SC and succeeded ln geLLlng a Lemporary
resLralnlng order. ln hls commenL Lo Lhe peLlLlon, Caleon moved for dlsmlssal, clLlng ArLlcle lx (C), SecLlon 2(2),
paragraph 2 of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon, LhaL llnal declslons, orders or rullngs of Lhe CCMLLLC ln elecLlon conLesLs
lnvolvlng elecLlve munlclpal offlces are flnal and execuLory, and noL appealable.

PLLu:
1haL declslons, flnal orders or rullngs of Lhe CCMLLLC ln conLesLs lnvolvlng elecLlve munlclpal and barangay offlces
are flnal, execuLory and noL appealable, does noL preclude a recourse Lo Lhls CourL by way of a speclal clvll acLlon
of cerLlorarl under 8ule 63. ArLlcle lx (A), SecLlon 7, 1987 ConsLlLuLlon: unless oLherwlse provlded by Lhls
ConsLlLuLlon or by law, any declslon, order, or rullng of each (ConsLlLuLlonal) Commlsslon may be broughL Lo Lhe
Supreme CourL on cerLlorarl by Lhe aggrleved parLy wlLhln LhlrLy days from recelpL Lhereof."

1he funcLlon of a wrlL of cerLlorarl ls Lo keep an lnferlor courL or Lrlbunal (such as Lhe CCMLLLC ln Lhe exerclse of
lLs quasl-[udlclal powers) wlLhln Lhe bounds of lLs [urlsdlcLlon or Lo prevenL lL from commlLLlng a grave abuse of
dlscreLlon amounLlng Lo lack or excess of [urlsdlcLlon. neverLheless, SC found no CAu ln CCMLLLC's parL.

Ak1 III

114

k|vera v. CCMLLLC (1991)

lacLs of Lhe case:
8lvera ran, and won, as munlclpal mayor of CulnobaLan, Albay, ln !anuary 1988. Carcla laLer flled an elecLlon
proLesL wlLh 81C of Legazpl ClLy whlch ruled ln SepLember 1989 LhaL Carcla won, havlng obLalned 6,376 voLes
agalnsL 8lvera's 6,222.

8lvera appealed Lo Lhe CCMLLLC, whlch, Lhrough lLs llrsL ulvlslon, afflrmed Lhe 81C [udgmenL, wlLh Lhe
modlflcaLlon LhaL Carcla won by 133 voLes lnsLead of by 134 voLes. 8lvera appealed Lo Lhe Comelec en banc, whlch
denled Lhe moLlon and reafflrmed Lhe earller rullng, buL agaln modlfled Lhe wlnnlng margln, Lhls Llme Lo 123 voLes.

8lvera broughL up Lhe case Lo Lhe Supreme CourL.

lssue: WheLher or noL Comelec declslons on elecLlon conLesLs lnvolvlng munlclpal and barangay offlclals were flnal,
execuLory and noL appealable.

Peld: nC. 1hese are appealable Lo Lhe Supreme CourL.

8aLlo: 1he case revolved around Lwo ConsLlLuLlonal provlslons:

Cne whlch sald LhaL any declslon, order, or rullng of each (ConsLlLuLlonal) Commlsslon may be broughL Lo Lhe
Supreme CourL on cerLlorarl by Lhe aggrleved parLy wlLhln LhlrLy days from recelpL of a copy Lhereof." (ArL lx (A),
SecLlon 7, 1987 ConsLlLuLlon).

And anoLher whlch sald LhaL declslons, flnal orders, or rullngs of Lhe Comelec ln conLesLs lnvolvlng elecLlve
munlclpal and barangay offlces shall be flnal, execuLory and noL appealable. (ArL lx (C), SecLlon 2(2), 1987
ConsLlLuLlon: [1he Comelec shall] Lxerclse excluslve orlglnal [urlsdlcLlon over all conLesLs relaLlng Lo Lhe elecLlons,
reLurns, and quallflcaLlons of all elecLlve reglonal, provlnclal, and clLy offlclals, and appellaLe [urlsdlcLlon over all
conLesLs lnvolvlng elecLlve munlclpal offlclals declded by Lrlal courLs of general [urlsdlcLlon, or lnvolvlng elecLlve
barangay offlclals declded by Lrlal courLs of llmlLed [urlsdlcLlon. ueclslons, flnal orders, or rullngs of Lhe
Commlsslon on elecLlon conLesLs lnvolvlng elecLlve munlclpal and barangay offlces shall be flnal, execuLory, and
noL appealable.

1he CourL polnLed ouL LhaL Lhe case was slmllar Lo a case declded ln !anuary LhaL year (1991), Calldo, ln whlch Lhe
SC ruled LhaL Lhe facL LhaL declslons, flnal orders or rullngs of Lhe Commlsslon on LlecLlons ln conLesLs lnvolvlng
elecLlve munlclpal and barangay offlcers are flnal, execuLory and noL appealable, does noL preclude a recourse Lo
Lhls CourL by way of a speclal clvll acLlon of cerLlorarl."
lL clLed Lhe proceedlngs ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon, ln whlch was menLloned LhaL whlle Lhese declslons
wlLh respecL Lo barangay and munlclpal offlclals are flnal and lmmedlaLely execuLory and, Lherefore, noL
appealable, LhaL does noL rule ouL Lhe posslblllLy of an orlglnal speclal clvll acLlon for cerLlorarl, prohlblLlon, or
mandamus, as Lhe case may be, under 8ule 63 of Lhe 8ules of CourL."

ln anoLher case, llores v Comelec, Lhe CourL held LhaL Lhe phrase saylng Lhe declslon were flnal and noL appealable
applles only Lo quesLlons of facL and noL of law. 1haL provlslon was noL lnLended Lo dlvesL Lhe Supreme CourL of
lLs auLhorlLy Lo resolve quesLlons of law as lnherenL ln Lhe [udlclal power conferred upon lL by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon."

1he SC however afflrmed Lhe Comelec declslon, polnLlng ouL LhaL Lhe LhrusL of Lhe peLlLlon for cerLlorarl was LhaL
Comelec had commlLLed grave abuse of dlscreLlon when lL annulled 8lvera's earller proclamaLlon as CulnobaLan
mayor. 1he CourL held LhaL Lhe declslon was noL arrlved aL caprlclously or whlmslcally," addlng LhaL Lhe
appreclaLlon and re-evaluaLlon of balloLs are facLual deLermlnaLlons. lL ls seLLled LhaL ln a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl,
flndlngs of facL of admlnlsLraLlve bodles are flnal unless grave abuse of dlscreLlon has marred such facLual
deLermlnaLlons."
Ak1 III

113

4. 1erm of Cff|ce, 1he 1hree 1erm L|m|t ku|e

8o|os v. CCMLLLC (2009)

lacLs:
8olos for Lhree consecuLlve Lerms (1994,1997, and 2002) was elecLed as Lhe unong 8arangay of
8arangay 8lklng, uauls, 8ohol.
ln May 2004, durlng hls lncumbency, ran for Munlclpal Councllor ofuauls and won. Pe assumed offlce on
!uly 1, 2004 leavlng hls posL as unong 8arangay.
AfLer servlng hls Lerm as a councllor he flled hls candldacy for Lhe poslLlon of unong 8arangay ln Lhe
CcLober 29, 2007 8arangay and Sanggunlang kabaLaan LlecLlons.
Clnconlegue, Lhen lncumbenL unong 8arangay and also a candldaLe for Lhe same offlce, flled a peLlLlon
for dlsquallflcaLlon on Lhe ground LhaL 8olos !r. has already served Lhe maxlmum llmlL of Lhree- Lerm
hence no longer ellglble Lo run and hold Lhe poslLlon ln accordance wlLh Sec. 8, ArLlcle x of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon and Sec. 43 (b) of 8A 7160 or Lhe Local CovernmenL Code of 1991.
endlng Lhe resoluLlon of Lhe case before Lhe CCMLLLC, 8olos !r. won ln Lhe elecLlon.
1he CCMLLLC resolved Lhe peLlLlon ln favor of Clnconlegue rullng LhaL 8olos !r. has already served Lhe
maxlmum Lhree consecuLlve Lerm for an offlce and Lhus dlsquallfled Lo run for Lhe same offlce. lL furLher
ordered LhaL Lhe proclamaLlon of 8olos !r. be annulled and LhaL Lhe offlce wlll be succeeded based on Sec.
44 of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhere was a volunLary renunclaLlon of Lhe offlce of unong 8arangay by 8olos !r. when he
assumed Lhe posL of Munlclpal Councllor so LhaL he ls deemed Lo have served for Lhree consecuLlve
Lerms?

Peld:
?LS.

8aLlo:
1he Lhree- Lerm llmlL for elecLlve offlclal ls conLalned ln Sec. 8, ArLlcle x of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon sLaLes:
SecLlon 8. 1he Lerm of offlce of elecLlve local offlclals, excepL barangay offlclals, whlch shall be
deLermlned by law, shall be Lhree years and no such offlclal shall serve for more Lhan Lhree consecuLlve
Lerms. volunLary renunclaLlon of Lhe offlce for any lengLh of Llme shall noL be consldered as an
lnLerrupLlon ln Lhe conLlnulLy of hls servlce for Lhe full Lerm for whlch he was elecLed."
1he Local CovernmenL Code provldes for Lhe Lerm of offlce of 8arangay Cfflclals: Sec. 43. 1etm of
Offlce. - x x x (b) no local elecLlve offlclal shall serve for more Lhan Lhree (3) consecuLlve Lerms
ln Lhe same poslLlon. volunLary renunclaLlon of Lhe offlce for any lengLh of Llme shall noL be
consldered as an lnLerrupLlon ln Lhe conLlnulLy of servlce for Lhe full Lerm for whlch Lhe elecLlve
offlclal concerned was elecLed. (c) 1he Lerm of barangay offlclals and members of Lhe
sanggunlang kabaLaan shall be for flve (3) years, whlch shall begln afLer Lhe regular elecLlon of
barangay offlclals on Lhe second Monday of May 1997: ltovlJeJ, 1haL Lhe sanggunlang kabaLaan
members who were elecLed ln Lhe May 1996 elecLlons shall serve unLll Lhe nexL regular elecLlon
of barangay offlclals.
ln Lhls case, peLlLloner dld noL flll or succeed Lo a vacancy by operaLlon of law. Pe lnsLead rellnqulshed hls
offlce as unong 8arangay durlng hls Lhlrd Lerm when he won and assumed offlce as Sanggunlang 8ayan
member of uauls, 8ohol, whlch ls deemed a volunLary renunclaLlon of Lhe Cfflce of unong 8arangay.

D|zon v. CCMLLLC (2009)
Ak1 III

116

lAC1S:
8oberLo L. ulzon
1
ls a resldenL and Laxpayer of Lhe MunlclpallLy of MabalacaL, ampanga. Marlno . Morales ls Lhe
lncumbenL Mayor of Lhe MunlclpallLy of MabalacaL, ampanga.
ulzon alleged LhaL Morales was proclalmed as Lhe munlclpal mayor of MabalacaL, ampanga durlng Lhe 1993,
1998, 2001 and 2004 elecLlons and had fully served Lhe same. Morales flled hls CerLlflcaLe of Candldacy on March
28, 2007 for Lhe same poslLlon and same munlclpallLy. 8uL, Morales ls no longer ellglble and quallfled Lo run for Lhe
same poslLlon for Lhe May 14, 2007 elecLlons under SecLlon 43 of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code of 1991, whlch
sLaLes LhaL no local elecLlve offlclal ls allowed Lo serve for more Lhan Lhree consecuLlve Lerms for Lhe same
poslLlon.
Morales conLended LhaL he ls ellglble and quallfled Lo run for Lhe sald poslLlon for Lhe 2007 local elecLlons because
Lhe CCMLLLC en banc ln SA Case no. A-04-038
2
afflrmed Lhe declslon of Lhe 81C of Angeles ClLy LhaL lL was
AnLhony uee who was Lhe duly elecLed mayor of MabalacaL, ampanga ln Lhe 1998 elecLlons. 1hus, he was noL
elecLed for Lhe sald poslLlon ln Lhe 1998 elecLlons. Pls Lerm should be reckoned from 2001. Pe added LhaL hls
elecLlon ln 2004 ls only for hls second Lerm. Pence, Lhe Lhree Lerm rule provlded under Lhe Local CovernmenL
Code ls noL appllcable Lo hlm. Pe added LhaL Lhe grounds sLaLed ln Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon are noL covered under
SecLlon 78 of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code and even lf lL ls covered, Lhls peLlLlon falled Lo allege any maLerlal
mlsrepresenLaLlon ln Morales' CerLlflcaLe of Candldacy.
CCMLLLC Second ulvlslon: ln favor of Morales and denled Lhe peLlLlon. lL Look [udlclal noLlce of SC's rullng ln Lhe
klveto cose
J
promulgaLed on May 9, 2007 where lL was held LhaL Morales was elecLed as mayor of MabalacaL from
1993 Lo 1998, from 1998 Lo 2001 (noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe 81C ueclslon ln an elecLoral proLesL case LhaL Lhe Lhen
proclamaLlon of Morales was vold), and agaln from 2001 Lo 2004. 1he SC ruled ln LhaL case LhaL Morales vlolaLed
Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL under SecLlon 43 of Lhe LCC. Pence, Morales was consldered noL a candldaLe ln Lhe 2004
elecLlons, and Lhls fallure Lo quallfy for Lhe 2004 elecLlons ls a gap and allows hlm Lo run agaln for Lhe same
poslLlon ln Lhe May 14, 2007 naLlonal and Local LlecLlons.
ulzon flled a moLlon for reconslderaLlon before Lhe CCMLLLC o 8ooc.
CCMLLLC o 8ooc. afflrmed. 1he Lhree-Lerm llmlL ls noL appllcable here for: 1) Morales was noL Lhe duly-elecLed
mayor of MabalacaL for Lhe !uly 1, 2004 Lo !une 30, 2007 Lerm prlmordlally because he was noL even consldered a
candldaLe LhereaL, and 2) Morales has falled Lo serve Lhe enLlre duraLlon of Lhe Lerm of offlce because he has
already rellnqulshed Lhe dlspuLed offlce on May 16, 2007 whlch ls more Lhan a monLh prlor Lo Lhe end of hls
supposed Lerm.

lSSuLS:
1. WCn Lhe perlod served by Morales ln Lhe 2004-2007 Lerm (alLhough he was ousLed from hls offlce as Mayor
on May16, 2007) should be consldered hls fourLh Lerm
2. WCn Lhe 2007-2010 Lerm of Morales ls hls 3
Lh
Lerm

PLLu:
1. nC.

1
Fileu this petition foi ceitioiaii anu piohibition, with piayei foi the issuance of a tempoiaiy iestiaining oiuei anu wiit of pieliminaiy
injunction seeking the ieveisal of two C0NELEC Resolutions: 1) 2
nu
Bivision's Resolution (}uly 27, 2uu7) uismissing the petition to
uisqualify anuoi to cancel Naiino Noiales' ceitificate of canuiuacy; anu 2) En banc's Resolution (Feb. 18, 2uu8) uenying Bizon's
motion foi ieconsiueiation.
2
Atty. venancio Q. Riveia III anu Noimanuick P. Be uuzman vs. Nayoi Naiino P. Noiales
S
Atty. venancio Q. Riveia III v. C0NELEC anu Naiino "Boking" Noiales in u.R. No. 167S91 anu Anthony Bee v. C0NELEC anu Naiino
"Boking" Noiales in u.R. No. 17uS77 (Riveia case) piomulgateu on 9 Nay 2uu7
Ak1 III

117

ln Lhe klveto cose (May 9, 2007), Lhe SC unseaLed Morales durlng hls fourLh Lerm and hls CerLlflcaLe of Candldacy
(uec. 30, 2003) was cancelled. 1hls cancellaLlon dlsquallfled Morales from belng a candldaLe ln Lhe May 2004
elecLlons. 1he voLes casL for Morales were consldered sLray voLes.
8oLh ArLlcle x, SecLlon 8 of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon and SecLlon 43(b) of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code provlde LhaL oo
electlve locol offlclol sboll setve fot mote tboo tbtee coosecotlve tetms (lo tbe some posltloo) ooJ tbot jv]oloototy
teoooclotloo of tbe offlce fot ooy leoqtb of tlme sboll oot be cooslJeteJ os oo lotettoptloo lo tbe cootloolty of bls
setvlce fot tbe foll tetm fot wblcb be wos electeJ.
lor purposes of deLermlnlng Lhe resulLlng dlsquallflcaLlon broughL abouL by Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL, lL ls noL enough
LhaL an lndlvldual has served Lhree consecuLlve Lerms ln an elecLlve local offlce, he musL also have been elecLed Lo
Lhe same poslLlon for Lhe same number of Llmes. lor Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon, Lwo condlLlons musL
concur:
1. LhaL Lhe offlclal concerned has been elecLed for Lhree consecuLlve Lerms ln Lhe same local governmenL posL
and
2. LhaL he has fully served Lhree consecuLlve Lerms.
ln Lhe klveto case, lL was found LhaL Morales was elecLed as mayor of MabalacaL for four consecuLlve Lerms:
1. 1 !uly 1993 Lo 30 !une 1998
2. 1 !uly 1998 Lo 30 !une 2001
3. 1 !uly 2001 Lo 30 !une 2004, and
4. 1 !uly 2004 Lo 30 !une 2007.
Morales was dlsquallfled from hls candldacy ln Lhe May 2004 elecLlons because of Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL. AlLhough
Lhe Lrlal courL prevlously ruled LhaL Morales' proclamaLlon for Lhe 1998-2001 Lerm was vold, Lhere was no
lnLerrupLlon of Lhe conLlnulLy of Morales' servlce wlLh respecL Lo Lhe 1998-2001 Lerm because Lhe Lrlal courL's
rullng was promulgaLed only on 4 !uly 2001, or afLer Lhe explry of Lhe 1998-2001 Lerm.
1he rullng ln klveto case served as Morales' lnvolun-Lary severance from offlce wlLh respecL Lo Lhe 2004-2007
Lerm. lnvolunLary severance from offlce for any lengLh of Llme shorL of Lhe full Lerm provlded by law amounLs Lo an
lnLerrupLlon of conLlnulLy of servlce. 1he rullng ln Lhe klveto case was promulgaLed on May 9, 2007 and was
effecLlve lmmedlaLely. 1he nexL day, Morales noLlfled Lhe vlce mayor's offlce of Lhe SC declslon. 1he vlce mayor
assumed Lhe offlce of Lhe mayor from May 17, 2007 up Lo !une 30, 2007. 1he assumpLlon by Lhe vlce mayor of Lhe
offlce of Lhe mayor, no maLLer how shorL lL may seem Lo ulzon, lnLerrupLed Morales' conLlnulLy of servlce. 1hus,
Morales dld noL hold offlce for Lhe full Lerm of 1 !uly 2004 Lo 30 !une 2007.
2. nC.
8ecause of hls dlsquallflcaLlon, Morales was noL Lhe duly elecLed mayor for Lhe 2004-2007 Lerm. nelLher dld
Morales hold Lhe poslLlon of mayor of MabalacaL for Lhe full Lerm because he was ordered Lo vacaLe hls posL
before Lhe explraLlon of Lhe Lerm. 1he perlod from 17 May 2007 Lo 30 !une 2007 served as a gap for purposes of
Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL rule. 1hus, Lhe presenL 1 !uly 2007 Lo 30 !une 2010 Lerm ls effecLlvely Morales' flrsL Lerm for
purposes of Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL rule.
Alll8MLu.

k|vera v. CCMLLLC (2007)

Ak1 III

118

IAC1S:
1he case ls a resoluLlon of Lwo consolldaLed peLlLlons - one flled by ALLys. venanclo C. 8lvera lll and ALLy.
normandlck de Cuzman agalnsL Marlno 8oklng Morales, and Lhe oLher one flled by AnLhony u. uee, Lhe
candldaLe who obLalned Lhe second hlghesL voLe afLer Morales.

Morales was elecLed as mayor of MabalacaL, ampanga for Lhe Lerm 1993-1998 (1
sL
Lerm), Lhen elecLed agaln for
Lhe Lerm 1998-2001 (2
nd
Lerm), and Lhen flnally from 2001-2004 (3
rd
Lerm). lor Lhe 2004 elecLlons, Morales ran
agaln as a candldaLe for mayor of MabalacaL, ampanga for Lhe Lerm 2004-2007. AfLer flllng hls cerLlflcaLe of
candldacy, ALLys. 8lvera and ue Cuzman flled a peLlLlon Lo cancel hls cerLlflcaLe of candldacy on Lhe ground LhaL he
was already elecLed and had served Lhree prevlous consecuLlve Lerms as mayor of MabalacaL Lhus hls candldacy
vlolaLes Sec. 8, ArLlcle x of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon and Sec. 43 (b) of 8.A. 7160. AfLer belng proclalmed as Mayor of
MabalacaL, ampanga ln Lhe 2004 elecLlons, AnLhony uee, ln Lhe second case, flled a peLlLlon for quo warranLo
agalnsL Morales asserLlng LhaL slnce Lhe laLLer has already served for Lhree consecuLlve Lerms, he ls no longer
ellglble Lo serve Lhe 2004-2007 Lerm as Lhls ls already hls 4
Lh
Lerm. lor boLh cases, Morales's argues LhaL he lsn'L
precluded from runnlng for Lhe 2004-2007 elecLlon because he served Lhe 1998-2001 Lerm only as a "careLaker of
Lhe offlce" or as a "de facLo offlcer" slnce he was noL valldly elecLed for LhaL 2
nd
Lerm by vlrLue of Lhe declslon of
Lhe 81C of Angeles ClLy daLed Aprll 2, 2001 declarlng hls proclamaLlon as mayor Lo be vold and he was also
prevenLlvely suspended by Lhe Cmbudsman ln an anLl-grafL case from !anuary Lo !uly 1999. Slnce ln Lhe peLlLlons
of 8lvera and uee, boLh Lhe CCMLLLC and Lhe 81C respecLlvely ruled ln favor of Morales, Lhey appealed Lo Lhe SC.
Morales argues LhaL Lhe 2004-2007 Lerm ls noL hls 4
Lh
Lerm because hls 2
nd
Lerm of 1998-2001 Lo whlch he was
elecLed and whlch he served, should noL be counLed slnce hls proclamaLlon was declared vold by Lhe 81C of
Angeles ClLy. Pe also argues LhaL hls dlscharge of Lhe duLles ln Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Mayor of MabalacaL ls LhaL of a de
facLo offlcer or mayor and so hls conLlnuous servlce for 3 consecuLlve Lerms has been severed.

ISSUL:
WheLher or noL Morales vlolaLed Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL rule when he ran for re-elecLlon as mayor ln Lhe 2004
elecLlons.

kULING:
?es, Morales vlolaLed Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL rule and ls Lhus precluded from runnlng for Mayor for Lhe Lerm 2004-
2007. 1here are Lwo condlLlons for Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL for elecLlve local governmenL offlclals Lo apply, (1) LhaL Lhe
offlclal concerned has been elecLed for Lhree consecuLlve Lerms ln Lhe same local governmenL posL, and (2) LhaL he
has fully served Lhree consecuLlve Lerms. 1he Supreme CourL held LhaL Lhe declslon of Lhe 81C of Angeles ClLy ln
Aprll 2, 2001 declarlng hls proclamaLlon as mayor for Lhe 2
nd
Lerm 1998-2001 does noL consLlLuLe as an
lnLerrupLlon ln servlng Lhe full Lerm. Morales was elecLed for Lhe Lerm !uly 1, 1998 Lo !une 30, 2001. Pe assumed
Lhe poslLlon. Pe served as mayor unLll !une 30, 2001. Pe was mayor for Lhe enLlre perlod noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe
ueclslon of Lhe 81C ln Lhe elecLoral proLesL case flled by uee ousLlng hlm as mayor. Pls assumpLlon of offlce for Lhe
second Lerm consLlLuLed servlce for Lhe full Lerm" and should be counLed as a full Lerm served ln conLemplaLlon
of Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL prescrlbed by Lhe consLlLuLlonal and sLaLuLory provlslons barrlng local elecLlve offlclals from
belng elecLed and servlng for more Lhan Lhree consecuLlve Lerms for Lhe same poslLlon. 1hls case ls a relLeraLlon of
Lhe rullng ln Cng v. Alegre, a case wlLh slmllar facLs declded Lhe year before.

Montebon v. CCMLLLC (2008)

IAC1S:
-eLlLloners MonLebon and Cndy and respondenL oLencloso, !r. were candldaLes for munlclpal councllor of Lhe
MunlclpallLy of 1uburan, Cebu for Lhe May 14, 2007 LlecLlons.

-Cn Aprll 30, 2007, peLlLloners and oLher candldaLes

for munlclpal councllor flled a peLlLlon for dlsquallflcaLlon
agalnsL respondenL wlLh Lhe CCMLLLC alleglng LhaL respondenL had been elecLed and served Lhree consecuLlve
Lerms as munlclpal councllor ln 1998-2001, 2001-2004, and 2004-2007. 1hus, he ls proscrlbed from runnlng for Lhe
Ak1 III

119

same poslLlon ln Lhe 2007 elecLlons as lL would be hls fourLh consecuLlve Lerm.

-ln hls answer, respondenL argues LhaL he cannoL be dlsquallfled on Lhe ground of Lhe 3 Lerm llmlL rule because hls
second Lerm was lnLerrupLed when he assumed Lhe poslLlon of vlce-mayor due Lo Lhe reLlremenL of elecLed vlce-
mayor eLronllo Mendoza.

- eLlLloners malnLaln LhaL respondenL's assumpLlon of offlce as vlce-mayor ln !anuary 2004 should noL be
consldered an lnLerrupLlon ln Lhe servlce of hls second Lerm slnce lL was a volunLary renunclaLlon of hls offlce as
munlclpal councllor. 1hey argued LhaL, accordlng Lo Lhe law (consLlLuLlon and LCC), volunLary renunclaLlon of Lhe
offlce for any lengLh of Llme shall noL be consldered an lnLerrupLlon ln Lhe conLlnulLy of servlce for Lhe full Lerm for
whlch Lhe offlclal concerned was elecLed.

- Cn !une 2, 2007, Lhe CCMLLLC llrsL ulvlslon denled Lhe peLlLlon for dlsquallflcaLlon rullng LhaL respondenL's
assumpLlon of offlce as vlce-mayor should be consldered an lnLerrupLlon ln Lhe conLlnulLy of hls servlce. Pls
second Lerm havlng been lnvolunLarlly lnLerrupLed, respondenL should Lhus noL be dlsquallfled Lo seek reelecLlon
as munlclpal councllor.

-Cn appeal, Lhe CCMLLLC o 8ooc upheld Lhe rullng of Lhe llrsL ulvlslon.

-eLlLloners flled Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon for cettlototl on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe CCMLLLC commlLLed grave abuse of
dlscreLlon amounLlng Lo lack or excess of [urlsdlcLlon ln rullng LhaL respondenL's assumpLlon of offlce as vlce-mayor
ln !anuary 2004 lnLerrupLed hls 2001-2004 Lerm as munlclpal councllor.

ISSUL:
WCn Lhe Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs' assumpLlon of Lhe vlce-mayor offlce, by vlrLue of successlon, can be consldered
as an effecLlve dlsrupLlon ln hls full servlce of hls second Lerm as counsllor.

nLLD:
?LS

kA1IC:
ln loozoolJo v. commlssloo oo lectloos, Lhe CourL held LhaL Lhe Lwo condlLlons for Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe
dlsquallflcaLlon musL concur: 1) LhaL Lhe offlclal concerned has been elecLed for Lhree consecuLlve Lerms ln Lhe
same local governmenL posL, and 2) LhaL he has luLL? served Lhree consecuLlve Lerms.

-lL ls ln LhaL same case LhaL Lhe CourL explalned Lhe concepL of volunLary renunclaLlon as follows:
1he second senLence of Lhe consLlLuLlonal provlslon under scruLlny sLaLes, `volunLary renunclaLlon of offlce for any
lengLh of Llme shall noL be consldered as an lnLerrupLlon ln Lhe conLlnulLy of servlce for Lhe full Lerm for whlch he
was elecLed.' 1he clear lnLenL of Lhe framers of Lhe consLlLuLlon Lo bar any aLLempL Lo clrcumvenL Lhe Lhree-Lerm
llmlL by a volunLary renunclaLlon of offlce and aL Lhe same Llme respecL Lhe people's cholce and granL Lhelr elecLed
offlclal full servlce of a Lerm ls evldenL ln Lhls provlslon. volunLary renunclaLlon of a Lerm does noL cancel Lhe
renounced Lerm ln Lhe compuLaLlon of Lhe Lhree Lerm llmlL, conversely, lnvolunLary severance from offlce for any
lengLh of Llme shorL of Lhe full Lerm provlded by law amounLs Lo an lnLerrupLlon of conLlnulLy of servlce.

- Successlon ln local governmenL offlces ls by operaLlon of law. SecLlon 44 of 8epubllc AcL no. 7160, oLherwlse
known as Lhe Local CovernmenL Code, provldes LhaL lf a permanenL vacancy occurs ln Lhe offlce of Lhe vlce mayor,
Lhe hlghesL ranklng sanggunlan member shall become vlce mayor. 1hus:
SLC. 44. letmooeot vocoocles lo tbe Offlces of tbe Covetoot, vlce Covetoot, Moyot, ooJ vlce Moyot. - (a)
lf a permanenL vacancy occurs ln Lhe offlce of Lhe governor or mayor, Lhe vlce governor or vlce mayor
concerned shall become Lhe governor or mayor. lf a permanenL vacancy occurs ln Lhe offlces of Lhe
governor, vlce governor, mayor or vlce mayor, Lhe hlghesL ranklng sanggunlan member or, ln case of hls
permanenL lnablllLy, Lhe second hlghesL ranklng sanggunlan member, shall become Lhe governor, vlce
Ak1 III

120

governor, mayor or vlce mayor, as Lhe case may be. SubsequenL vacancles ln Lhe sald offlce shall be fllled
auLomaLlcally by Lhe oLher sanggunlan members accordlng Lo Lhelr ranklng as deflned hereln. x x x

- ln Lhls case, a permanenL vacancy occurred ln Lhe offlce of Lhe vlce mayor due Lo Lhe reLlremenL of vlce Mayor
Mendoza. 8espondenL, belng Lhe hlghesL ranklng munlclpal councllor, succeeded hlm ln accordance wlLh law.
1hus, respondenL's assumpLlon of offlce as vlce-mayor ln !anuary 2004 was an lnvolunLary severance from hls
offlce as munlclpal councllor, resulLlng ln an lnLerrupLlon ln Lhe servlce of hls 2001-2004 Lerm. lL cannoL be
deemed Lo have been by reason of volunLary renunclaLlon because lL was by operaLlon of law. We quoLe wlLh
approval Lhe rullng of Lhe CCMLLLC LhaL - 1he legal successor ls noL glven any opLlon under Lhe law on wheLher Lo
accepL Lhe vacaLed posL or noL. SecLlon 44 of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code makes no excepLlon. Cnly lf Lhe hlghesL-
ranklng councllor ls permanenLly unable Lo succeed Lo Lhe posL does Lhe law speak of alLernaLe successlon. under
no clrcumsLances can slmple refusal of Lhe offlclal concerned be consldered as permanenL lnablllLy wlLhln Lhe
conLemplaLlon of law.

- 1hus, successlon by law Lo a vacaLed governmenL offlce ls characLerlsLlcally noL volunLary slnce lL lnvolves Lhe
performance of a publlc duLy by a governmenL offlclal, Lhe non-performance of whlch exposes sald offlclal Lo
posslble admlnlsLraLlve and crlmlnal charges of derellcLlon of duLy and neglecL ln Lhe performance of publlc
funcLlons. lL ls Lherefore more compulsory and obllgaLory raLher Lhan volunLary.

8or[a v. CCMLLLC (1991)

lacLs:
1. rlvaLe respondenL !ose 1. Capco, !r. was elecLed vlce-mayor of aLeros on !anuary 18, 1988 for a Lerm endlng
!une 30, 1992. Cn SepLember 2, 1989, he became mayor, by operaLlon of law, upon Lhe deaLh of Lhe lncumbenL,
Cesar 8or[a. Cn May 11, 1992, he ran and was elecLed mayor for a Lerm of Lhree years whlch ended on !une 30,
1993. Cn May 8, 1993, he was reelecLed mayor for anoLher Lerm of Lhree years endlng !une 30, 1998.
2. Cn March 27, 1998, prlvaLe respondenL Capco flled a cerLlflcaLe of candldacy for mayor of aLeros relaLlve Lo
Lhe May 11, 1998 elecLlons.
3. eLlLloner 8en[amln u. 8or[a, !r., who was also a candldaLe for mayor, soughL Capco's dlsquallflcaLlon on Lhe
Lheory LhaL Lhe laLLer would have already served as mayor for Lhree consecuLlve Lerms by !une 30, 1998 and would
Lherefore be lnellglble Lo serve for anoLher Lerm afLer LhaL.
4. 1he Second ulvlslon of Lhe CCMLLLC ruled ln favor of peLlLloner and declared prlvaLe respondenL Capco
dlsquallfled buL Lhe CCMLLLC en banc reversed Lhe declslon and declared Capco ellglble Lo run for mayor.
3. Capco was subsequenLly voLed and proclalmed as mayor.

lssue:
WheLher or noL a vlce-mayor who succeeds Lo Lhe offlce of mayor by operaLlon of law and serves Lhe remalnder of
Lhe Lerm ls consldered Lo have served a Lerm ln LhaL offlce for Lhe purpose of Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL.

Peld:
no.

8aLlo:
1. 1he Lhree-Lerm llmlLaLlon refers Lo Lhe Lerm of offlce for whlch Lhe local offlclal was elecLed. lL made no
reference Lo successlon Lo an offlce Lo whlch he was noL elecLed.
Ak1 III

121

2. Capco succeeded Lo Lhe poslLlon of mayor by operaLlon of law and served for Lhe unexplred Lerm of hls
predecessor. Such successlon lnLo offlce ls noL counLed as one Lerm for purposes of Lhe compuLaLlon of Lhe Lhree-
Lerm llmlLaLlon under Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and Lhe Local CovernmenL Code.
3. 1he pollcy embodled ln Lhe consLlLuLlonal provlslon (ArL. x, 8) ls noL only Lo prevenL Lhe esLabllshmenL of
pollLlcal dynasLles buL also Lo enhance Lhe freedom of cholce of Lhe people.
4. A conslderaLlon of Lhe hlsLorlcal background of ArL. x, 8 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon reveals LhaL Lhe members of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon were as much concerned wlLh preservlng Lhe freedom of cholce of Lhe people as Lhey
were wlLh prevenLlng Lhe monopollzaLlon of pollLlcal power. ln dlscusslng Lerm llmlLs, Lhe drafLers of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon dld so on Lhe assumpLlon LhaL Lhe offlclals concerned were servlng by reason of elecLlon.
3. A LexLual analysls of Lhe provlslon would also show LhaL lf an elecLlve local offlclal ls noL servlng a Lerm for
whlch he was elecLed because he ls slmply conLlnulng Lhe servlce of Lhe offlclal he succeeds, such offlclal cannoL be
consldered Lo have fully served Lhe Lerm noLwlLhsLandlng hls volunLary renunclaLlon of offlce prlor Lo lLs
explraLlon.
6. ConsequenLly, Lwo condlLlons for Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon provlslons musL concur: 1) LhaL Lhe
local offlclal concerned has been elecLed Lhree consecuLlve Llmes and 2) LhaL he has fully served Lhree consecuLlve
Lerms.
ulSMlSSLu.

Adormeo v. CCMLLLC (2002)

lacLs:
1. 8aymundo Adormeo and 8amon 1alaga !r. ran for Mayor of Lucena ClLy ln May 14, 2001.

2. 1alaga was Lhe lncumbenL mayor durlng LhaL Llme. Pe also served as mayor durlng Lhe followlng years: 1992-
1993, 1993-1998. 1alaga losL ln Lhe 1998 elecLlon buL he won agaln ln Lhe 8LCALL elecLlon on May 12, 2000 and
served Lhe unexplred Lerm of hls opponenL.

3. Adormeo flled for cancellaLlon of 1alaga's candldacy before Lhe 2001 elecLlon on Lhe ground LhaL 1alaga had
already served Lhree consecuLlve Lerms, whlch ls a vlolaLlon of Sec. 8 ArL x of Lhe 1987 ConsLl.

4. CCMLLLC on Aprll of 2001 found 1alaga as dlsquallfled Lo run for mayor.

3. 1alaga flled M8 and on May 9, 2001, Lhe CCMLLLC ruled ln favour of 1alaga. 1alaga was Lhen elecLed Mayor.

lssue:
WCn 1alaga was dlsquallfled Lo run as mayor glven LhaL he had already served Lwo full Lerms and he won ln 2000
recall elecLlons.

Peld:
no

8aLlo:
1. Law Appllcable: Sec. 43b of LCC: (b) no locol electlve offlclol sboll setve fot mote tboo tbtee (J) coosecotlve
tetms lo tbe some posltloo. voloototy teoooclotloo of Lhe offlce for any lengLh of Llme shall noL be consldered as
an lnLerrupLlon ln Lhe conLlnulLy of servlce for Lhe full Lerm for whlch Lhe elecLlve offlclal concerned was elecLed.

Ak1 III

122

2. CourL's lnLerpreLaLlon: lL ls noL enough LhaL an lndlvldual has served Lhree consecuLlve Lerms ln an elecLlve
offlce, he musL have been elecLed Lo Lhe same poslLlon for Lhe same number of Llmes before Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon
can apply"

3. 2 condlLlons for dlsquallflcaLlon Lo apply: a) LhaL Lhe offlclal concerned has been elecLed for Lhree
consecuLlve Lerms ln Lhe same local governmenL posL and 2) LhaL he has fully served Lhree consecuLlve Lerms.

4. AppllcaLlon of law Lo facLs: 1alaga only served Lwo consecuLlve full Lerms. 1here was a dlsrupLlon when he
was defeaLed ln Lhe 1998 elecLlons. Pls elecLlon durlng Lhe 2000 recall elecLlon ls noL a conLlnuaLlon of hls Lwo
prevlous Lerms whlch could consLlLuLe hls Lhlrd Lerm Lhereby barrlng hlm for runnlng for a fourLh Lerm. vlcLory ln
Lhe 2000 recall elecLlon ls noL Lhe volunLary renunclaLlon" conLemplaLed by Lhe law.

Socrates v. CCMLLLC (2002)

lAC1S
A recall was lnlLlaLed for Lhe poslLlon of vlcLorlno uennls M. SocraLes who assumed offlce as uerLo rlncesa's
mayor on !une 30, 2001. Ldward M. Pagedorn (Pagedorn" for brevlLy) flled hls cerLlflcaLe of candldacy for mayor
ln Lhe recall elecLlon. A peLlLlon was flled Lo dlsquallfy Pagedorn from runnlng ln Lhe recall elecLlon and Lo cancel
hls cerLlflcaLe of candldacy on Lhe ground LhaL he ls dlsquallfled from runnlng for a fourLh consecuLlve Lerm, havlng
been elecLed and havlng served as mayor of Lhe clLy for Lhree (3) consecuLlve full Lerms lmmedlaLely prlor Lo Lhe
lnsLanL recall elecLlon for Lhe same posL.

PLLu:
1hese consLlLuLlonal and sLaLuLory provlslons have Lwo parLs. 1he flrsL parL provldes LhaL an elecLlve local offlclal
cannoL serve for more Lhan Lhree consecuLlve Lerms. 1he clear lnLenL ls LhaL only consecuLlve Lerms counL ln
deLermlnlng Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL rule. 1he second parL sLaLes LhaL volunLary renunclaLlon of offlce for any lengLh
of Llme does noL lnLerrupL Lhe conLlnulLy of servlce. 1he clear lnLenL ls LhaL lnvolunLary severance from offlce for
any lengLh of Llme lnLerrupLs conLlnulLy of servlce and prevenLs Lhe servlce before and afLer Lhe lnLerrupLlon from
belng [olned LogeLher Lo form a conLlnuous servlce or consecuLlve Lerms AfLer Lhree consecuLlve Lerms, an
elecLlve offlclal cannoL lmmedlaLe re-elecLlon for a fourLh Lerm, 1he prohlblLed elecLlon refers Lo Lhe nexL regular
elecLlon for a fourLh Lerm. 1he prohlblLed elecLlon refers Lo Lhe nexL regular elecLlon for Lhe same offlce followlng
Lhe same offlce followlng Lhe Lhlrd consecuLlve Lerm.
Any subsequenL elecLlon, llke a recall elecLlon, ls no longer covered by Lhe prohlblLlon for Lwo reasons:
1. A subsequenL elecLlon llke a recall elecLlon, ls no longer an lmmedlaLe reelecLlon afLer Lhe Lhree
consecuLlve Lerms.
2. 1he lnLervenlng perlod consLlLuLes an lnvolunLary lnLerrupLlon ln Lhe conLlnulLy of servlce.

Mendoza v. CCMLLLC (2002)

lAC1S:
8espondenL Leonardo 8. 8oman held Lhe posL of Covernor of 8aLaan provlnce a number of Llmes, vlz.

1L8MS MAnnL8 Cl ASSuM1lCn
a) 1986 - 1988 AppolnLed ClC Covernor of 8aLaan by former res. Aqulno and
served up Lo 1988.
b) 1988 - 1992 LlecLed Covernor and served up Lo 1992.
c) 1994 - 1993 LlecLed Covernor durlng Lhe recall elecLlon ln 1993, assumed
offlce on 28 !une 1994 and served up Lo 1993.
d) 1993 - 1998 LlecLed Covernor and served up Lo1998.
e) 1998 - 2001 LlecLed Covernor and served up Lo 2001.

Ak1 III

123

ln 2001, prlvaLe respondenL 8oman agaln flled a cerLlflcaLe of candldacy for Lhe same posL ln Lhe 14Lh May 2001
regular elecLlons. Cn 16 May 2001, Leonardo 8oman was proclalmed by Lhe rovlnclal 8oard of Canvassers of
8aLaan.

lSSuL:
WCn rlvaLe 8espondenL's lncumbency Lo Lhe posL of Covernor followlng Lhe recall elecLlons be lncluded ln
deLermlnlng Lhe Lhree-consecuLlve Lerm llmlL flxed by law

8uLlnC:
no. A wlnner who dlslodges ln a recall elecLlon an lncumbenL elecLlve local offlclal merely serves Lhe balance of
Lhe laLLer's Lerm of offlce, lL ls noL a full Lhree-year Lerm. (noLe: CourL voLed 8 Lo 7 Lo ulSMlSS Lhe peLlLlon.)

8A1lC:
1he law conLemplaLes a conLlnuous full Lhree-year Lerm before Lhe proscrlpLlon can apply, provldlng for only one
excepLlon, l.e., when an lncumbenL volunLarlly glves up Lhe offlce. lf lnvolunLary severance from Lhe servlce whlch
resulLs ln Lhe lncumbenL's belng unable Lo flnlsh hls Lerm of offlce because of hls ousLer Lhrough valld recall
proceedlngs negaLes one Lerm" for purposes of applylng Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL, lL sLands Lo reason LhaL Lhe balance
of Lhe Lerm assumed by Lhe newly elecLed local offlclal ln a recall elecLlon should noL also be held Lo be one Lerm ln
reckonlng Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL. ln boLh slLuaLlons, nelLher Lhe elecLlve local offlclal who ls unable Lo flnlsh hls Lerm
nor Lhe elecLed local offlclal who only assumes Lhe balance of Lhe Lerm of Lhe ousLed local offlclal followlng Lhe
recall elecLlon could be consldered Lo have served a full Lhree-year Lerm seL by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.

vl1uC, !., [olned by ?nA8LS-SAn1lACC, !., voLed Lo dlsmlss Lhe peLlLlon.

MLnuCZA, !., ln whose oplnlon CulSuM8lnC, !. [olned, voLed Lo dlsmlss Lhe peLlLlon on Lhe ground LhaL a Lerm
durlng whlch successlon Lo a local elecLlve offlce Lakes place or a recall elecLlon ls held should noL be counLed ln
deLermlnlng wheLher an elecLlve local offlclal has served more Lhan Lhree consecuLlve Lerms. Pe argued LhaL Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon does noL prohlblL elecLlve local offlclals from servlng for more Lhan Lhree consecuLlve Lerms because,
ln facL, lL excludes from Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL lnLerrupLlons ln Lhe conLlnulLy of servlce, so long as such lnLerrupLlons
are noL due Lo Lhe volunLary renunclaLlon of Lhe offlce by an lncumbenL.

AnCAnl8An, !., [olned by unC, !., also voLed Lo dlsmlss Lhe peLlLlon. Pe argued LhaL a recall Lerm should noL be
consldered as one full Lerm, because a conLrary lnLerpreLaLlon would ln effecL cuL shorL Lhe elecLed offlclal's
servlce Lo less Lhan nlne years and shorLchange hls consLlLuenLs. 1he deslre Lo prevenL monopoly of pollLlcal power
should be balanced agalnsL Lhe need Lo uphold Lhe voLers' obvlous preference who, ln Lhe presenL case, ls 8oman
who recelved 97 percenL of Lhe voLes casL.

AZCunA, !., [olned by 8LLLCSlLLC, !., also voLed Lo dlsmlss, argulng LhaL lL ls clear from Lhe consLlLuLlonal provlslon
LhaL Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon applles only lf Lhe Lerms are consecuLlve and Lhe servlce ls full and conLlnuous. Pence,
servlce for less Lhan a Lerm, excepL only ln case of volunLary renunclaLlon, should noL counL Lo dlsquallfy an
elecLlve local offlclal from runnlng for Lhe same poslLlon.

SAnuCvAL-Cu1lL88LZ, !., wlLh whom uAvluL, C.!., and AuS18lA-MA81lnLZ, CC8CnA, and CALLL!C, S8., !!.
concurred, holds Lhe vlew LhaL Lhe recall Lerm served by respondenL 8oman, comprlslng Lhe perlod !une 28, 1994
Lo !une 30, 1993, should be consldered as one Lerm.

CA8lC, !., [olned by CA8lC-MC8ALLS, !., also dlssenLed and voLed Lo granL Lhe peLlLlon. Pe held LhaL a recall
Lerm consLlLuLes one Lerm and LhaL Lo LoLally lgnore a recall Lerm ln deLermlnlng Lhe Lhree-Lerm llmlL would allow
local offlclals Lo serve for more Lhan nlne consecuLlve years conLrary Lo Lhe manlfesL lnLenL of Lhe framers of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon. Pe conLended LhaL respondenL 8oman's elecLlon ln 2001 cannoL exempL hlm from Lhe Lhree-Lerm
llmlL lmposed by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.

Ak1 III

124

S.1LNUkL CI CIIICL

Csmea v. CCMLLLC (2002)

lAC1S
eLlLlon assalllng Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of 8.A. 7036, whlch desynchronlzed Lhe naLlonal and local elecLlons. 1hls, ln
effecL, shorLened Lhe Lerms of local offlclals Lo be elecLed on november 1992.

lSSuL
WCn 8.A. 7036 ls unconsLlLuLlonal.

Peld:
?es.
8.A. 7036 conLravenes ArLlcle xvlll, SecLlons 2 and 3 of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon whlch provldes for Lhe
synchronlzaLlon of naLlonal and local elecLlons. 1he sald law, on Lhe oLher hand, provldes for Lhe de-
synchronlzaLlon of elecLlon by mandaLlng LhaL Lhere be Lwo separaLe elecLlons ln 1992. 1he Lerm synchronlzaLlon"
ln Lhe menLloned consLlLuLlonal provlslon was used synonymously as Lhe phrase holdlng slmulLaneously slnce Lhls
ls Lhe preclse lnLenL ln LermlnaLlng Lhelr Cfflce 1enure on Lhe same day or occaslon. 1hls common LermlnaLlon daLe
wlll synchronlze fuLure elecLlons Lo once every Lhree years.

8.A. 7036 also vlolaLed Sec. 2, ArL. xvlll of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon whlch provldes LhaL Lhe local offlclal flrsL elecLed
under Lhe ConsLlLuLlon shall serve unLll noon of !une 30, 1992. 8uL under Sec. 3 of 8A 7036, Lhese lncumbenL local
offlclals shall hold over beyond !une 30, 1992 and shall serve unLll Lhelr successors shall have been duly elecLed
and quallfled. 1he Supreme CourL, quoLlng Corpus !urls Secundum, sLaLes LhaL lL ls noL compeLenL for Lhe
leglslaLure Lo exLend Lhe Lerm of offlcers by provldlng LhaL Lhey shall hold over unLll Lhelr successors are elecLed
and quallfled where Lhe consLlLuLlon has ln effecL or by clear lmpllcaLlon prescrlbed Lhe Lerm and when Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon flxes Lhe day on whlch Lhe offlclal Lerm shall begln, Lhere ls no leglslaLlve auLhorlLy Lo conLlnue Lhe
offlce beyond LhaL perlod, even Lhough Lhe successors fall Lo quallfy wlLhln Lhe Llme".

8.A. 7036 also vlolaLed Lhe clear mandaLe of Sec. 8, ArL. x of 1987 ConsLlLuLlon whlch flxed Lhe Lerm of offlce of all
elecLlve local offlclals, excepL barangay offlclals, Lo Lhree (3) years. lf Lhe local elecLlon wlll be held on Lhe second
Monday of november 1992 under 8A 7036, Lhose Lo be elecLed wlll be servlng for only Lwo years and seven
monLhs, LhaL ls, from november 30, 1992 Lo !une 30, 1993, noL Lhree years.

6. VACANCILS and SUCCLSSICN

Ia|na| v. CCMLLLC (2007)
lacLs:
!alnal and 1allb were candldaLes for mayor of lndanan, Sulu ln Lhe May 2004 elecLlons
!alnal was proclalmed by Lhe Munlclpal 8oard of Canvassers as Lhe wlnnlng candldaLe wlLh an alleged
margln of 1,018 voLes
1allb flled a pre-proclamaLlon case wlLh Lhe Comelec praylng for Lhe annulmenL of elecLlon reLurns
perLalnlng Lo 21 preclncLs on Lhe followlng grounds:
1. Pls offlclal waLchers were asked Lo leave preclncLs durlng counLlng
2. L8s dld noL bear Lhe slgnaLures of 8oard of LlecLlon members
3. 1he number of voLes exceeded Lhe number of voLers ln reclncL nos. 33A and 34A
4. AffldavlL slgned by offlcers of M8C LhaL lndanan was noL Lhelr orlglnal sLaLlon and LhaL when Lhey
assumed Lhelr duLles, Lhey noLlced LhaL some L8s canvassed by Lhem were maLerlally lncompleLe
whlle oLhers bore erasures.

Ak1 III

123

Comelec 2
nd
ulvlslon: Annulled Lhe proclamaLlon of !alnal and Lhe poslLlon of lndanan Mayor wlll be fllled up
pursuanL Lo Sec. 44, LCC.
!alnal flled Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon lncludlng Pussl Aha[an, ln hls capaclLy as vlce Mayor who wlll flll up Lhe
vacancy creaLed by Lhe annulmenL of !alna's proclamaLlon.
Aha[an quesLlons Lhe valldlLy of a Comelec order whlch dlrecLed hlm, as vlce Mayor, Lo cease and deslsL
from assumlng Lhe poslLlon of AcLlng mayor afLer he had already Laken hls oaLh and assumed offlce

lssue:
WCn Aha[an may valldly succeed Lo Lhe poslLlon of AcLlng Mayor

8aLlo:
1he proclamaLlon of !alnal ls vold for Lhe followlng reasons:
1. lL was based on a canvass LhaL should have been suspended wlLh respecL Lo Lhe conLesLed L8s.
2. lL was done wlLhouL prlor Comelec auLhorlzaLlon.
3. lL was predlcaLed on a canvass LhaL lncluded unslgned L8s lnvolvlng such number of voLes as wlll affecL
Lhe ouLcome of Lhe elecLlon. 1he absence of Lhe requlred slgnaLures and Lhumbmarks rendered Lhe L8s
maLerlally defecLlve.
WlLh Lhe nulllflcaLlon of !alnal's proclamaLlon, Lhe poslLlon of Munlclpal Mayor of lndanan, Sull ls vacanL.

erLlnenL provlslons:
Sec. 44, LCC - lf a permanenL vacancy occurs ln Lhe offlce of Lhe mayor, Lhe vlce mayor concerned shall become
Lhe mayor.

A permanenL vacancy arlses when an elecLlve local offlclal fllls a hlgher vacanL offlce, refuses Lo assume offlce, falls
Lo quallfy, dles, ls removed from offlce, volunLarlly reslgns, or ls oLherwlse permanenLly lncapaclLaLed Lo dlscharge
Lhe funcLlons of hls offlce.

l88 of LCC, ArL. 83 - lf a permanenL vacancy occurs ln Lhe offlce of Lhe mayor, Lhe vlce mayor concerned shall lpso
facLo become Lhe mayor.

1he vacancy creaLed by Lhe nulllflcaLlon of !alnal's proclamaLlon ls ln Lhe naLure of a permanenL vacancy
and may be quallfled as a permanenL lncapaclLy Lo dlscharge Lhe funcLlons of hls offlce.
Aha[an's assumpLlon of Lhe offlce of Mayor should be undersLood as sub[ecL Lo Lhe resulL of Lhe recounL
Lo be conducLed ln accordance wlLh Lhe lssuances of Lhe Comelec.

Labo, Ir. v. CCMLLLC - supra)

Menzon v. et|||a (1991)

lAC1S:
ln 1988, Lhen ulLC SecreLary Luls SanLos deslgnaLed vlce Covernor Leopoldo eLllla as AcLlng Covernor of LeyLe
due Lo Lhe facL LhaL no Covernor had been proclalmed ln Lhe provlnce. SubsequenLly, a senlor member of Lhe
Sanggunlang anlalawlgan, Aurello Menzon, was deslgnaLed by SanLos Lo acL as Lhe vlce Covernor of Lhe provlnce.
Menzon Look hls oaLh of offlce and LhereafLer dlscharged Lhe powers and duLles of Lhe sald offlce.

A year laLer, Lhe provlnclal admlnlsLraLor (CulnLero) lnqulred from Lhe undersecreLary of Lhe ulLC (8ublllar) as Lo
Lhe legallLy of Lhe appolnLmenL of Menzon Lo acL as vlce governor. 8ublllar replled LhaL Lhe appolnLmenL ls
unnecessary because Lhe acLlng governor, who ls elecLed vlce governor, could concurrenLly assume Lhe funcLlons
of boLh offlces. uue Lo Lhls reply, Lhe Sanggunlang anlalawlgan of LeyLe lssued 8esoluLlon no. 303 where lL held
lnvalld Lhe appolnLmenL of Menzon as acLlng vlce governor of Lhe provlnce.

Ak1 III

126

Menzon Lhen wroLe Lo undersecreLary 8ublllar Lo clarlfy Lhe oplnlon LhaL Lhe laLLer lssued. Pe replled LhaL Menzon
was merely deslgnaLed Lo acL as vlce governor. Pe was noL appolnLed Lo Lhe posL slnce Lhere was no vacancy of Lhe
offlce Lo speak of. As a resulL of Lhls clarlflcaLory leLLer, Lhe ulLC 8eglonal ulrecLor requesLed Covernor eLllla LhaL
Lhe resoluLlon lssued by Lhe Sanggunlan be modlfled so LhaL Menzon would be able recelve hls salary as vlce
governor, lf he was deprlved of such. Powever, eLllla dld no accede Lo ulLC's requesL. lL was aL Lhls lnsLance LhaL
Menzon declded Lo flle Lhls peLlLlon Lo deLermlne wheLher he ls enLlLled Lo Lhe emolumenLs for hls servlces
rendered as deslgnaLed acLlng vlce-governor. uurlng Lhe pendency of Lhls case, Lhe lssue on Lhe governorshlp of
LeyLe was seLLled and Adellna Larrazabal was proclalmed Covernor of LeyLe.

lSSuLS:
1) WCn Lhere was a vacancy of offlce of Lhe vlce Covernor of LeyLe
2) WCn Lhe ulLC SecreLary has Lhe auLhorlLy Lo make Lemporary appolnLmenLs?

PLLu/8A1lC:
1) ?LS. 1here ls a vacany when Lhere ls no person lawfully auLhorlzed Lo assume and exerclse aL presenL Lhe duLles
of Lhe offlce. lL can be readlly seen LhaL Lhe offlce of Lhe vlce-Covernor was lefL vacanL when Lhe duly elecLed vlce-
Covernor was appolnLed AcLlng Covernor. ln Lhe eyes of Lhe law, Lhe offlce Lo whlch he was elecLed was lefL
barren of a legally quallfled person Lo exerclse Lhe duLles of Lhe offlce of Lhe vlce-Covernor. lurLher, Lhere ls no
showlng LhaL eLllla conLlnues Lo slmulLaneously exerclse Lhe duLles of Lhe vlce-Covernor. 1he naLure of Lhe duLles
of a rovlnclal Covernor call for a full-Llme occupanL Lo dlscharge Lhem. More so when Lhe vacancy ls for an
exLended perlod. reclsely, lL was eLllla's auLomaLlc assumpLlon Lo Lhe acLlng Covernorshlp LhaL resulLed ln Lhe
vacancy ln Lhe offlce of Lhe vlce-Covernor. 1he facL LhaL Lhe SecreLary of Local CovernmenL was prompLed Lo
appolnL Lhe peLlLloner shows Lhe need Lo flll up Lhe poslLlon durlng Lhe perlod lL was vacanL. 1he ueparLmenL
SecreLary had Lhe dlscreLlon Lo ascerLaln wheLher or noL Lhe rovlnclal Covernor should devoLe all hls Llme Lo LhaL
parLlcular offlce. Moreover, lL ls doubLful lf Lhe rovlnclal 8oard, unllaLerally acLlng, may revoke an appolnLmenL
made by a hlgher auLhorlLy.

2) ?LS. 1he Local CovernmenL Code ls sllenL on Lhe mode of successlon ln Lhe evenL of a tempototy vacancy ln Lhe
Cfflce of Lhe vlce-Covernor. Powever, Lhe sllence of Lhe law musL noL be undersLood Lo convey LhaL a remedy ln
law ls wanLlng.

1he clrcumsLances of Lhe case reveal LhaL Lhere ls lndeed a necesslLy for Lhe appolnLmenL of an acLlng vlce-
Covernor. lor abouL Lwo years afLer Lhe governaLorlal elecLlons, Lhere had been no Je jote permanenL Covernor
for Lhe provlnce of LeyLe, Covernor Adellna Larrazabal, aL LhaL Llme, had noL yeL been proclalmed due Lo a pendlng
elecLlon case before Lhe Commlsslon on LlecLlons.

1he Lwo-year lnLerregnum whlch would resulL from Lhe respondenLs' vlew of Lhe law ls dlsfavored as lL would
cause dlsrupLlons and delays ln Lhe dellvery of baslc servlces Lo Lhe people and ln Lhe proper managemenL of Lhe
affalrs of Lhe local governmenL of LeyLe. ueflnlLely, lL ls lncomprehenslble LhaL Lo leave Lhe slLuaLlon wlLhouL
affordlng any remedy was ever lnLended by Lhe Local CovernmenL Code.

under Lhe clrcumsLances of Lhls case and conslderlng Lhe sllence of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code, Lhe CourL rules
LhaL, ln order Lo obvlaLe Lhe dllemma resulLlng from an lnLerregnum creaLed by Lhe vacancy, Lhe resldenL, acLlng
Lhrough her alLer ego, Lhe SecreLary of Local CovernmenL, may remedy Lhe slLuaLlon. We declare valld Lhe
Lemporary appolnLmenL exLended Lo Lhe peLlLloner Lo acL as Lhe vlce-Covernor. 1he exlgencles of publlc servlce
demanded noLhlng less Lhan Lhe lmmedlaLe appolnLmenL of an acLlng vlce-Covernor.

1he records show LhaL lL was prlmarlly for Lhls conLlngency LhaL undersecreLary !aclnLo 8ublllar correcLed and
reconsldered hls prevlous poslLlon and acknowledged Lhe need for an acLlng vlce-Covernor.

lL may be noLed LhaL under CommonwealLh AcL no. 388 and Lhe 8evlsed AdmlnlsLraLlve Code of 1987, Lhe
resldenL ls empowered Lo make Lemporary appolnLmenLs ln cerLaln publlc offlces, ln case of any vacancy LhaL
Ak1 III

127

may occur. AlbelL boLh laws deal only wlLh Lhe fllllng of vacancles ln appolnLlve poslLlons. Powever, ln Lhe absence
of any conLrary provlslon ln Lhe Local CovernmenL Code and ln Lhe besL lnLeresL of publlc servlce, we see no cogenL
reason why Lhe procedure Lhus ouLllned by Lhe Lwo laws may noL be slmllarly applled ln Lhe presenL case. 1he
respondenLs conLend LhaL Lhe provlnclal board ls Lhe correcL appolnLlng power. 1hls argumenL has no merlL. As
beLween Lhe resldenL who has supervlslon over local governmenLs as provlded by law and Lhe members of Lhe
board who are [unlor Lo Lhe vlce-governor, we have no problem rullng ln favor of Lhe resldenL, unLll Lhe law
provldes oLherwlse.

A vacancy creaLes an anomalous slLuaLlon and flnds no approbaLlon under Lhe law for lL deprlves Lhe consLlLuenLs
of Lhelr rlghL of represenLaLlon and governance ln Lhelr own local governmenL.

ln a republlcan form of governmenL, Lhe ma[orlLy rules Lhrough Lhelr chosen few, and lf one of Lhem ls
lncapaclLaLed or absenL, eLc., Lhe managemenL of governmenLal affalrs Lo LhaL exLenL, may be hampered.
necessarlly, Lhere wlll be a consequenL delay ln Lhe dellvery of baslc servlces Lo Lhe people of LeyLe lf Lhe Covernor
or Lhe vlce-Covernor ls mlsslng.

WheLher or noL Lhe absence of a vlce-Covernor would maln or pre[udlce Lhe provlnce of LeyLe, ls for hlgher
offlclals Lo declde or, ln proper cases, for Lhe [udlclary Lo ad[udlcaLe. As shown ln Lhls case where for abouL Lwo
years Lhere was only an acLlng Covernor sLeerlng Lhe leadershlp of Lhe provlnce of LeyLe, Lhe urgency of fllllng Lhe
vacancy ln Lhe Cfflce of Lhe vlce-Covernor Lo free Lhe hands of Lhe acLlng Covernor Lo handle provlnclal problems
and Lo serve as Lhe buffer ln case someLhlng mlghL happen Lo Lhe acLlng Covernor becomes unquesLlonable. We
do noL have Lo dwell ourselves lnLo Lhe facL LhaL noLhlng happened Lo acLlng Covernor eLllla durlng Lhe Lwo-year
perlod. 1he conLlngency of havlng slmulLaneous vacancles ln boLh offlces cannoL [usL be seL aslde. lL was besL for
LeyLe Lo have a full-Llme Covernor and an acLlng vlce-Covernor. Servlce Lo Lhe publlc ls Lhe prlmary concern of
Lhose ln Lhe governmenL. lL ls a conLlnuous duLy unbrldled by any pollLlcal conslderaLlons.

1he appolnLmenL of Lhe peLlLloner, moreover, ls ln full accord wlLh Lhe lnLenL behlnd Lhe Local CovernmenL Code.
1here ls no quesLlon LhaL SecLlon 49 ln connecLlon wlLh SecLlon 32 of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code shows clearly Lhe
lnLenL Lo provlde for conLlnulLy ln Lhe performance of Lhe duLles of Lhe vlce-Covernor.

1he Local CovernmenL Code provldes for Lhe mode of successlon ln case of a permanenL vacancy, vlz:
SecLlon 49:
ln case a permanenL vacancy arlses when a vlce-Covernor assumes Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Covernor, . .
. refuses Lo assume offlce, falls Lo quallfy, dles, ls removed from offlce, volunLary reslgns or ls
oLherwlse permanenLly lncapaclLaLed Lo dlscharge Lhe funcLlons of hls offlce Lhe sanggunlang
panlalawlgan . . . member who obLalned Lhe hlghesL number of voLes ln Lhe elecLlon lmmedlaLely
precedlng, . . . shall assume Lhe offlce for Lhe unexplred Lerm of Lhe vlce-Covernor. . . .

8y vlrLue of Lhe surroundlngs clrcumsLance of Lhls case, Lhe mode of successlon provlded for permanenL vacancles
may llkewlse be observed ln case of a Lemporary vacancy ln Lhe same offlce. ln Lhls case, Lhere was a need Lo flll
Lhe vacancy. 1he peLlLloner ls hlmself Lhe member of Lhe Sanggunlang anlalawlgan who obLalned Lhe hlghesL
number of voLes. 1he ueparLmenL SecreLary acLed correcLly ln exLendlng Lhe Lemporary appolnLmenL.

ln vlew of Lhe foregolng, Lhe peLlLloner's rlghL Lo be pald Lhe salary aLLached Lo Lhe Cfflce of Lhe vlce Covernor ls
lndublLable. 1he compensaLlon, however, Lo be remuneraLed Lo Lhe peLlLloner, followlng Lhe example ln
CommonwealLh AcL no. 388 and Lhe 8evlsed AdmlnlsLraLlve Code, and pursuanL Lo Lhe proscrlpLlon agalnsL double
compensaLlon musL only be such addlLlonal compensaLlon as, wlLh hls exlsLlng salary, shall noL exceed Lhe salary
auLhorlzed by law for Lhe Cfflce of Lhe vlce-Covernor.

And flnally, even granLlng LhaL Lhe resldenL, acLlng Lhrough Lhe SecreLary of Local CovernmenL, possesses no
power Lo appolnL Lhe peLlLloner, aL Lhe very leasL, Lhe peLlLloner ls a Je focto offlcer enLlLled Lo compensaLlon.

Ak1 III

128

1here ls no denylng LhaL Lhe peLlLloner assumed Lhe Cfflce of Lhe vlce-Covernor under color of a known
appolnLmenL. As revealed by Lhe records, Lhe peLlLloner was appolnLed by no less Lhan Lhe alLer ego of Lhe
resldenL, Lhe SecreLary of Local CovernmenL, afLer whlch he Look hls oaLh of offlce before SenaLor AlberLo
8omulo ln Lhe Cfflce of ueparLmenL of Local CovernmenL 8eglonal ulrecLor 8es SalvaLlerra.

Concededly, Lhe appolnLmenL has Lhe color of valldlLy. 1he respondenLs Lhemselves acknowledged Lhe valldlLy of
Lhe peLlLloner's appolnLmenL and dealL wlLh hlm as such. lL was only when Lhe conLroverslal 8esoluLlon no. 303
was passed by Lhe same persons who recognlzed hlm as Lhe acLlng vlce-Covernor LhaL Lhe valldlLy of Lhe
appolnLmenL of Lhe peLlLloner was made an lssue and Lhe recognlLlon wlLhdrawn.

1he peLlLloner, for a long perlod of Llme, exerclsed Lhe duLles aLLached Lo Lhe Cfflce of Lhe vlce-Covernor. Pe was
acclalmed as such by Lhe people of LeyLe. upon Lhe prlnclple of publlc pollcy on whlch Lhe Je focto docLrlne ls
based and baslc conslderaLlons of [usLlce, lL would be hlghly lnlqulLous Lo now deny hlm Lhe salary due hlm for Lhe
servlces he acLually rendered as Lhe acLlng vlce-Covernor of Lhe provlnce of LeyLe.

Docena v. Sanggun|ang an|a|aw|gan of Lastern Samar (1991)

lAC1S:
eLlLloner AgusLln uocena was appolnLed Lo succeed Luls CaplLo as a member of S of LasLern Samar upon Lhe
laLLer's deaLh.

Pls appolnLmenL was lssued on nov. 19, 1990 by Sec. Luls 1. SanLos of Lhe ulLC. 1he peLlLloner Look hls oaLh of
offlce on november 22, 1990 and assumed offlce as member of Lhe S on november 26, 1990.

Powever, on november 27, 1990, Sec. SanLos appolnLed respondenL SocraLes 8. Alar Lo Lhe poslLlon already
occupled by uocena.

Cn uecember 18, 1990, SLS passed 8esoluLlon no. 73 Alar's appolnLmenL as leglLlmaLe raLher Lhan LhaL of
uocena. 1he sald 8esoluLlon was reversed by Sec. SanLos when he recalled Lhe nov. 27 appolnLmenL of Alar.
Cn !anuary 8, 1991, Lhe SLS passed anoLher resoluLlon (8esoluLlon no. 1) relLeraLlng lLs prevlous recognlLlon of
Alar and declarlng Lhe recall order lssued by Sec. SanLos as null and vold.

Sec. SanLos changed hls mlnd agaln when he lssued on lebruary 20, 1991 anoLher order Lhls Llme addressed Lo
uocena recalllng Lhe appolnLmenL exLended Lo hlm lasL november 19, 1990.
Pence Lhls peLlLlon for mandamus flled by uocena.

lSSuL:
WCn uocena ls Lhe lawfully appolnLed member of Lhe S of LasLern Samar

PLLu:
?es

8A1lC:
1he appolnLmenL exLended Lo uocena on nov. 19, 1990 was permanenL ln naLure Lo flll Lhe permanenL vacancy
caused by CaplLo's deaLh. lL was Lo be valld for Lhe unexplred porLlon of Lhe Lerm of CaplLo. 1he appolnLmenL,
havlng been lssued and accepLed, and uocena havlng already assumed offlce, had already become compleLe and
enforceable for all legal lnLenLs and purposes aL Lhe Llme lL was supposed Lo have been superseded by Lhe
appolnLmenL ln favor of Alar.

uocena had already acqulred securlLy of Lenure ln Lhe poslLlon and could be removed only for any of Lhe causes
and conformably Lo Lhe procedure prescrlbed ln Lhe Local CovernmenL Code.

Ak1 III

129

Also, Lhe SLS had no dlscreLlon Lo rule on Lhe valldlLy of Lhe declslons of Lhe Sec. of ulLC acLlng as Lhe alLer ego of
Lhe resldenL.

Damasen v. 1umamao (2010)

8espondenL was nomlnaLed by Lhe mayor Lo flll up Lhe poslLlon aL Lhe Sanggunlang 8ayan. Pe Look hls oaLh of
offlce. Powever, peLlLloner became a member of Lhe same parLy someLlme afLer and was Lhen nomlnaLed by Lhe
provlnclal chalr of Lhe parLy Lo flll up Lhe same poslLlon.

eLlLloner flled for an ln[uncLlon aL Lhe 81C Lo whlch Lhe 81C ruled ln peLlLloner's favor. Powever, Lhe CA reversed
Lhe lower courL's declslon. Pence, Lhls case.

lSSuL: WheLher or noL peLlLloner ls quallfled Lo assume Lhe vacanL posL aL Lhe S8.

PLLu: no

8A1lC: 1he law provldes for condlLlons for Lhe rule of successlon Lo apply: llrsL, Lhe appolnLee shall come from Lhe
same pollLlcal parLy as LhaL of Lhe Sanggunlan member who caused Lhe vacancy. Second, Lhe appolnLee musL have
a nomlnaLlon and a CerLlflcaLe of Membershlp from Lhe hlghesL offlclal of Lhe pollLlcal parLy concerned.

1he CourL learned LhaL peLlLloner ls noL a bona flde member of sald parLy slnce hls membershlp has noL been
endorsed Lo Lhe naLlonal offlce.

1herefore, peLlLloner cannoL assume hls offlce slnce he ls noL a member of Lhe same parLy.

1he reason behlnd Lhe rlghL glven Lo a pollLlcal parLy Lo nomlnaLe a replacemenL where a permanenL vacancy
occurs ln Lhe Sanggunlan ls Lo malnLaln Lhe parLy represenLaLlon as wllled by Lhe people ln Lhe elecLlon.

A81 lll

130

8. ACIN1IVL LCCAL CIIICIALS CCMMCN 1C ALL MUNICIALI1ILS

De kama v. CA (2001)

lacLs:
- Mayor Conrado de 8ama won as mayor of agbllao, Cuezon. Cne of Lhe flrsL Lhlngs he dld upon
assumpLlon of offlce was Lo wrlLe Lhe Clvll Servlce Commlsslon and seek Lhe recall of Lhe appolnLmenLs of
14 munlclpal employees. Accordlng Lo hlm, sald appolnLmenLs should be recalled as Lhey were mldnlghL"
appolnLmenLs of Lhe former mayor, Lvelyn Abe[a. 1he CSC denled hls requesL saylng LhaL Lhe
appolnLmenLs of Lhe 14 employees were made ln accordance wlLh law and LhaL Lhe sec.13, arL.vll of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon whlch ls belng relled upon by Mayor de 8ama, perLalns only Lo Lhe appolnLmenLs of Lhe
ouLgolng resldenL and noL of local elecLlve offlclals.

- upon appeal Lo Lhe CA, Mayor de 8ama flled a supplemenLal pleadlng Lo Lhe appeal alleglng LhaL Lhe
appolnLmenLs were also LalnLed wlLh fraud slnce Lhe former mayor dld noL follow Lhe rule ln sec.80 of 8a
7041 LhaL appolnLmenLs can only be made wlLhln 4 monLhs from Lhe publlcaLlon of Lhe vacancles.

lssue: WCn Lhe appolnLmenLs made by Lhe former mayor should be recalled.
Peld and 8aLlo:
- nC. 1he CSC has correcLly ruled LhaL Lhe appolnLmenLs were made ln accordance wlLh Lhe law. lL was
already Loo laLe for Mayor de 8ama Lo clalm LhaL appolnLmenLs were LalnLed wlLh fraud slnce he dld noL
ralse Lhls ln hls flrsL complalnL, whlch only relled on hls allegaLlon LhaL Lhe same were mldnlghL
appolnLmenLs. Cnly Lhe CSC has Lhe power Lo recall Lhe appolnLmenLs upon grounds menLloned ln Lhe
8evlsed AdmlnlsLraLlve Code.
4
Powever, none of Lhe grounds exlsL Lo warranL Lhe recall of Lhe sald
appolnLmenLs. 1o granL Lhe mayor's requesL ls Lo vlolaLe Lhe securlLy of Lenure of Lhe appolnLed
employees.

- Aslde from Lhls, Lhe CourL ruled LhaL lL was error for Mayor de 8ama Lo lnvoke Lhe consLlLuLlonal
prohlblLlon agalnsL mldnlghL appolnLmenLs. Accordlng Lo Lhe CourL, Lhls only perLalns Lo appolnLmenLs
made by an ouLgolng resldenL and ls noL appllcable Lo appolnLmenLs made by an ouLgolng mayor.

MeoJozo, Jlsseotloq.
- 1he prohlblLlon agalnsL mldnlghL appolnLmenLs ls noL llmlLed Lo Lhose made by an ouLgolng resldenL. 1he
same covers Lhose made by ouLgolng elecLlve offlclals slnce mldnlghL appolnLmenLs ln general are bad
because Lhey are made hurrledly, wlLhouL due dellberaLlon and careful conslderaLlon of Lhe needs of Lhe
offlce and Lhe quallflcaLlons of Lhe appolnLee. Moreover, Lhe offend prlnclple of falrness, [usLlce and
rlghLeousness.

1. Leagues of Loca| 8arangay Un|ts and L|ect|ve Cff|c|a|s

Dav|d v. CCMLLLC (1997)

lacLs:
1hls case lnvolves Lwo (2) consolldaLed peLlLlons flled by uavld and Llga ng mga 8arangay CC ChapLer.

4
Sec.2u, iule vI that appointments may be iecalleu on any of the following giounus:
a. non-compliance with the pioceuuiesciiteiia pioviueu in the agency's Neiit Piomotion Plan
b. failuie to pass thiough the agency's SelectionPiomotion Boaiu
c. violation of the existing collective agieement between management anu employees ielative to piomotion; oi
u. violation of othei existing civil seivice law, iules anu iegulations.
A81 lll

131

uavld, brgy chalrman from kalookan and presldenL of Llga ng mga 8arangay sa lllplnas, soughL Lo prohlblL Lhe
holdlng of barangay elecLlons scheduled on Lhe second Monday of May 1997. Cn Lhe oLher hand, Llga ng mga
8arangay CC ChapLer soughL [udlclal revlew Lo declare as unconsLlLuLlonal cerLaln laws lncludlng Sec 43 of Lhe LCC,
CCMLLLC resoluLlons, and budgeL approprlaLlons for elecLlons, whlch all essenLlally llmlLed Lhe Lerm of barangay
offlclals Lo Lhree (3) years.

Maln lssue of boLh peLlLlons: Pow long ls Lhe Lerm of offlce of barangay offlclals?

eLlLloner 8espondenL
-8A 6633 and 8A 6679 (boLh
approved on 1988) provlde
for flve-year Lerm for
barangay offlclals
- 8A 6633 and 6679 should
sLlll prevall over Lhe LCC
because Lhe laLLer 2 laws
are speclal laws appllcable
only Lo barangays whlle LCC
ls a general law
-no lmplled or express
repeal of Lhe 2 laws by Lhe
LCC
-repeallng clause of LCC
lncludes all laws, speclal or
general, lnconslsLenL wlLh
Lhe provlslons of LCC
-peLlLloners cannoL clalm a
Lerm of more Lhan 3 years
as Lhey were elecLed under
Lhe aegls of Lhe LCC of 1991

SenaLor lmenLel (omlcos cotloe): recommends Lhe denlal of Lhe peLlLlons because:
1. LCC repealed 8A 6679 and 6633 noL only by lmpllcaLlon buL also by deslgn
2. LeglslaLlve lnLenL ls Lo shorLen Lhe Lerm Lo 3 years
3. 8arangay offlclals should noL have a Lerm longer Lhan LhaL of Lhelr admlnlsLraLlve superlors, clLy and
munlclpal mayors
4. 8arangay offlclals are esLopped from quesLlonlng LCC as Lhey were voLed for under Lhe sald Code

Speclflc lssues:
1. Whlch law governs Lhe Lerm of offlce of barangay offlclals, LCC or 8A 6679?
2. ls Lhe LCC lnsofar as lL shorLened Lhe Lerm Lo 3 years consLlLuLlonal?
3. Are peLlLloners sLopped from clalmlng a Lerm oLher Lhan LhaL provlded under Lhe LCC?

Peld:
lor Lhe clear undersLandlng of Lhe lssues, Lhe SC gave a brlef hlsLorlcal background of barangay elecLlons, Lo wlL:
! ConcepL anLedaLed Lhe Spanlsh conquesL
! "8arangay" ls derlved from Lhe Malay "balangay", a boaL whlch LransporLed Lhem Lo Lhe hlllpplnes
! Crlglnally, a barangay was ruled by a Joto who has absoluLe powers of governmenL
! Spanlards sLrlpped Lhe Joto/tojob of hls powers and power was cenLrallzed naLlonally ln Lhe governor
general and locally ln Lhe eocomleoJeto and laLer, ln Lhe olcolJe moyot and qobetooJotclllo
! uoto/tojob was renamed cobezo Je botooqoy, who was elecLed by local clLlzens possesslng properLy
! AfLer Amerlcan colonlzaLlon, barangays were known as "barrlos" whlch were granLed auLonomy by Lhe
orlglnal 8arlo CharLer, 8A 2370, and formally recognlzed as quasl-munlclpal corporaLlons by Lhe 8evlsed
8arrlo CharLer, 8A 3390
! uurlng Lhe MarLlal Law reglme, barrlos were renamed "barangays" agaln
! ursuanL Lo 8 222, LCC of 1983, 8 881 unong 8arangay and slx kagawads were elecLed wlLh a Lerm of
6 years
! 8y vlrLue of 8A 6633, Lhe elecLlon scheduled by 8 881 on 2
nd
Monday of May 1988 was reseL Lo 2
nd

Monday of november 1988 and every 3 years LhereafLer. under Lhls law, Lhe unong 8arangay was Lo be
chosen from among Lhemselves by 7 kagawads.
A81 lll

132

! 8y vlrLue of 8A 6679, elecLlon daLe seL by 8A 6633 was reseL Lo March 1989 and Lhe Lerm of offlce was Lo
begln May 1, 1989 and Lo end on May 31, 1994. SLlll, Lerm was flxed aL 3 years buL Lhe manner of elecLlon
of punong barangay was changed: Cnly 7 kagawads wlll be voLed for by Lhe people and Lhe one wlLh Lhe
hlghesL voLes shall be Lhe unong 8arangay
! neverLheless, LCC of 1991 lnLroduced some changes ln Lhe sysLem: Lerm reduced Lo 3 years and unong
barangay shall be elecLed separaLely aL large by Lhe people

lltst lssoe. Clear leglslaLlve lnLenL and deslgn Lo llmlL Lo 3 years
1. LCC of 1991 was enacLed laLer Lhan 8A 6679. lL ls baslc LhaL ln case of lrreconcllable confllcL beLween
2 laws, Lhe laLer enacLmenL prevalls. 8aLlonale: laLer law repeals earller one because lL ls Lhe laLer
leglslaLlve wlll. SecLlon 43 of Lhe LCC reduced Lhe Lerm of barangay offlclals Lo 3 years whlch was
clearly lnconslsLenL wlLh 8A 6679.
2. under boLh 8A 6633 and 6679, elecLoraLe voLe for only 7 kagawads and noL for Lhe unong 8arangay.
LCC mandaLes a dlrecL voLe on unong 8arangay.
3. uurlng Lhe elecLlons held on second Monday of may, Lhe voLers acLually and dlrecLly elecLed 1
punong barangay and 7 kagawads. lf we follow peLlLloners' Lheory, lL follows LhaL all punong
barangays were elecLed lllegally lncludlng peLlLloner uavld maklng hlm noL a real parLy ln lnLeresL
calllng for Lhe ouLrlghL dlsmlssal of hls peLlLlon.
4. Congress approprlaLed budgeL Lo cover Lhe barangay elecLlons and ordalned LhaL a reglsLraLlon of
voLers musL be held afLer Lhe barangay elecLlons of 1997. Pence, Lhese are clear and express
conLemporaneous sLaLemenLs of Congress LhaL barangay offlclals shall be elecLed on May 1997.
3. aras vs CCMLLLC expressed LhaL Lhe elecLlons shall be on May 1997. 8elng a [udlclal declslon, ls now
parL of Lhe legal sysLem.
6. LCC ls noL a general law. lL ls a speclal law lnsofar as lL governs Lhe Lerm of offlce of barangay offlclals.
lLs repeallng clause expressly repealed all laws, general or speclal, repugnanL Lo Lhe Code

5ecooJ lssoe. 1hree-year Lerm noL repugnanL Lo ConsLlLuLlon
! ConsLlLuLlon dld noL expressly prohlblL Congress from flxlng any Lerm of offlce for barangay offlclals
! lL merely lefL Lhe deLermlnaLlon of such Lerm Lo Lhe lawmaklng body, wlLhouL any speclflc llmlLaLlon or
prohlblLlon, Lhereby leavlng Lo Lhe lawmakers full dlscreLlon Lo flx such Lerm ln accordance wlLh Lhe
exlgencles of publlc servlce.
! 1hls ls ln llne wlLh Sec. 8, ArLlcle x of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon llmlLlng Lhe Lerm of all elecLlve offlclals Lo 3 years,
excepL LhaL of barangay offlclals whlch "shall be deLermlned by law". 1hls ls furLher clarlfled by Lhe
ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon's dellberaLlon sLaLlng LhaL Lhe "law" perLalns Lo Lhe LCC.

1bltJ lssoe. eLlLloners sLopped from challenglng Lhelr Lhree-year Lerms
! As correcLly polnLed ouL by SenaLor lmenLel, peLlLloners were voLed for under Lhe LCC

2. r|vate Counse|]Lawyers for e|ect|ve |oca| off|c|a|s

A||nsug v. k1C- Negros Ccc|denta| and Mayor onseca (1993)

lAC1S:

Zonsayda Allnsug, had been a regular employee of Lhe munlclpal governmenL of LscalanLe, negros CccldenLal,
when she recelved a permanenL appolnLmenL as Clerk lll ln Lhe offlce of Lhe Munlclpal lannlng and uevelopmenL
CoordlnaLor of Lhe same munlclpallLy.

1he newly proclalmed mayor, 8olando onslca deLalled her Lo Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Mayor.

Cn 19 !une 1992, Zonsayda absenLed herself from work allegedly Lo aLLend Lo famlly maLLers. She had asked
permlsslon from Lhe personnel offlcer buL noL from Lhe mayor.
A81 lll

133

Mayor onslca lssued Cfflce Crder no. 31, suspendlng Zonsayda for one monLh and one day commenclng on 24
!une 1992 for "a slmple mlsconducL whlch can also be caLegorlzed as an acL of lnsubordlnaLlon." 1he order also
sLaLed LhaL Lhe suspenslon "carrles wlLh lL forfelLure of beneflLs such as salary and L8A and leave credlLs durlng
Lhe duraLlon of lLs effecLlvlLy."

Zonsayda flled wlLh Lhe 81C a peLlLlon for ln[uncLlon wlLh damages. She alleged LhaL her suspenslon was an acL of
pollLlcal vendeLLa because her famlly supporLed Mayor onslca's rlval ln Lhe 11 May 1992 elecLlons.

Mayor onslca, Lhrough prlvaLe pracLlLloner Samuel SM Lezama, clalmed LhaL Zonsayda had noL yeL exhausLed
admlnlsLraLlve remedles and LhaL her suspenslon was ln accordance wlLh law.

1he foregolng ellclLed a moLlon from Lhe peLlLloner, praylng LhaL Lhe answer be dlsregarded and expunged from
Lhe record, and LhaL Lhe respondenLs be all declared ln defaulL on Lhe ground LhaL slnce Lhe respondenLs were
sued ln Lhelr offlclal capaclLles, "noL lncludlng Lhelr prlvaLe capaclLles," Lhey should have been represenLed by
elLher Lhe munlclpal legal offlcer or Lhe provlnclal legal offlcer or prosecuLor as provlded for by Sec. 481 (b) (l) and
(3) of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code.

lL also clLed Sec. 1 of 8ep. AcL no. 10 and ArL. 177 of Lhe 8C whlch penallzes usurpaLlon of publlc auLhorlLy.

1he respondenLs opposed Lhe moLlon.

ManlfesLlng LhaL Lhe munlclpallLy of LscalanLe has no legal offlcer, Lhey asserLed LhaL boLh Lhe Local CovernmenL
Code and Lhe AdmlnlsLraLlve Code of 1987 do noL have any provlslon "relaLlve Lo Lhe duLy of any provlnclal legal
offlcer or prosecuLor Lo represenL a munlclpallLy or lLs offlclals ln sulLs flled agalnsL Lhem by an employee or a
prlvaLe lndlvldual."

1hey conLended LhaL lL was "unnecessary Lo provlde such a provlslon because Lhere (exlsL) admlnlsLraLlve and
[udlclal rullngs susLalnlng Lhe valldlLy of Lhe employmenL of a prlvaLe counsel by munlclpal offlclals.

1he lower courL lssued Lhe Crder denylng Lhe moLlon on Lhe Lhesls LhaL slnce Lhe appolnLmenL of a legal offlcer
was opLlonal on Lhe parL of Lhe munlclpal governmenL (ArL. 481, Lhlrd paragraph, Local CovernmenL Code) and Lhe
munlclpallLy of LscalanLe had noL, ln facL, deslgnaLed any such legal offlcer, peLlLloner's move Lo declare
respondenLs ln defaulL "for havlng reLalned a prlvaLe counsel" was noL Lhereby legally susLalnable.

lSSuL:
WCn a prlvaLe counsel may represenL munlclpal offlclals sued ln Lhelr offlclal capaclLles

PLLu:
?es

8A1lC:
ln rovlnce of Cebu v. lAC (1987), SC held LhaL where rlgld adherence Lo Lhe law on represenLaLlon of local offlclals
ln courL acLlons could deprlve a parLy of hls rlghL Lo redress for a valld grlevance, Lhe hlrlng of a prlvaLe counsel
would be proper.

And, ln Alboeto v. 1ottes, Lhls CourL also sald LhaL a provlnclal governor sued ln hls offlclal capaclLy may engage Lhe
servlces of prlvaLe counsel when "Lhe complalnL conLalns oLher allegaLlons and a prayer for moral damages, whlch,
lf due from Lhe defendanLs, musL be saLlsfled by Lhem ln Lhelr ptlvote capaclLy."

A81 lll

134

1he key Lhen Lo resolvlng Lhe lssue of wheLher a local governmenL offlclal may secure Lhe servlces of prlvaLe
counsel, ln an acLlon flled agalnsL hlm ln hls offlclal capaclLy, lles on Lhe naLure of Lhe acLlon and Lhe rellef LhaL ls
soughL.

Whlle Lhe peLlLlon below was flled agalnsL respondenLs as publlc offlclals, lLs allegaLlons were also almed aL
quesLlonlng cerLaln acLs LhaL can well brlng Lhe case beyond Lhe mere conflnes of offlclal funcLlons.

1he peLlLlon also clalms moral and exemplary damages, as well as llLlgaLlon expenses. Moral damages cannoL
generally be awarded unless Lhey are Lhe proxlmaLe resulL of a wrongful acL or omlsslon. Lxemplary damages, on
Lhe oLher hand, are noL awarded lf Lhe defendanL had noL acLed ln a wanLon, oppresslve or malevolenL manner nor
ln Lhe absence of gross or reckless negllgence.

A publlc offlclal, who ln Lhe performance of hls duLy acLs ln such fashlon, does so ln excess of auLhorlLy, and hls
acLlons would be ulLra vlres LhaL can Lhereby resulL ln an lncurrence of personal llablllLy.

Mun|c|pa||ty of |||||a, k|za| v. CA (1994)

lacLs:
1he 81C of 1anay, 8lzal rendered [udgmenL orderlng Lhe hlllpplne eLroleum CorporaLlon (C) Lo pay
Lhe MunlclpallLy of llllla (munlclpallLy) buslness Laxes and oLher fees. 1he [udgmenL was afflrmed by Lhe SC and
became flnal and execuLor. 1he case was remanded Lo Lhe 81C for execuLlon.

ln connecLlon wlLh Lhe execuLlon of [udgmenL, ALLy. lellx Mendlola flled a moLlon ln behalf of Lhe
munlclpallLy for Lhe examlnaLlon of C's gross sales for Lhe purpose of compuLlng lLs buslness Laxes. C flled a
manlfesLaLlon before Lhe 81C Lo Lhe effecL LhaL Mayor aLenla of llllla recelved from lL 11.3M as full saLlsfacLlon
of Lhe [udgmenL as evldenced by Lhe release and qulL clalm documenLs execuLed by Lhe sald mayor. 1he 81C lssued
an order denylng ALLy. Mendlola's moLlonfor examlnaLlon and execuLlon of [udgmenL.

ALLy. Mendlola flled a moLlon for reconslderaLlon clalmlng LhaL Lhe LoLal llablllLy amounLed Lo 24.2M
whlle Lhe amounL recelved by Lhe mayor was only 12.7M. Pe asserLed LhaL Lhe mayor cannoL walve Lhe balance
of Lhe [udgmenL over whlch hls law flrm had reglsLered Lwo llens for alleged consulLancy servlces and aLLorney's
fees amounLlng Lo more Lhan 12M. 1he 81C, however, denled hls M8.

A peLlLlon for cerLlorarl was flled by ALLy. Mendlola whlch was referred Lo Lhe CA for approprlaLe acLlon.
C flled a moLlon quesLlonlng Lhe auLhorlLy of ALLy. Mendlola Lo represenL Lhe munlclpallLy. 1he CA dlsmlssed Lhe
peLlLlon for havlng been flled by a prlvaLe counsel ln vlolaLlon of Lhe law and [urlsprudence buL wlLhouL pre[udlce
Lo Lhe flllng of a slmllar peLlLlon by Lhe munlclpallLy Lhru Lhe proper provlnclal or munlclpal legal offlcer.

ALLy. Mendlola flled a peLlLlon before Lhe SC Lo assall Lhe declslon of Lhe CA.

lssue:
WCn ALLy. Mendlola, a prlvaLe counsel, has auLhorlLy can flle an acLlon ln courL for and ln behalf of Lhe
munlclpallLy of llllla

Peld:
no. ALLy. Mendlola has no auLhorlLy Lo flle an acLlon ln courL ln behalf and ln Lhe name of Lhe MunlclpallLy of llllla.

1. ltlvote ottotoeys coooot tepteseot o ptovloce ot moolclpollty lo lowsolts.

Sec. 1683 of Lhe 8evlsed AdmlnlsLraLlve Code provldes LhaL Lhe provlnclal flscal shall represenL Lhe
provlnce or any munlclpallLy or munlclpal dlsLrlcL Lhereof ln any courL excepL (a) ln cases whereof orlglnal
[urlsdlcLlon ls vesLed ln Lhe SC or (b) ln cases where Lhe munlclpallLy or munlclpal dlsLrlcL ls a parLy
A81 lll

133

adverse Lo Lhe provlnclal governmenL or Lo some munlclpallLy or munlclpal dlsLrlcL ln Lhe same provlnce.
When Lhe provlnclal flscal ls dlsquallfled, a speclal aLLorney may be employed by Lhe munlclpal councll.

Pence, only Lhe provlnclal flscal or munlclpal aLLorney can represenL a provlnce or munlclpallLy ln Lhelr
lawsulLs. 1he provlslon ls mandaLory. 1he munlclpallLy's auLhorlLy Lo employ a prlvaLe lawyer ls llmlLed
only Lo slLuaLlons where Lhe provlnclal flscal ls dlsquallfled Lo represenL lL. lor Lhls excepLlon Lo apply, Lhe
facL LhaL Lhe provlnclal flscal was dlsquallfled musL appear on record.

2. 1be flscols tefosol to tepteseot tbe moolclpollty ls oot o leqol jostlflcotloo fot employloq tbe setvlces of
ptlvote cooosel.

unllke a pracLlclng lawyer who has a rlghL Lo refuse employmenL, flscal cannoL refuse Lo perform hls
funcLlons on grounds noL provlded for by law wlLhouL vlolaLlng hls oaLh of offlce.

lnsLead of engaglng Lhe servlces of a speclal aLLorney, Lhe munlclpal councll should requesL Lhe SecreLary
of !usLlce Lo appolnL an acLlng provlnclal flscal ln place of Lhe provlnclal flscal who has decllned Lo handle
and prosecuLe lLs case ln courL.

J. 1be leqollty of o ptlvote cooosels tepteseototloo coo be poestlooeJ ot ooy stoqe of tbe ptoceeJloqs.

kamos v. CA (1997)

lacLs:
eLlLloners flled on Aprll 1990 a sulL agalnsL Lhe munlclpallLy of 8alluag Lo declare Munlclpal Crdlnances
91(1976) and 7(1990) and Lhe conLracL of lease over a commerclal arcade.
Cn May 1990, Lhe provlnclal llscal and rovlnclal ALLorney, 8egalado, flled an Answer ln behalf of Lhe
munlclpallLy.
AL Lhe pre-Lrlal conference, ALLy. 8omanlllos appeared, manlfesLlng LhaL he was counsel for respondenL
munlclpallLy. 1he rovlnclal ALLorney appeared as collaboraLlng counsel of ALLy. 8omanlllos.
AfLer ALLy. 8omanlllos submlLLed a formal offer of evldence Lhe peLlLloners quesLloned hls auLhorlLy Lo
represenL Lhe munlclpallLy.
1he rovlnclal ALLorney and ALLy. 8omanlllos flled a [olnL moLlon sLaLlng LhaL Lhe laLLer ls wlLhdrawlng as
collaboraLlng counsel for Lhe munlclpallLy and LhaL Lhe rovlnclal ALLorney ls adopLlng Lhe enLlre
proceedlngs parLlclpaLed ln by ALLy. 8omanlllos.
81C approved Lhe [olnL moLlon of Lhe rovlnclal ALLorney and ALLy. 8omanlllos and denled Lhe moLlon of
Lhe peLlLloners Lo dlsquallfy ALLy. 8omanlllos and declare Lhe proceedlngs null and vold. 1he 81C reasoned
LhaL Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon ls mooL and academlc due Lo Lhe wlLhdrawal of ALLy. 8omanlllos and LhaL Lhe
peLlLloners have been esLopped from quesLlonlng Lhe legallLy of Lhe proceedlng parLlclpaLed ln by ALLy.
8omanlllos. lL also added LhaL Lhe adopLlon of Lhe rovlnclal ALLorney of Lhe enLlre parLlclpaLlon of ALLy.
8omanlllos has legally remedled Lhe LalnL ln Lhe proceedlngs.
CA afflrmed Lhe order of Lhe 81C.

lssues, Peld and 8aLlo:
Who can represenL a munlclpallLy ln a sulL?
o under SecLlon 1683 of Lhe 8evlsed AdmlnlsLraLlve Code, lL ls Lhe flscal LhaL can represenL Lhe
provlnce and any munlclpallLy or munlclpal dlsLrlcL excepL a) ln cases where Lhe orlglnal
[urlsdlcLlon ls vesLed ln Lhe Supreme CourL, or b) cases where Lhe munlclpallLy or munlclpal
dlsLrlcL ln quesLlon ls a parLy adverse Lo Lhe provlnclal governmenL or oLher local governmenL
unlL ln Lhe same provlnce or c) when Lhe lnLeresL of Lhe provlnclal governmenL and of any
pollLlcal subdlvlslon Lhereof ls opposed Lo Lhe flscal's lnLeresL . 1he funcLlon of Lhe provlnclal
A81 lll

136

flscal was laLer Lransferred Lo Lhe rovlnclal ALLorney and ClLy Legal Cfflcer under SecLlon 19 of
8A 3183. Cnly ln Lhe excepLlonal cases can a munlclpallLy hlre a prlvaLe lawyer Lo represenL lL.
WheLher or noL a prlvaLe counsel can enLer as a collaboraLlng counsel LogeLher wlLh Lhe rovlnclal
ALLorney for a munlclpallLy?
o no, a prlvaLe counsel cannoL enLer as collaboraLlng counsel. As held ln 8amos v CA (CcLober 30,
1981), a prlvaLe counsel who volunLeered hls servlces for free ln collaboraLlon wlLh Lhe munlclpal
aLLorney and Lhe flscal ls vlolaLlve of Sec. 1683 of Lhe old Admln. Code. 1he raLlonale ls LhaL a) a
munlclpallLy should noL be burdened wlLh Lhe expenses of hlrlng a prlvaLe lawyer and b) Lhe
lnLeresL of Lhe munlclpallLy would be besL proLecLed lf a governmenL lawyer handles lLs llLlgaLlon.
WheLher or noL Lhe adopLlon by Lhe rovlnclal ALLorney of Lhe proceedlngs parLlclpaLed ln by a prlvaLe
counsel ln a sulL agalnsL a munlclpallLy valldaLe Lhe proceedlngs?
o ?es, ln Lhe lnLeresL of subsLanLlal [usLlce a munlclpallLy may adopL Lhe work already performed ln
good falLh by such prlvaLe lawyer LhaL ls beneflclal Lo lL provlded LhaL a) no ln[usLlce ls suffered
by Lhe adverse parLy and b) no compensaLlon ln any gulse ls pald Lo Lhe prlvaLe lawyer. unless
expressly so adopLed, Lhe prlvaLe lawyer's work cannoL blnd Lhe munlclpallLy.

Sa|a||ma v. Gu|ngona (1996)

lAC1S:
1hls Supreme CourL case lnvolves four admlnlsLraLlve complalnLs flled agalnsL Albay Covernor Salallma
and Lhe members of Lhe Sanggunlang anlalawlgan of Albay. 1he complalnLs seek Lo hold Lhe peLlLloners llable for
a) wanLon dlsregard of law amounLlng Lo abuse of auLhorlLy ln C case 3470, b) grave abuse of auLhorlLy under
SecLlon 60 (e) of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code ln C cae 3649, c) oppresslon and abuse of auLhorlLy under SecLlon
60 (c) and (e) of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code ln C case 3471 and d) abuse of auLhorlLy and negllgence ln C case
3430. 8elevanL Lo our dlscusslon on wheLher or noL LCus can hlre prlvaLe lawyers ln cases flled agalnsL lL ls C case
3469.

1he rovlnce of Albay lmposed real properLy Lax agalnsL Lhe naLlonal ower CorporaLlon. 1he laLLer,
clalmlng LhaL lL ls Lax exempL, refused Lo pay Lhe sald Lax llablllLy. uue Lo lLs refusal Lo pay, Lhe rovlnce of Albay
Look over Lhe properLles of nC and sold Lhem ln an aucLlon sale. 1he rovlnce was Lhe sole bldder. upon Lhe
fallure of nC Lo redeem Lhe properLy, Lhe rovlnce soughL Lhe lssuance of a wrlL of possesslon from Lhe 8eglonal
1rlal CourL. 1he nC challenged Lhls ln a peLlLlon flled wlLh Lhe Supreme CourL. 1he rovlnce, Lhrough lLs legal
offlce ALLy. 8lcaforLe, flled lLs commenL on Lhe sald peLlLlon on May 17, 1989.

Cn !une 2, 1989, Lhe Sanggunlang anlalawlgan lssued 8esoluLlon no. 129-89, auLhorlzlng Salallma Lo
engage Lhe servlces of a Manlla-based law flrm Lo handle Lhe case. As such, on AugusL 23, 1989, ALLy. !esus
Carnago enLered hls appearance wlLh Lhe SC as a collaboraLlng counsel. Cn november 14, 1989, ALLy. AnLonlo !ose
CorLes of CorLes and 8eyna Law llrm senL a leLLer Lo Salallma, lnformlng hlm LhaL ALLy. Carnago had flled a
memorandum ln Lhe SC. Pe Lhen proposed LhaL hls law flrm and LhaL of ALLy. Carnago enLer lnLo a reLalner
agreemenL wlLh Lhe rovlnce ln connecLlon wlLh Lhe case. Pe charged 30, 000 as accepLance fee and a conLlngency
fee of 18. ln response Lo Lhls, Lhe Sanggunlang anlalawlgan passed 8esoluLlon no. 01-90 auLhorlzlng Salallma Lo
slgn a reLalner conLracL wlLh CorLes and 8eyna Law llrm.

Cn !une 4, 1990, Lhe Supreme CourL ruled ln favor of Lhe rovlnce. 1he laLLer Lhen pald Lhe lawyers
amounLlng Lo around 7 mllllon. Powever, on May 31, 1993, Lhe rovlnclal AudlLor lnformed Lhe rovlnce LhaL CCA
had dlsallowed Lhe paymenLs for lack of prlor wrlLLen conformlLy of Lhe SollclLor Ceneral and a wrlLLen
concurrence of CCA. An admlnlsLraLlve complalnL was laLer on flled agalnsL Lhe peLlLloners wlLh Lhe Cfflce of Lhe
resldenL.

1he C found LhaL Lhe peLlLloners lncurred admlnlsLraLlve llablllLy ln hlrlng prlvaLe lawyers Lo defend lL ln
Lhe nC case.
C's 8A1lC
A81 lll

137

1. SecLlon 481 of Lhe LCC sLaLes LhaL Lhe legal offlcer of Lhe provlnce has Lhe duLy Lo represenL Lhe LCu ln all
clvll acLlons and speclal proceedlngs whereln Lhe LCu or any offlclal Lhereof, ln hls offlclal capaclLy, ls a
parLy.
2. ln Lhe case MunlclpallLy of 8ocaue v. ManoLok, Lhe Supreme CourL ruled LhaL Lhe LCu cannoL be
represenLed by prlvaLe lawyers and lL ls solely Lhe rovlnclal legal offlcer or provlnclal flscal who can
represenL lL. A prlvaLe lawyer has no sLandlng ln such a case.
3. Sec. 481 and MunlclpallLy of 8ocaue v. ManoLok are appllcable ln Lhls case. ln hlrlng Lhe prlvaLe lawyers,
Lhe peLlLloners vlolaLed Lhe LCC and Lhe docLrlne lald down by Lhe Supreme courL.
4. Moreover, Lhe LransacLlon was also full of lrregularlLles.
a. 1he dlsbursemenL of 7M as paymenL was dlsallowed by CCA for fallure Lo comply wlLh Lhe
prerequlslLe conformlLy from Lhe SolCen and Lhe CCA.
b. 8esoluLlon 01-90 auLhorlzed Salallma Lo conLracL wlLh CorLes and 8eyna Law llrm and nC1 wlLh ALLy.
Carnago. Salallma exceeded Lhe auLhorlLy glven Lo hlm ln dolng so.
c. Cnly ALLy. Carnago appeared as counsel ln Lhe nC case. lL appears LhaL CorLes and 8eyna dld noL
render any form of legal servlce ln relaLlon LhereLo.
d. 1he provlnclal legal offlcer had already flled a commenL ln Lhe SC. WhaL Carnago flled was merely a
memorandum. 1he LoLal aLLorney's fees of 38 Mllllon ls clearly unconsclonable.

8ecause of Lhese flndlngs, Lhe C lmposed Lhe penalLy of suspenslon for 6 monLhs agalnsL Cov.
Salallma and vlce governor Azana, whlle Lhe members of Lhe S were suspended for 4 monLhs. 1he
peLlLloners appealed Lhe case Lo Lhe SC. ln Lhe meanLlme, Lhe 1992 elecLlons Look place whereln Lhe
peLlLloners were reelecLed.

lSSuL:
WCn Lhe peLlLloners lncurred admlnlsLraLlve llablllLles ln hlrlng prlvaLe lawyers Lo represenL Lhe rovlnce

PLLu:
WheLher or noL Lhey lncurred llablllLles, Lhey can no longer be held Lo answer for Lhese ln vlew of Lhe facL LhaL Lhey
have already been reelecLed. 1helr reelecLlon operaLes as condonaLlon of any mlsconducL commlLLed ln Lhelr prlor
Lerm.

8A1lC
ln ascual v. ascual, Lhe SC ruled LhaL offenses commlLLed or acLs done ln a prevlous Lerm are generally
held noL Lo furnlsh a cause for removal ln Lhe currenL Lerm of offlce. 1hls ls because each Lerm ls separaLe from
oLher Lerms and LhaL Lhe reelecLlon operaLes as a condonaLlon of Lhe offlcer's prevlous mlsconducL Lo Lhe exLenL of
cuLLlng off Lhe rlghL Lo remove hlm Lherefore. Such a rule ls founded on Lhe Lheory LhaL an offlclal's reelecLlon
expresses Lhe soverelgn wlll of Lhe elecLoraLe Lo forglve or condone any acL or omlsslon consLlLuLlng a ground for
admlnlsLraLlve dlsclpllne whlch was commlLLed durlng Lhe prevlous Lerm. Also, sound pollcy dlcLaLes such a rule. A
conLrary rule would open Lhe floodgaLes Lo exacerbaLlng endless parLlsan conLesLs beLween reelecLed offlclals and
Lhelr pollLlcal enemles who may noL sLop Lo hound Lhe former durlng hls new Lerm wlLh admlnlsLraLlve cases for
acLs alleged Lo have been commlLLed durlng hls prevlous Lerm.
8uLlnC: C ueclslon lmposlng penalLles ls reversed and seL aslde.

C. D|sc|p||nary Act|ons

Ganzon v. CA 200 (1991)

IAC1S:
Canzon was Lhe Lhen mayor of llollo ClLy. 10 admlnlsLraLlve cases were flled agalnsL hlm on grounds of mlsfeasance
of offlce, abuse of auLhorlLy, oppresslon, grave mlsconducL, eLc. llndlng probable cause for Lhe charges, Lhe
SecreLary of lnLerlor lssued several 60-day prevenLlve suspenslon orders agalnsL Canzon, posslbly reachlng 600
A81 lll

138

days of suspenslon. Canzon appealed Lhe lssue Lo Lhe CA whlch afflrmed Lhe suspenslon orders by Lhe SecreLary.
Canzon Lhen lnsLlLuLed an acLlon for prohlblLlon agalnsL Lhe SecreLary ln Lhe 81C of llollo ClLy where he succeeded
ln obLalnlng a wrlL of prellmlnary ln[uncLlon. Pe also lnsLlLuLed acLlons for prohlblLlon before Lhe CourL of Appeals
buL were boLh dlsmlssed. 1he Supreme CourL noneLheless lssued a Lemporary resLralnlng order en[olnlng Lhe
SecreLary from lmplemenLlng hls suspenslon orders. 1hus, Lhls peLlLlon for revlew wlLh Lhe argumenL LhaL LhaL Lhe
1987 ConsLlLuLlon does noL auLhorlze Lhe resldenL nor any of hls alLer ego, lncludlng Lhe respondenL SecreLary, ls
devold, ln any evenL, of any auLhorlLy Lo suspend and remove local offlclals as Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon no longer
allows Lhe resldenL Lo exerclse sald power, and lnsLead lL supporLs local auLonomy and sLrengLhens Lhe same.
WhaL was glven by Lhe presenL ConsLlLuLlon was mere supervlsory power.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe SecreLary of Local CovernmenL, as Lhe resldenL's alLer ego, can suspend and or remove local
offlclals.

PLLu:
?LS.
noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe change ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal language, Lhe ConsLlLuLlon dld noL lnLend Lo dlvesL Lhe
leglslaLure of lLs rlghL, or Lhe resldenL of her prerogaLlve as conferred by exlsLlng leglslaLlon Lo provlde
admlnlsLraLlve sancLlon agalnsL local offlclals. AuLonomy does noL conLemplaLe maklng mlnl-sLaLes ouL of
LCus, and ls sub[ecL Lo Lhe guldance, Lhough noL conLrol, of Lhe leglslaLure, albelL Lhe leglslaLlve responslblllLy
under Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and as Lhe "supervlslon clause" lLself suggesL-ls Lo wean local governmenL unlLs from
over-dependence on Lhe cenLral governmenL. Local auLonomy ls noL lnsLanLly self-execuLlng, sub[ecL Lo Lhe
passage of a LCC, and oLher measures Lo reallze auLonomy aL Lhe local level. 1he deleLlon of "as may be
provlded by law" ln Sec. 4, ArL. 10 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon was meanL Lo sLress, sob slleoclo, Lhe ob[ecLlve of Lhe
framers Lo sLrengLhen local auLonomy by severlng congresslonal conLrol of lLs affalrs.
Canzon: LhaL Lhe ConsLlLuLlon has lefL Lhe resldenL mere supervlsory powers, whlch supposedly excludes Lhe
power of lnvesLlgaLlon, and denled her conLrol, whlch allegedly embraces dlsclpllnary auLhorlLy.
SC: Legally, "supervlslon" ls noL lncompaLlble wlLh dlsclpllnary auLhorlLy. MooJooo v. 5llvoso held LhaL:
- "conLrol" - Lhe power of an offlcer Lo alLer or modlfy or nulllfy or seL aslde whaL a subordlnaLe offlcer had
done ln Lhe performance of hls duLles and Lo subsLlLuLe Lhe [udgmenL of Lhe former for LesL of Lhe laLLer
- "supervlslon" - overseelng or Lhe power or auLhorlLy of an offlcer Lo see LhaL subordlnaLe offlcers perform
Lhelr duLles.
Powever, "lnvesLlgaLlng" ls noL lnconslsLenL wlLh "overseelng", alLhough lL ls a lesser power Lhan "alLerlng".
revlous [urlsprudence dld noL caLegorlcally ban Lhe Chlef LxecuLlve from exerclslng acLs of dlsclpllnary
auLhorlLy because she dld noL exerclse conLrol powers, buL because no law allowed her Lo exerclse dlsclpllnary
auLhorlLy. Local governmenLs, under Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, are sub[ecL Lo regulaLlon, however llmlLed, and for no
oLher purpose Lhan preclsely, albelL paradoxlcally, Lo enhance self- governmenL.
uecenLrallzaLlon means devoluLlon of naLlonal admlnlsLraLlon buL noL power Lo Lhe local levels.
- uecenLrallzaLlon of admlnlsLraLlon - when Lhe cenLral governmenL delegaLes admlnlsLraLlve powers Lo pollLlcal
subdlvlslons Lo broaden Lhe base of governmenL power and Lo make local governmenLs "more responslve and
accounLable," and "ensure Lhelr fullesL developmenL as self-rellanL communlLles and make Lhem more
effecLlve parLners ln Lhe pursulL of naLlonal developmenL and soclal progress." lL relleves Lhe cenLral
governmenL of Lhe burden of managlng local affalrs and enables lL Lo concenLraLe on naLlonal concerns. 1he
resldenL exerclses "general supervlslon" over Lhem, noL conLrol.
- uecenLrallzaLlon of power - an abdlcaLlon of pollLlcal power ln Lhe favor of local governmenLs unlLs declared Lo
be auLonomous, whlch are free Lo charL Lhelr own desLlny and shape Lhelr fuLure wlLh mlnlmum lnLervenLlon
from cenLral auLhorlLles. lL amounLs Lo "self-lmmolaLlon," slnce Lhe auLonomous governmenL becomes
accounLable noL Lo Lhe cenLral auLhorlLles buL Lo lLs consLlLuency.
Slnce Canzon ls faclng 10 admlnlsLraLlve charges, he ls faclng Lhe posslblllLy of 600 days of suspenslon, ln Lhe
evenL LhaL all 10 cases yleld ptlmo focle flndlngs. 1o make Mayor Canzon serve 600 days of suspenslon ls Lo
effecLlvely suspend hlm ouL of offlce.
- A baslc assumpLlon of Lhe elecLoral process lmpllclL ln Lhe rlghL of suffrage LhaL Lhe people are enLlLled Lo Lhe
A81 lll

139

servlces of elecLlve offlclals of Lhelr cholce. lor mlsfeasance or malfeasance, Lhey could be proceeded agalnsL
admlnlsLraLlvely or crlmlnally. A prevenLlve suspenslon may be [usLlfled. lLs conLlnuance, however, for an
unreasonable lengLh of Llme ralses a due process quesLlon. lor even lf LhereafLer he were acqulLLed, ln Lhe
meanwhlle hls rlghL Lo hold offlce had been nulllfled. Clearly, Lhere would be ln such a case an ln[usLlce
suffered by hlm. nor ls he Lhe only vlcLlm. 1here ls ln[usLlce lnfllcLed llkewlse on Lhe people for havlng been
deprlved of hls servlces.
1he sole ob[ecLlve of a suspenslon ls slmply "Lo prevenL Lhe accused from hamperlng Lhe normal cause of Lhe
lnvesLlgaLlon wlLh hls lnfluence and auLhorlLy over posslble wlLnesses" or Lo keep hlm off "Lhe records and
oLher evldence. lL ls a means, and no more, Lo asslsL prosecuLors ln flrmlng up a case agalnsL an errlng local
offlclal. under Lhe LCC, lL can noL exceed 60 days. lL ls noL a penalLy, and lL ls only Lemporary.
We are noL precludlng Lhe resldenL, Lhrough Lhe SecreLary of lnLerlor from exerclslng a legal power, yeL we
are of Lhe oplnlon LhaL Lhe SecreLary of lnLerlor ls exerclslng LhaL power oppresslvely, and needless Lo say,
wlLh a grave abuse of dlscreLlon.

Art|eda v. Santos (1991)

lAC1S
AL Lhe wake of Lhe 3 AugusL 1991 Maln declslon of Lhe Supreme CourL ln Canzon v. SanLos (ArLleda v. SanLos, C.8.
93746, 3 AugusL 1991), eLlLloner Mayor Canzon had already served ln full Lhe flrsL and parL (14 days) of Lhe Lhlrd
suspenslon orders lssued agalnsL hlm by SecreLary SanLos. 1he Supreme CourL ln LhaL declslon ordered .

PoweverL, before Lhls, 8espondenL SecreLary SanLos had lssued on 3 !uly 1991 agalnsL peLlLloner Canzon anoLher
order of prevenLlve suspenslon ln connecLlon wlLh AdmlnlsLraLlve Case no. 31-90 flled by complalnanL CcLavlus !.
!opson for anoLher 60 days. 1he eLlLloner served ln full Lhe fourLh Suspenslon Crder from 3 !uly 1991.

lssue:
May Lhe eLlLloner serve
Lhe resL of Lhe Suspenslon Crder no. 3 (46 days) and
Lhe full 60 days of Suspenslon Crder no. 2
slmulLaneously wlLh Suspenslon Crder no. 4?

PLLu:
?es

lf slmulLaneous servlce of Lwo (2) suspenslon orders ls allowed, Lhls would work ln favor of Lhe peLlLloner (an
elecLlve local offlclal) as Lhe balance of hls Lhlrd prevenLlve suspenslon would, ln effecL, be reduced from 46 days
Lo 17 days.

lL wlll be recalled LhaL, ln Lhe maln declslon, noLlng LhaL successlve suspenslons have been lnfllcLed on Mayor
Canzon we sLaLed LhaL whaL "ls lnLrlgulng ls LhaL respondenL SecreLary has been cracklng down, so Lo speak, on Lhe
Mayor plecemeal - apparenLly, Lo pln hlm down Len Llmes Lhe paln, when he, Lhe respondenL SecreLary could
have pursued a consolldaLed efforL." 17 Surely, allowlng peLlLloner Lo serve slmulLaneously Lhe overlapplng Lhlrd
and fourLh suspenslons wlll favor hlm, (and presumably Lhe local consLlLuency) and cerLalnly lessen lf noL offseL Lhe
harsh effecLs of whaLever moLlve may be behlnd Lhe lnLrlgulng acLlon of Lhe respondenL SecreLary ln lssulng Lhose
successlve suspenslon orders.

lurLhermore, we may already Lake [udlclal noLlce of Lhe recenLly-approved Local CovernmenL Code of 1991
(recenLly slgned lnLo law by Lhe resldenL) 18 whlch provldes (as Lo lmposlLlon of prevenLlve suspenslons) as
follows:
Sec. 63. revenLlve Suspenslon
xxx xxx xxx
A81 lll

140

b) . . . LhaL, any slngle prevenLlve suspenslon of local elecLlve offlclal shall noL exLend beyond slxLy
(60) days: rovlded, furLher LhaL ln Lhe evenL tbot sevetol oJmlolsttotlve coses are flled agalnsL an
elecLlve offlclal, be coooot be pteveotlvely sospeoJeJ fot mote tboo oloety (90) Joys wltblo o
sloqle yeot oo tbe some qtoooJ ot qtoooJs exlstloq ooJ koowo ot tbe tlme of tbe fltst
sospeosloo.(emphasls supplled)

1hus, lL would mean Lhe followlng: LhaL from 3 AugusL 1991 (Lhe daLe Lhe 18C lssued by Lhls CourL was llfLed) up Lo
3 SepLember 1991 (Lhe lasL day for servlng Lhe fourLh order), LwenLy-nlne (29) days have elapsed, LhaL Lhese
LwenLy-nlne (29) days whlch form parL of hls servlce for Lhe fourLh order can be also credlLed Lo hls favor by
LreaLlng sald LwenLy-nlne (29) days as formlng parL of hls servlce of Lhe Lhlrd order, lf Lhls were so, he would need
Lo serve only sevenLeen (17) days more Lo compleLe Lhe servlce of Lhe Lhlrd order, sald sevenLeen (17) days from 3
SepLember 1991 wlll explre on 20 SepLember 1991, whlch would be Lhe lasL day for servlng Lhe Lhlrd suspenslon
order.

lL would follow Lhen LhaL Lhe second order ls also fully served Lo Lhls daLe for Lhe servlce of sald second order
would have sLarLed on 3 AugusL 1991 (when Lhe maln declslon was rendered as Lhls was Lhe Llme when Lhls CourL
found and afflrmed Lhe valldlLy of Lhe Lhree (3) suspenslon orders, lncludlng Lhe second order). 1he 60-day perlod
from 3 AugusL 1991 explred on 4 CcLober 1991.

Lsp|r|tu v. Me|gar (1992)

lAC1S
8amlr Carlng flled a leLLer of complalnL wlLh ulLC SecreLary Luls SanLos charglng Mayor Melgar wlLh grave
mlsconducL, oppresslon and abuse of auLhorlLy.

1he mayor allegedly punched and klcked Carlng as well as ordered hls arresL and deLenLlon. Carlng flled Lhe same
complalnL wlLh Lhe provlnclal governor of CrlenLal Mlndoro and wlLh Lhe resldenLlal AcLlon CenLer.

Accordlng Lo Melgas, Carlng kepL clapplng durlng hls speech and was momenLarlly placed ln cusLody for hls own
proLecLlon because he was drunk and because he also possessed a knlfe.

1he Sanggunlang anlalawlgan of CrlenLal Mlndoro passed resoluLlon no. 33 recommendlng prevenLlve suspenslon
for 43 days pendlng lnvesLlgaLlon. ursuanL Lo Lhls, Covernor LsplrlLu suspended Melgar.

1hereafLer, 81C !udge vlrola lssued a prellmlnary ln[uncLlon en[olnlng Lhe governor from lmplemenLlng Lhe
suspenslon order and denled Lhe MoLlon Lo ulsmlss and MoLlon for 8econslderaLlon flled by Lhe Covernor. lL ruled
LhaL Lhe verslon of Lhe Mayor was more bellevable.

1he Supreme CourL granLed a 18C Lo prevenL Lhe 81C order from belng lmplemenLed.

lssue:
WCn 81C !udge can sLop provlnclal governor from placlng a munlclpal mayor under prevenLlve suspenslon?

Peld:
nC
1. Sec. 63 of Lhe LCC permlLs a provlnclal governor Lo prevenLlvely suspend a munlclpal mayor lf Lhe
followlng grounds are presenL:
a) 8easonable ground Lo belleve LhaL Lhe respondenL had commlLLed Lhe acLs complalned of,
b) Lvldence of culpablllLy ls sLrong,
c) CravlLy of offense so warranLs,
d) ConLlnuance ln offlce of respondenL could lnfluence Lhe wlLness or pose a LhreaL Lo Lhe safeLy and
lnLegrlLy of Lhe records.
A81 lll

141

2. noLhlng lmproper ln suspendlng an offlcer before Lhe charges agalnsL hlm are heard and before he ls
glven an opporLunlLy Lo prove hls lnnocence. revenLlve suspenslon ls allowed Lo prevenL hamperlng of
lnvesLlgaLlon by Lhe use of hls lnfluence and auLhorlLy.
3. Pe should have flrsL soughL rellef from Lhe ulLC and noL from Lhe courLs. Pe dld noL exhausL all admln
remedles.
4. Cfflce or body lnvesLed wlLh Lhe power of removal or suspenslon should be Lhe sole [udge of necesslLy
and sufflclency of cause.

Agu|na|do v. Santos (1992)

Cffenses commlLLed, or acLs done, durlng a prevlous Lerm are generally held noL Lo furnlsh cause for removal and
Lhls ls especlally Lrue where Lhe ConsLlLuLlon provldes LhaL Lhe penalLy ln proceedlng for removal shall noL exLend
beyond Lhe removal from offlce, and dlsquallflcaLlon from holdlng offlce for a Lerm for whlch Lhe offlcer was
elecLed or appolnLed. 1he underlylng Lheory ls LhaL each Lerm ls separaLe from oLher Lerms, and LhaL Lhe re-
elecLlon Lo offlce operaLes as a condonaLlon of Lhe offlcer's mlsconducL Lo Lhe exLenL of cuLLlng off Lhe rlghL Lo
remove hlm Lherefor. 1he CourL should never remove a publlc offlcer for acLs done prlor Lo hls presenL Lerm of
offlce 1o do so oLherwlse would be Lo deprlve Lhe people of Lhelr rlghL Lo elecL Lhelr offlcers. When Lhe people
have elecLed a man Lo offlce, lL musL be assumed LhaL Lhey dld Lhls wlLh knowledge of hls llfe and characLer, and
LhaL Lhey dlsregarded or forgave hls faulL or mlsconducL, Lo pracLlcally overrule Lhe wlll of Lhe people. 1he
foregolng rule, however, flnds no appllcaLlon Lo crlmlnal cases pendlng agalnsL peLlLloner for acLs he may have
commlLLed durlng Lhe falled coup.

keyes v. CCMLLLC (1996)

lAC1S:
eL'r 8enaLo 8eyes was Lhe lncumbenL mayor of Lhe munlclpallLy of 8ongabong, CrlenLal Mlndoro elecLed
on May 11, 1992
CcL. 26, 1994 - an admlnlsLraLlve complalnL was flled agalnsL hlm wlLh Lhe Sanggunlang anlalawlgan by
ur. LrnesLo Manalo for:
o LxacLlng and collecLlng 30k from markeL sLall holders ln 8ongabong ubllc MarkeL
o CerLaln checks lssued Lo hlm by Lhe naLlonal 8econclllaLlon and uevelopmenL rogram of ulLC
were never recelved by Lhe Munlclpal 1reasurer nor reflecLed ln Lhe books
o Pe Look 27 heads of caLLle from beneflclarles of a caLLle dlspersal program
leb. 6, 1993 - Lhe S.. found peLlLloner gullLy of Lhe charges and ordered hls removal from Lhe offlce
leb. 7 - 18C was lssued by Lhe 81C of CrlenLal Mlndoro Lherefore Lhe declslon could noL be served on
8eyes
March 3, 1993 or 20 days afLer, 18C now explred, aLLempL Lo serve on peLlLloner's counsel was made buL
counsel refused.
Cn Lhe same day reglsLered mall was senL buL was reLurned days afLer
March 20, 1993 - peLlLloner flled hls CCC wlLh Lhe elecLlon offlcer of CCMLLLC ln 8ongabong
eLlLlon for dlsquallflcaLlon was flled by a voLer Lhe nexL day clLlng S40(b) 8A 7160 re: dlsquallflcaLlon
from runnlng due Lo removal from offlce as a resulL of an admlnlsLraLlve case.
no order by CCMLLLC was made. 8eyes was voLed for ln Lhe elecLlons held on May 8, 1993
May 9, 1993 - CCMLLLC resoluLlon was made pronounclng peLlLloner as dlsquallfled.
May 10, 1993 - eLlLloner was proclalmed duly-elecLed Mayor
M8 by peLlLloner re: resoluLlon denled and proclamaLlon was seL aslde
Speclal clvll acLlon for cerLlorarl Lo annul Lhe CCMLLLC declslon was flled
eLlLloner's argumenLs: Lhe declslon ln Lhe admlnlsLraLlve case agalnsL peLlLloner 8eyes was noL yeL flnal
and execuLory and could noL be used as a basls for hls dlsquallflcaLlon.
A81 lll

142

o And LhaL charges agalnsL hlm were rendered mooL and academlc by Lhe explraLlon of Lhe Lerm
durlng whlch Lhe acLs complalned of had allegedly been commlLLed such as ln Lhe case of
Agulnaldo v SanLos.

lSSuL:
WCn Lhe admlnlsLraLlve case agalnsL 8eyes has become flnal and Lherefore was a basls Lo dlsquallfy hlm from
runnlng from offlce?

PLLu:
SC dlsmlsses Lhe case. AdmlnlsLraLlve case became and flnal and execuLory afLer Lhe lapse of 30 days from recelpL
of declslon.

1he fallure of Lhe S Lo dellver a copy of Lhe declslon was due Lo Lhe refusal of Lhe peLlLloner and hls
counsel Lo recelve Lhe declslon. As Lhe Sec of Lhe S sLaLed ln hls cerLlflcaLlon, repeaLed aLLempLs had
been made Lo serve Lhe declslon on 8eyes personally and by reglsLered mall, buL 8eyes refused Lo recelve
Lhe declslon.
8 13, SS 3 & & of Lhe 8CC provlde for Lhe servlce of flnal orders and [udgmenLs elLher personally or by
mall. ersonal servlce ls compleLed upon acLual or consLrucLlve dellvery, whlch may be made by dellverlng
a copy personally Lo Lhe parLy or hls aLLorney or by leavlng lL ln hls offlce wlLh a person havlng charge
Lhereof, or aL hls resldence, lf hls offlce ls noL known.
Pls refusal Lo recelve Lhe declslon may, Lherefore, be consLrued as a walver on hls parL Lo have a copy of
Lhe declslon.
eLlLloner should have ALALLu Lo Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL ln accordance wlLh S67 8A 7160.
Accordlngly, Lhe declslon became flnal on Aprll 2, 1993, 30 days afLer Lhe flrsL servlce upon Lhe peLlLloner.
S 66(a) makes lL mandaLory LhaL coples of Lhe declslon of Lhe S shall lmmedlaLely be furnlshed Lo
respondenL and/or lnLeresLed parLles. = legal duLy of S
Agulnaldo case noL appllcable. ln LhaL case, before Lhe peLlLlon quesLlonlng Lhe valldlLy of Lhe
admlnlsLraLlve declslon removlng peLlLloner could be declded, Lhe Lerm offlce durlng whlch Lhe alleged
mlsconducL was commlLLed explred.
8emoval cannoL exLend beyond Lhe Lerm durlng whlch Lhe alleged mlsconducL was commlLLed.
noLeworLhy LhaL Lhere was no S40(b) yeL durlng Agulnaldo declslon.

nagad v. Gozo-Dado|e (199S)

lacLs:
Crlmlnal and admlnlsLraLlve complalnLs were flled agalnsL respondenLs, all publlc offlclals of Mandaue
ClLy, by Mandaue ClLy Councllors Magno 8. ulonson and Caudlosa C. 8ercede wlLh Lhe Cfflce of Lhe uepuLy
Cmbudsman for Lhe vlsayas. 1he respondenLs were charged wlLh havlng vlolaLed 8.A no. 3019, as amended,
ArLlcles 170 and 171 8C, and 8.A. no. 6713. Councllors ulonson and 8ercede averred LhaL respondenL offlclals,
acLlng ln consplracy, had caused Lhe alLeraLlon and/or falslflcaLlon of Crdlnance no. 018/92 by lncreaslng Lhe
allocaLed approprlaLlon Lhereln from 3,494,364.37 Lo 7M wlLhouL auLhorlLy from Lhe Sanggunlang anlungsod of
Mandaue ClLy.

Aslde from opposlng Lhe moLlon for prevenLlve suspenslon, respondenL offlclals prayed for Lhe dlsmlssal
of Lhe complalnL on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe Cmbudsman supposedly was berefL of [urlsdlcLlon Lo Lry, hear and declde
Lhe admlnlsLraLlve case flled agalnsL Lhem slnce, under SecLlon 63 LCC, Lhe power Lo lnvesLlgaLe and lmpose
admlnlsLraLlve sancLlons agalnsL sald local offlclals, as well as Lo effecL Lhelr prevenLlve suspenslon, had now been
vesLed wlLh Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL. 1he Cfflce of Lhe uepuLy Cmbudsman denled Lhe moLlon Lo dlsmlss and
recommended Lhe prevenLlve suspenslon of respondenL offlclals, excepL ClLy 8udgeL Cfflcer edro M. Culdo, unLll
Lhe admlnlsLraLlve case would have been flnally resolved by Lhe Cmbudsman.

A81 lll

143

A peLlLlon for prohlblLlon, wlLh prayer for a wrlL of prellmlnary ln[uncLlon and Lemporary resLralnlng order,
was flled by respondenL offlclals wlLh Lhe 81C. 1he 18C was lssued by respondenL [udge.

lssue:
WCn Lhe Cmbudsman has [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe presenL case

Peld/8aLlo:
?es. 1he general lnvesLlgaLory power of Lhe Cmbudsman ls decreed by SecLlon 13(1,) ArLlcle x1, of Lhe 1987
ConsLlLuLlon, whlle hls sLaLuLory mandaLe Lo acL on admlnlsLraLlve complalnLs ls conLalned ln SecLlon 19 of 8.A. no.
6770. SecLlon 21 of Lhe same sLaLuLe names Lhe offlclals who could be sub[ecL Lo Lhe dlsclpllnary auLhorlLy of Lhe
Cmbudsman. 1aken ln con[uncLlon wlLh SecLlon 24 of 8.A. no. 6770, peLlLloner Lhus conLends LhaL Lhe Cfflce of Lhe
Cmbudsman correspondlngly has Lhe auLhorlLy Lo decree prevenLlve suspenslon on any publlc offlcer or employee
under lnvesLlgaLlon by lL.

8espondenL offlclals, upon Lhe oLher hand, argue LhaL Lhe dlsclpllnary auLhorlLy of Lhe Cmbudsman over
local offlclals musL be deemed Lo have been removed by Lhe subsequenL enacLmenL of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code
of 1991 whlch vesLs Lhe auLhorlLy Lo lnvesLlgaLe admlnlsLraLlve charges, llsLed under SecLlon 60 Lhereof, on varlous
offlces ln Lhe case speclflcally of complalnLs agalnsL elecLlve offlclals of provlnces and hlghly urbanlzed clLles.

1hus, respondenLs lnslsL, conformably wlLh SecLlon 63 of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code, prevenLlve
suspenslon can only be lmposed by: ". . . Lhe resldenL lf Lhe respondenL ls an elecLlve offlclal of a provlnce, a
hlghly urbanlzed or an lndependenL componenL clLy, . . ."

1here ls noLhlng ln Lhe LCC Lo lndlcaLe LhaL lL has repealed, wheLher expressly or lmplledly, Lhe perLlnenL
provlslons of Lhe Cmbudsman AcL. 1he Lwo sLaLuLes on Lhe speclflc maLLer ln quesLlon are noL so lnconslsLenL, leL
alone lrreconcllable, as Lo compel us Lo only uphold one and sLrlke down Lhe oLher. Well seLLled ls Lhe rule LhaL
repeals of laws by lmpllcaLlon are noL favored, and LhaL courLs musL generally assume Lhelr congruenL
appllcaLlon.1he Lwo laws musL be absoluLely lncompaLlble, and a clear flndlng Lhereof musL surface, before Lhe
lnference of lmplled repeal may be drawn. 1he rule ls expressed ln Lhe maxlm, lnLerpreLare eL concordare leqlbus
esf opLlmus lnLerpreLendl, l e, every sLaLuLe musL be so lnLerpreLed and broughL lnLo accord wlLh oLher laws as Lo
form a unlform sysLem of [urlsprudence. 1he fundamenL ls LhaL Lhe leglslaLure should be presumed Lo have known
Lhe exlsLlng laws on Lhe sub[ecL and noL Lo have enacLed confllcLlng sLaLuLes. Pence, all doubLs musL be resolved
agalnsL any lmplled repeal, and all efforLs s4ould be exerLed ln order Lo harmonlze and glve effecL Lo all laws on Lhe
sub[ecL.

CerLalnly, Congress would noL have lnLended Lo do ln[usLlce Lo Lhe very reason LhaL underlles Lhe creaLlon
of Lhe Cmbudsman ln Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon whlch "ls Lo lnsulaLe sald offlce from Lhe long LenLacles of
offlclaldom." CulLe lnLeresLlngly, SecLlons 61 and 63 of Lhe presenL Local CovernmenL Code run almosL parallel
wlLh Lhe provlslons Lhen exlsLlng under Lhe old code.

1he auLhorlLy Lo conducL admlnlsLraLlve lnvesLlgaLlon and Lo lmpose prevenLlve suspenslon over elecLlve
provlnclal or clLy offlclals was aL LhaL Llme enLrusLed Lo Lhe MlnlsLer of Local CovernmenL unLll lL became
concurrenL wlLh Lhe Cmbudsman upon Lhe enacLmenL of 8.A no. 6770, speclflcally under SecLlons 21 and 24
Lhereof, Lo Lhe exLenL of Lhe common granL 1he Local CovernmenL Code of 1991 (8.A no. 7160), ln flne, dld noL
effecL a change from whaL already prevalled, Lhe modlflcaLlon belng only ln Lhe subsLlLuLlon of Lhe SecreLary (Lhe
MlnlsLer) of Local CovernmenL by Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL.

8espondenL local offlclals conLend LhaL Lhe 6-monLh prevenLlve suspenslon wlLhouL pay under SecLlon 24
of Lhe Cmbudsman AcL ls much Loo repugnanL Lo Lhe 60-day prevenLlve suspenslon provlded by SecLlon 63 of Lhe
Local CovernmenL Code Lo even now malnLaln lLs appllcaLlon. 1he Lwo provlslons govern dlfferenLly. ln order Lo
[usLlfy Lhe prevenLlve suspenslon of a publlc offlclal under SecLlon 24 of 8.A. no. 6770, Lhe evldence of gullL should
be sLrong, and (a) Lhe charge agalnsL Lhe offlcer or employee should lnvolve dlshonesLly, oppresslon or grave
A81 lll

144

mlsconducL or neglecL ln Lhe performance of duLy, (b) LhaL charges should warranL removal from Lhe servlce, or (c)
Lhe respondenL's conLlnued sLay ln offlce would pre[udlce Lhe case flled agalnsL hlm. 1he Cmbudsman can lmpose
Lhe 6-monLh prevenLlve suspenslon Lo all publlc offlclals, wheLher elecLlve or appolnLlve, who are under
lnvesLlgaLlon. upon Lhe oLher hand, ln lmposlng Lhe shorLer perlod of slxLy (60) days of prevenLlve suspenslon
prescrlbed ln Lhe Local CovernmenL Code of 1991 on an elecLlve local offlclal (aL any Llme afLer Lhe lssues are
[olned), lL would be enough LhaL (a) Lhere ls reasonable ground Lo belleve LhaL Lhe respondenL has commlLLed Lhe
acL or acLs complalned of, (b) Lhe evldence of culpablllLy ls sLrong,(c) Lhe gravlLy of Lhe offense so warranLs, or (d)
Lhe conLlnuance ln offlce of Lhe respondenL could lnfluence Lhe wlLnesses or pose a LhreaL Lo Lhe safeLy and
lnLegrlLy of Lhe records and oLher evldence. 1he conLenLlon ls wlLhouL merlL. 1he records reveal LhaL peLlLloner
lssued Lhe order of prevenLlve suspenslon afLer Lhe flllng (a) by respondenL offlclals of Lhelr opposlLlon on Lhe
moLlon for prevenLlve suspenslon and (b) by Mayor Cuano of hls memorandum ln compllance wlLh Lhe dlrecLlve of
peLlLloner 8e LhaL, as lL may, we have hereLofore held LhaL, noL belng ln Lhe naLure of a penalLy, a prevenLlve
suspenslon can be decreed on an offlclal under lnvesLlgaLlon afLer charges are broughL and even before Lhe
charges are heard. naLurally, such a prevenLlve suspenslon would occur prlor Lo any flndlng of gullL or lnnocence.

Moreover, respondenL offlclals were, ln polnL of facL, puL on prevenLlve suspenslon only afLer peLlLloner
had found, ln consonance wlLh our rullng ln 8uenaseda vs. llavler,LhaL Lhe evldence of gullL was sLrong.

llnally, lL does appear, as so polnLed ouL by Lhe SollclLor Ceneral LhaL respondenL offlclals' peLlLlon for
prohlblLlon, belng an appllcaLlon for remedy agalnsL Lhe flndlngs of peLlLloner conLalned ln hls 21 SepLember 1992
order, should noL have been enLerLalned by Lhe Lrlal courL.

Sa|a||ma v. Gu|ngona G.k. No. 117S89, May 22, 1996, 2S7 SCkA S8 sopto

Grego v. CCMLLLC 274 SCkA 481 [1997]

lacLs:
- ln 1981, SC found PumberLo 8asco, Lhen uepuLy Sherlff of Lhe ClLy CourL of Manlla, gullLy of serlous
mlsconducL ln an admlnlsLraLlve complalnL lodged by nena 1ordeslllas. SC ordered 8asco dlsmlssed from servlce
wlLh forfelLure of all reLlremenL beneflLs and wlLh pre[udlce Lo relnsLaLemenL Lo any poslLlon ln Lhe naLlonal or loca
governmenL, lncludlng lLs agencles and lnsLrumenLallLles, or CCCCs ("1ordeslllas rullng").
- SubsequenLly, 8asco ran for and won as Councllor ln Lhe Second ulsLrlcL of Lhe ClLy of Manlla durlng Lhe
1988 local elecLlons.
- Pe soughL reelecLlon ln Lhe 1992 elecLlon and won agaln.
- Powever, a case for quo warranLo was flled by Cenon 8onqulllo (anoLher candldaLe for councllor), who
alleged 8asco's lnellglblllLy Lo be elecLed councllor on Lhe basls of Lhe 1ordeslllas rullng. CLher complalnLs were
flled before Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman and ln Lhe ulLC.
- ln 1993, 8asco ran for Lhe Lhlrd Llme as councllor.
- Wllllam Crego, clalmlng Lo be a reglsLered voLer of ulsLrlcL ll, ClLy of Manlla, flled wlLh Lhe CCMLLLC a
peLlLlon for dlsquallflcaLlon, praylng for 8asco's dlsquallflcaLlon, suspenslon of hls proclamaLlon, and declaraLlon of
8omualdo S. Maranan as Lhe slxLh duly elecLed Councllor of Manlla's Second ulsLrlcL. 1
- Manlla 8CC however proclalmed 8asco as a duly elecLed councllor of Lhe Second ulsLrlcL of Manlla.
- ln vlew of Lhe proclamaLlon, Crego flled an urgenL moLlon seeklng Lo annul Lhe lllegal proclamaLlon.
- 1he CCMLLLC dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon for dlsquallflcaLlon rullng LhaL Lhe admlnlsLraLlve penalLy lmposed by
Lhe SC on 8asco was wlped away and condoned by Lhe elecLoraLe who elecLed hlm.

lssue 1: WCn SecLlon 40 (b) of 8epubllc AcL no. 7160 applles reLroacLlvely Lo Lhose removed from offlce before lL
Look effecL on !anuary 1, 1992.

A81 lll

143

eLlLloner:
- AlLhough Lhe Code Look effecL only on !anuary 1, 1992, SecLlon 40 (b) musL noneLheless be glven
reLroacLlve effecL because Lhe provlslon of Lhe law as worded does noL menLlon or even quallfy Lhe daLe of
removal from offlce of Lhe candldaLe ln order for dlsquallflcaLlon Lhereunder Lo aLLach.
- Pence, as long as a candldaLe was once removed from offlce due Lo an admlnlsLraLlve case, regardless of
wheLher lL Look place durlng or prlor Lo Lhe effecLlvlLy of Lhe Code, Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon applles.
- Slnce Lhe pasL Lense ls used ln enumeraLlng Lhe grounds for dlsquallflcaLlon, Lhe provlslon musL have also
referred Lo removal from offlce occurrlng prlor Lo Lhe effecLlvlLy of Lhe Code

Peld: nC. Whlle Lhe LeglslaLure has Lhe power Lo pass reLroacLlve laws whlch do noL lmpalr Lhe obllgaLlon of
conLracLs, or affecL ln[urlously vesLed rlghLs, lL ls equally Lrue LhaL sLaLuLes are noL Lo be consLrued as lnLended Lo
have a reLroacLlve effecL so as Lo affecL pendlng proceedlngs, unless such lnLenL ls expressly declared or clearly and
necessarlly lmplled from Lhe language of Lhe enacLmenL. 1here ls no provlslon ln Lhe sLaLuLe whlch would clearly
lndlcaLe LhaL Lhe same operaLes reLroacLlvely. 1haL Lhe provlslon of Lhe Code ln quesLlon does noL quallfy Lhe daLe
of a candldaLe's removal from offlce and LhaL lL ls couched ln Lhe pasL Lense are noy deLerrenLs Lo applylng Lhe law
prospecLlvely. 1he baslc LeneL ln legal hermeneuLlcs LhaL laws operaLe only prospecLlvely and noL reLroacLlvely. A
sLaLuLe, desplLe Lhe generallLy ln lLs language, musL noL be so consLrued as Lo overreach acLs, evenLs or maLLers
whlch Lransplred before lLs passage. Lex prosplclL, non resplclL. 1he law looks forward, noL backward

lssue 2: WCn prlvaLe respondenL's elecLlon Lo offlce as ClLy Councllor of Manlla ln Lhe 1988, 1992 and 1993
elecLlons wlpe away and condone Lhe admlnlsLraLlve penalLy agalnsL hlm, Lhus resLorlng hls ellglblllLy for publlc
offlce.

eLlLloner: Accordlng Lo lrlvaldo v. CCMLLLC, a candldaLe's dlsquallflcaLlon cannoL be erased by Lhe elecLoraLe
alone Lhrough Lhe lnsLrumenLallLy of Lhe balloL.

Peld: lSSuL lS l88LLLvAn1. eLlLloner's argumenL proceeds on Lhe assumpLlon LhaL he was ln Lhe flrsL place
dlsquallfled when he ran ln Lhe Lhree prevlous elecLlons. 1hls assumpLlon, of course, ls unLenable conslderlng LhaL
8asco was nC1 sub[ecL Lo any dlsquallflcaLlon aL all under SecLlon 40 (b) of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code whlch, as
sald earller, applles only Lo Lhose removed from offlce on or afLer !anuary 1, 1992.

eLlLloners' allegaLlons LhaL (1) 8asco clrcumvenLed Lhe 1ordeslllas rullng and LhaL (2) Lhe Lerm "any poslLlon"
Lhereln ls broad enough Lo cover wlLhouL dlsLlncLlon boLh appolnLlve and local poslLlons merlL any conslderaLlon
are unmerlLorlous. ConLrary Lo peLlLloner's asserLlon, Lhe 1ordeslllas declslon dld noL bar 8asco from runnlng for
any elecLlve poslLlon. 1he Lerm used was "relnsLaLemenL." under Lhe former Clvll Servlce uecree (u 807), Lhe law
appllcable aL Lhe Llme 8asco was admlnlsLraLlvely dlsmlssed, Lhe Lerm "relnsLaLemenL" had a Lechnlcal meanlng,
referrlng only Lo an appolnLlve poslLlon. 1hus, whaL ls conLemplaLed by Lhe prohlblLlon ln 1ordeslllas ls
relnsLaLemenL Lo an appolnLlve poslLlon.

lssue 3: ls 8asco's proclamaLlon as slxLh wlnnlng candldaLe on May 17, 1993, whlle Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon case was
sLlll pendlng conslderaLlon by CCMLLLC vold ab lnlLlo?

eLlLloner: 8asco vlolaLed Lhe provlslons of SecLlon 20, paragraph (l) of 8epubllc AcL no. 7166 , SecLlon 6 of
8epubllc AcL no. 6646 , as well as Lhe rullngs ln uuremdes v. CCMLLLC, 8enlLo v. CCMLLLCand Aguam v.
CCMLLLC.

Peld: nC. 8A 7166 SecLlon 20(l) does noL apply conslderlng LhaL Lhe same refers only Lo a vold proclamaLlon ln
relaLlon Lo conLesLed reLurns and nC1 Lo conLesLed quallflcaLlons of a candldaLe.

Cn Lhe oLher hand, 8A 6646 SecLlon 6 does noL supporL peLlLloner's conLenLlon LhaL Lhe Manlla ClLy 8CC, should
have suspended Lhe proclamaLlon. 1he use of Lhe word "may" lndlcaLes LhaL Lhe suspenslon of a proclamaLlon ls
merely dlrecLory and permlsslve ln naLure and operaLes Lo confer dlscreLlon. WhaL ls merely made mandaLory,
A81 lll

146

accordlng Lo Lhe provlslon lLself, ls Lhe conLlnuaLlon of Lhe Lrlal and hearlng of Lhe acLlon, lnqulry or proLesL.
Moreover, Lhere ls no reason why Lhe Manlla ClLy 8CC should noL have proclalmed 8asco as Lhe slxLh wlnnlng ClLy
Councllor. AbsenL any deLermlnaLlon of lrregularlLy ln Lhe elecLlon reLurns, as well as an order en[olnlng Lhe
canvasslng and proclamaLlon of Lhe wlnner, lL ls a mandaLory and mlnlsLerlal duLy of Lhe 8oard of Canvassers
concerned Lo counL Lhe voLes based on such reLurns and declare Lhe resulL.

llnally, Lhe cases of uuremdes, 8enlLo and Aguam clLed by peLlLloner are all lrrelevanL and lnappllcable, 1hese
Lhree cases do noL ln any manner refer Lo vold proclamaLlons resulLlng from Lhe mere pendency of a
dlsquallflcaLlon case.

lssue 4: WCn 8omualdo S. Maranan, a sevenLh placer, be legally declared a wlnnlng candldaLe

Peld: nC. 8asco was a duly quallfled candldaLe. eLlLloner's emphaLlc reference Lo Labo v. CCMLLLC, where we
lald down a posslble excepLlon Lo Lhe rule LhaL a second placer may noL be declared Lhe wlnnlng candldaLe, flnds
no appllcaLlon ln Lhls case. 1he excepLlon ls predlcaLed on Lhe concurrence of Lwo assumpLlons, namely: (1) Lhe
one who obLalned Lhe hlghesL number of voLes ls dlsquallfled, and (2) Lhe elecLoraLe ls fully aware ln facL and ln
law of a candldaLe's dlsquallflcaLlon so as Lo brlng such awareness wlLhln Lhe realm of noLorleLy buL would
noneLheless casL Lhelr voLes ln favor of Lhe lnellglble candldaLe. 8oLh assumpLlons, however, are absenL ln Lhls
case. eLlLloner's allegaLlon LhaL 8asco was well-known Lo have been dlsquallfled ln Lhe small communlLy where he
ran as a candldaLe ls purely speculaLlve and con[ecLural.

Ioson v. Lxecut|ve Secretary 1orres (1998)

lacLs:
Cscar C. 1lnlo ls Lhe vlce-Covernor of nueva Lcl[a whlle LoreLo . anglllnan, Crlspulo S. Lsguerra, SollLa C. SanLos,
vlcenLe C. allllo and napoleon C. lnLerlor are members of Lhe Sanggunlang anlalawlgan. 1he prlvaLe respondenLs
flled wlLh Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL a complalnL charglng Covernor Lduardo !oson wlLh grave mlsconducL and
abuse of auLhorlLy. Allegedly, !oson belllgerenLly barged lnLo Lhe Pall and angrlly klcked Lhe door and chalrs ln Lhe
Pall and uLLered LhreaLenlng words aL prlvaLe respondenLs durlng a scheduled sesslon. rlvaLe respondenLs clalm
LhaL Lhls lncldenL was an offshooL of Lhelr reslsLance Lo a pendlng leglslaLlve measure supporLed by peLlLloner LhaL
nueva Lcl[a obLaln a loan of 130 mllllon from Lhe n8. !oson's acLs were lnLended Lo harass Lhem lnLo approvlng
Lhls loan, whlch prlvaLe respondenLs opposed Lhe loan because Lhe provlnce had an unllquldaLed obllgaLlon of
more Lhan 70 mllllon lncurred wlLhouL prlor auLhorlzaLlon from Lhe Sanggunlang anlalawlgan. rlvaLe
respondenLs prayed for Lhe suspenslon or removal of peLlLloner, for an emergency audlL of Lhe provlnclal Lreasury
of nueva Lcl[a, and for Lhe revlew of Lhe proposed loan ln llghL of Lhe flnanclal condlLlon of Lhe provlnce, !oson
falled Lo flle hls answer desplLe numerous granL of exLenslon. 1hus, ulLC undersecreLary Manuel Sanchez lssued
an order declarlng !oson ln defaulL. LaLer, !oson, Lhru counsel, flled a MoLlon Lo ulsmlss alleglng LhaL Lhe leLLer
complalnL was noL verlfled and LhaL Lhe ulLC has no [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe case and has no auLhorlLy Lo requlre hlm
Lo answer Lhe complalnL. LxecuLlve SecreLary 1orres lssued an order placlng !oson under prevenLlve suspenslon for
60 days pendlng lnvesLlgaLlon of Lhe charges agalnsL hlm. Also, Lhe MoLlon Lo ulsmlss was denled. SecreLary
8arbers dlrecLed Lhe n Lo asslsL Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe order of prevenLlve suspenslon. Also, vlce Covernor
Cscar 1lnlo was appolnLed as AcLlng Covernor.

!oson flled a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl and prohlblLlon wlLh Lhe CA challenglng Lhe prevenLlve suspenslon and defaulL
order. 1he CA dlsmlssed Lhe case. !oson clalmed LhaL Lhere was noLhlng ln hls conducL LhaL LhreaLened Lhe
members of Lhe Sanggunlang anlalawlgan or caused alarm Lo Lhe employees. Pe sald LhaL llke vlce-Covernor
1lnlo, he was always accompanled by hls offlclal securlLy escorLs whenever he reporLed for work. Pe also alleged
LhaL Lhe [olnL affldavlL of Llnora Lscomblen and !acquellne !ane erez was false. Lscomblen was purporLedly noL
lnslde Lhe sesslon hall durlng Lhe lncldenL buL was aL her desk aL Lhe offlce and could noL ln any way have seen
peLlLloner ln Lhe hall.

A81 lll

147

lssue:
WCn Lhe flllng of a leLLer complalnL before Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL was proper

Peld:
?es

8aLlo:
AdmlnlsLraLlve dlsclpllnary proceedlngs agalnsL elecLlve local offlclals are governed by Lhe Local CovernmenL Code
of 1991.ln all maLLers noL provlded ln A.C. no. 23, Lhe 8ules of CourL and Lhe AdmlnlsLraLlve Code of 1987 apply ln
a suppleLory characLer.

SecLlon 60 of ChapLer 4, 1lLle ll, 8ook l of Lhe LCC enumeraLes Lhe grounds for whlch an elecLlve local offlclal may
be dlsclpllned, suspended or removed from offlce. When an elecLlve local offlclal commlLs an acL LhaL falls under
Lhe grounds for dlsclpllnary acLlon, Lhe admlnlsLraLlve complalnL agalnsL hlm musL be verlfled and flled under
SecLlon 61.

ln Lhe lnsLanL case, !oson ls an elecLlve offlclal of Lhe provlnce of nueva Lcl[a. 1he leLLer-complalnL agalnsL hlm was
Lherefore properly flled wlLh Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL. Accordlng Lo peLlLloner, however, Lhe leLLer-complalnL
falled Lo conform wlLh Lhe formal requlremenLs seL by Lhe Code. Pe alleges LhaL Lhe complalnL was noL verlfled by
prlvaLe respondenLs and was noL supporLed by Lhe [olnL affldavlL of Lhe Lwo wlLnesses named Lhereln, LhaL prlvaLe
respondenLs laLer reallzed Lhese defecLs and surrepLlLlously lnserLed Lhe verlflcaLlon and sworn sLaLemenL whlle
Lhe complalnL was sLlll pendlng wlLh Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL.

We flnd no merlL ln Lhe conLenLlon of Lhe peLlLloner. 1he absence of Lhe documenL, page or book number of Lhe
noLarlal reglsLer of Lhe subscrlblng offlcer ls lnsufflclenL Lo prove peLlLloner's clalm. 1he lack of Lhese enLrles may
consLlLuLe proof of neglecL on Lhe parL of Lhe subscrlblng offlcer ln complylng wlLh Lhe requlremenLs for
noLarlzaLlon and proper verlflcaLlon. 1hey may glve grounds for Lhe revocaLlon of hls noLarlal commlsslon.

8uL
Lhey do noL lndublLably prove LhaL Lhe verlflcaLlon was lnserLed or lnLercalaLed afLer Lhe leLLer-complalnL was flled
wlLh Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL.

nor ls Lhe facL of lnLercalaLlon sufflclenLly esLabllshed by Lhe affldavlL of SollLa SanLos. SanLos was one of Lhe
slgnaLorles Lo Lhe leLLer-complalnL. ln her affldavlL, she prayed LhaL she be dropped as one of Lhe complalnanLs
slnce she had [usL [olned Lhe pollLlcal parLy of !oson. She declded Lo reveal Lhe lnLercalaLlon because she was
dlslllusloned wlLh Lhe "dlrLy LacLlcs" of vlce-Covernor 1lnlo Lo grab power from peLlLloner !oson. SanLos cannoL ln
any way be consldered an unblased wlLness. Per moLlve and change of hearL render her affldavlL suspecL.

Assumlng, noneLheless, LhaL Lhe leLLer-complalnL was unverlfled when submlLLed Lo Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL,
Lhe defecL was noL faLal. 1he requlremenL of verlflcaLlon was deemed walved by Lhe resldenL hlmself when he
acLed on Lhe complalnL. verlflcaLlon ls a formal, noL [urlsdlcLlonal requlslLe. verlflcaLlon ls malnly lnLended Lo
secure an assurance LhaL Lhe allegaLlons Lhereln made are done ln good falLh or are Lrue and correcL and noL mere
speculaLlon. 1he lack of verlflcaLlon ls a mere formal defecL. 1he courL may order Lhe correcLlon of Lhe pleadlng, lf
noL verlfled, or acL on Lhe unverlfled pleadlng lf Lhe aLLendlng clrcumsLances are such LhaL a sLrlcL compllance wlLh
Lhe rule may be dlspensed wlLh ln order LhaL Lhe ends of [usLlce may be served.

lssue:
WCn Lhe ulLC has [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe case

Peld:
?es

8aLlo:
A81 lll

148

1he ulsclpllnlng AuLhorlLy ls Lhe resldenL of Lhe hlllpplnes, wheLher acLlng by hlmself or Lhrough Lhe LxecuLlve
SecreLary. 1he SecreLary of Lhe lnLerlor and Local CovernmenL ls Lhe lnvesLlgaLlng AuLhorlLy, who may acL by
hlmself or consLlLuLe an lnvesLlgaLlng CommlLLee. 1he SecreLary of Lhe ulLC, however, ls noL Lhe excluslve
lnvesLlgaLlng AuLhorlLy. ln lleu of Lhe ulLC SecreLary, Lhe ulsclpllnlng AuLhorlLy may deslgnaLe a Speclal
lnvesLlgaLlng CommlLLee.

1he power of Lhe resldenL over admlnlsLraLlve dlsclpllnary cases agalnsL elecLlve local offlclals ls derlved from hls
power of general supervlslon over local governmenLs. 1he power of supervlslon means "overseelng or Lhe
auLhorlLy of an offlcer Lo see LhaL Lhe subordlnaLe offlcers perform Lhelr duLles. lf Lhe subordlnaLe offlcers fall or
neglecL Lo fulflll Lhelr duLles, Lhe offlclal may Lake such acLlon or sLep as prescrlbed by law Lo make Lhem perform
Lhelr duLles. 1he resldenL's power of general supervlslon means no more Lhan Lhe power of ensurlng LhaL laws
are falLhfully execuLed, or LhaL subordlnaLe offlcers acL wlLhln Lhe law. Supervlslon ls noL lncompaLlble wlLh
dlsclpllne. And Lhe power Lo dlsclpllne and ensure LhaL Lhe laws be falLhfully execuLed musL be consLrued Lo
auLhorlze Lhe resldenL Lo order an lnvesLlgaLlon of Lhe acL or conducL of local offlclals when ln hls oplnlon Lhe
good of Lhe publlc servlce so requlres.

1he power Lo dlsclpllne evldenLly lncludes Lhe power Lo lnvesLlgaLe. As Lhe ulsclpllnlng AuLhorlLy, Lhe resldenL
has Lhe power derlved from Lhe ConsLlLuLlon lLself Lo lnvesLlgaLe complalnLs agalnsL local governmenL offlclals. A.
C. no. 23, however, delegaLes Lhe power Lo lnvesLlgaLe Lo Lhe ulLC or a Speclal lnvesLlgaLlng CommlLLee, as may
be consLlLuLed by Lhe ulsclpllnlng AuLhorlLy. 1hls ls noL undue delegaLlon, conLrary Lo !oson's clalm. 1he resldenL
remalns Lhe ulsclpllnlng AuLhorlLy. WhaL ls delegaLed ls Lhe power Lo lnvesLlgaLe, noL Lhe power Lo dlsclpllne.

Moreover, Lhe power of Lhe ulLC Lo lnvesLlgaLe admlnlsLraLlve complalnLs ls based on Lhe alLer-ego prlnclple or Lhe
docLrlne of quallfled pollLlcal agency. 1hls docLrlne ls corollary Lo Lhe conLrol power of Lhe resldenL. ConLrol ls
sald Lo be Lhe very hearL of Lhe power of Lhe presldency. As head of Lhe LxecuLlve ueparLmenL, Lhe resldenL,
however, may delegaLe some of hls powers Lo Lhe CablneL members excepL when he ls requlred by Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon Lo acL ln person or Lhe exlgencles of Lhe slLuaLlon demand LhaL he acLs personally. 1he members of
CablneL may acL for and ln behalf of Lhe resldenL ln cerLaln maLLers because Lhe resldenL cannoL be expecLed Lo
exerclse hls conLrol (and supervlsory) powers personally all Lhe Llme. Lach head of a deparLmenL ls, and musL be,
Lhe resldenL's oltet eqo ln Lhe maLLers of LhaL deparLmenL where Lhe resldenL ls requlred by law Lo exerclse
auLhorlLy.

ln Lhe case aL bar, peLlLloner clalms LhaL Lhe ulLC SecreLary usurped Lhe power of Lhe resldenL when he requlred
peLlLloner Lo answer Lhe complalnL. undlspuLably, Lhe leLLer-complalnL was flled wlLh Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL
buL lL was Lhe ulLC SecreLary who ordered peLlLloner Lo answer.

SLrlcLly applylng Lhe rules, Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL dld noL comply wlLh Lhe provlslons of A.C. no. 23. 1he Cfflce
should have flrsL requlred peLlLloner Lo flle hls answer. 1hereafLer, Lhe complalnL and Lhe answer should have
been referred Lo Lhe lnvesLlgaLlng AuLhorlLy for furLher proceedlngs. 8e LhaL as lL may, Lhls procedural lapse ls noL
faLal. 1he flllng of Lhe answer ls necessary merely Lo enable Lhe resldenL Lo make a prellmlnary assessmenL of Lhe
case. 1he resldenL found Lhe complalnL sufflclenL ln form and subsLance Lo warranL lLs furLher lnvesLlgaLlon. 1he
[udgmenL of Lhe resldenL on Lhe maLLer ls enLlLled Lo respecL ln Lhe absence of grave abuse of dlscreLlon.

lssue:
WCn !oson was properly placed under prevenLlve suspenslon

Peld:
?es

8aLlo:
ln vlew of peLlLloner's lnexcusable fallure Lo flle answer, Lhe ulLC dld noL err ln recommendlng Lo Lhe ulsclpllnlng
AuLhorlLy hls prevenLlve suspenslon durlng Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon. revenLlve suspenslon ls auLhorlzed under SecLlon
A81 lll

149

63 of Lhe LCC. revenLlve suspenslon may be lmposed aL any Llme afLer Lhe lssues are [olned, LhaL ls, afLer
respondenL has answered Lhe complalnL, when Lhe evldence of gullL ls sLrong and, glven Lhe gravlLy of Lhe offense,
Lhere ls a greaL posslblllLy LhaL Lhe conLlnuance ln offlce of Lhe respondenL could lnfluence Lhe wlLnesses or pose a
LhreaL Lo Lhe safeLy and lnLegrlLy of Lhe records and oLher evldence.

1he fallure of respondenL Lo flle hls answer desplLe several opporLunlLles glven hlm ls consLrued as a walver of hls
rlghL Lo presenL evldence ln hls behalf. 1he requlslLe of [olnder of lssues ls squarely meL wlLh respondenL's walver
of rlghL Lo submlL hls answer. 1he acL of respondenL ln allegedly barglng vlolenLly lnLo Lhe sesslon hall of Lhe
Sanggunlang anlalawlgan ln Lhe company of armed men consLlLuLes grave mlsconducL. 1he allegaLlons of
complalnanLs are bolsLered by Lhe [olnL-affldavlL of Lwo (2) employees of Lhe Sanggunlang anlalawlgan.
8espondenL who ls Lhe chlef execuLlve of Lhe provlnce ls ln a poslLlon Lo lnfluence Lhe wlLnesses. lurLher, Lhe
hlsLory of vlolenL confronLaLlonal pollLlcs ln Lhe provlnce dlcLaLes LhaL exLreme precauLlonary measures be Laken.'
LxecuLlve SecreLary 1orres found LhaL all Lhe requlslLes for Lhe lmposlLlon of prevenLlve suspenslon had been
complled wlLh. eLlLloner's fallure Lo flle hls answer desplLe several opporLunlLles glven hlm was consLrued as a
walver of hls rlghL Lo flle answer and presenL evldence, and as a resulL of Lhls walver, Lhe lssues were deemed Lo
have been [olned. 1he LxecuLlve SecreLary also found LhaL Lhe evldence of peLlLloner !oson's gullL was sLrong and
LhaL hls conLlnuance ln offlce durlng Lhe pendency of Lhe case could lnfluence Lhe wlLnesses and pose a LhreaL Lo
Lhe safeLy and lnLegrlLy of Lhe evldence agalnsL hlm.

lssue:
WCn Lhe 8esoluLlon flndlng !oson gullLy and lmposlng on hlm Lhe penalLy of suspenslon from offlce for slx monLhs
wlLhouL pay was proper

Peld:

8aLlo:
SeLLled ls Lhe rule LhaL ln admlnlsLraLlve proceedlngs, Lechnlcal rules of procedure and evldence are noL sLrlcLly
applled. 1he essence of due process ls Lo be found ln Lhe reasonable opporLunlLy Lo be heard and Lo submlL
evldence one may have ln supporL of one's defense. 1o be heard does noL only mean verbal argumenLs ln courL,
one may be heard also Lhrough pleadlngs. Where opporLunlLy Lo be heard, elLher Lhrough oral argumenLs or
pleadlngs, ls accorded, Lhere ls no denlal of procedural due process. 1hus, when respondenL falled Lo submlL hls
poslLlon paper as dlrecLed and lnslsLed for Lhe conducL of formal lnvesLlgaLlon, he was noL denled of hls rlghL of
procedural process.

1he denlal of peLlLloner's MoLlon Lo ConducL lormal lnvesLlgaLlon ls erroneous. eLlLloner's rlghL Lo a formal
lnvesLlgaLlon ls spelled ouL ln Lhe followlng provlslons of A.C. no. 23. 1he records show LhaL on AugusL 27, 1997,
peLlLloner submlLLed hls Answer AJ cootelom where he dlspuLed Lhe LruLh of Lhe allegaLlons LhaL he barged lnLo
Lhe sesslon hall of Lhe caplLol and commlLLed physlcal vlolence Lo harass Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs who were
opposed Lo any move for Lhe provlnce Lo conLracL a 130 mllllon loan from n8. ln hls Crder of CcLober 8, 1997,
undersecreLary Sanchez admlLLed peLlLloner's Answer AJ cootelom buL LreaLed lL as a poslLlon paper. Cn CcLober
13, 1997, peLlLloner flled a MoLlon Lo ConducL lormal lnvesLlgaLlon. eLlLloner relLeraLed Lhls moLlon on CcLober
29, 1997. eLlLloner's moLlon was denled on november 11, 1997. SecreLary 8arbers found peLlLloner gullLy as
charged on Lhe basls of Lhe parLles' poslLlon papers. Cn !anuary 8, 1998, LxecuLlve SecreLary 1orres adopLed
SecreLary 8arbers' flndlngs and recommendaLlons and lmposed on peLlLloner Lhe penalLy of slx (6) monLhs
suspenslon wlLhouL pay.

1he re[ecLlon of peLlLloner's rlghL Lo a formal lnvesLlgaLlon denled hlm procedural due process. SecLlon 3 of A. C.
no. 23 provldes LhaL aL Lhe prellmlnary conference, Lhe lnvesLlgaLlng AuLhorlLy shall summon Lhe parLles Lo
conslder wheLher Lhey deslre a formal lnvesLlgaLlon. 1hls provlslon does noL glve Lhe lnvesLlgaLlng AuLhorlLy Lhe
dlscreLlon Lo deLermlne wheLher a formal lnvesLlgaLlon would be conducLed. 1he records show LhaL peLlLloner
flled a moLlon for formal lnvesLlgaLlon. As respondenL, he ls accorded several rlghLs under Lhe law.

A81 lll

130

An errlng elecLlve local offlclal has rlghLs akln Lo Lhe consLlLuLlonal rlghLs of an accused.

1hese rlghLs are essenLlally
parL of procedural due process. 1he local elecLlve offlclal has Lhe (1) rlghL Lo appear and defend hlmself ln person
or by counsel, (2) Lhe rlghL Lo confronL and cross-examlne Lhe wlLnesses agalnsL hlm, and (3) Lhe rlghL Lo
compulsory aLLendance of wlLness and Lhe producLlon of documenLary evldence. 1hese rlghLs are relLeraLed ln Lhe
8ules lmplemenLlng Lhe LCC and ln A.C. no. 23. eLlLloner's rlghL Lo a formal lnvesLlgaLlon was noL saLlsfled when
Lhe complalnL agalnsL hlm was declded on Lhe basls of poslLlon papers. 1here ls noLhlng ln Lhe Local CovernmenL
Code and lLs lmplemenLlng 8ules and 8egulaLlons nor ln A.C. no. 23 LhaL provlde LhaL admlnlsLraLlve cases agalnsL
elecLlve local offlclals can be declded on Lhe basls of poslLlon papers. A.C. no. 23 sLaLes LhaL Lhe lnvesLlgaLlng
AuLhorlLy may requlre Lhe parLles Lo submlL Lhelr respecLlve memoranda buL Lhls ls only afLer formal lnvesLlgaLlon
and hearlng. A.C. no. 23 does noL auLhorlze Lhe lnvesLlgaLlng AuLhorlLy Lo dlspense wlLh a hearlng especlally ln
cases lnvolvlng allegaLlons of facL whlch are noL only ln conLrasL buL conLradlcLory Lo each oLher. 1hese
conLradlcLlons are besL seLLled by allowlng Lhe examlnaLlon and cross-examlnaLlon of wlLnesses. oslLlon papers
are ofLen-Llmes prepared wlLh Lhe asslsLance of lawyers and Lhelr arLful preparaLlon can make Lhe dlscovery of
LruLh dlfflculL. 1he [urlsprudence clLed by Lhe ulLC ln lLs order denylng peLlLloner's moLlon for a formal
lnvesLlgaLlon applles Lo appolnLlve offlclals and employees. AdmlnlsLraLlve dlsclpllnary proceedlngs agalnsL
elecLlve governmenL offlclals are noL exacLly slmllar Lo Lhose agalnsL appolnLlve offlclals. ln facL, Lhe provlslons
LhaL apply Lo elecLlve local offlclals are separaLe and dlsLlncL from appolnLlve governmenL offlcers and employees.
1hls can be gleaned from Lhe LCC lLself.

ln Lhe LCC, Lhe enLlre 1lLle ll of 8ook l of Lhe Code ls devoLed Lo elecLlve offlclals. lL provldes for Lhelr quallflcaLlons
and elecLlon,

vacancles and successlon, local leglslaLlon, dlsclpllnary acLlons, and recall.

AppolnLlve offlcers and
employees are covered ln 1lLle lll of 8ook l of Lhe Code enLlLled "Puman 8esources and uevelopmenL." All maLLers
perLlnenL Lo human resources and developmenL ln local governmenL unlLs are regulaLed by "Lhe clvll servlce law
and such rules and regulaLlons and oLher lssuances promulgaLed LhereLo, unless oLherwlse provlded ln Lhe Code."

1he "lnvesLlgaLlon and ad[udlcaLlon of admlnlsLraLlve complalnLs agalnsL appolnLlve local offlclals and employees
as well as Lhelr suspenslon and removal" are "ln accordance wlLh Lhe clvll servlce law and rules and oLher perLlnenL
laws," Lhe resulLs of whlch "shall be reporLed Lo Lhe Clvll Servlce Commlsslon."

lL ls Lhe AdmlnlsLraLlve Code of 1987, speclflcally 8ook v on Lhe Clvll Servlce, LhaL prlmarlly governs appolnLlve
offlclals and employees. 1helr quallflcaLlons are seL forLh ln Lhe Cmnlbus 8ules lmplemenLlng 8ook v of Lhe sald
Code. 1he grounds for admlnlsLraLlve dlsclpllnary acLlon ln 8ook v are much more ln number and are speclflc Lhan
Lhose enumeraLed ln Lhe Local CovernmenL Code agalnsL elecLlve local offlclals. 1he dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLy ln such
acLlons ls Lhe Clvll Servlce Commlsslon alLhough Lhe SecreLarles and heads of agencles and lnsLrumenLallLles,
provlnces, clLles and munlclpallLles are also glven Lhe power Lo lnvesLlgaLe and declde dlsclpllnary acLlons agalnsL
offlcers and employees under Lhelr [urlsdlcLlon. When a complalnL ls flled and Lhe respondenL answers, he musL
"lndlcaLe wheLher or noL he elecLs a formal lnvesLlgaLlon lf hls answer ls noL consldered saLlsfacLory." lf Lhe offlcer
or employee elecLs a formal lnvesLlgaLlon, Lhe dlrecL evldence for Lhe complalnanL and Lhe respondenL "conslsL[s]
of Lhe sworn sLaLemenL and documenLs submlLLed ln supporL of Lhe complalnL and answer, as Lhe case may be,
wlLhouL pre[udlce Lo Lhe presenLaLlon of addlLlonal evldence deemed necessary x x x, upon whlch Lhe cross-
examlnaLlon by respondenL and Lhe complalnanL, respecLlvely, ls based." 1he lnvesLlgaLlon ls conducLed wlLhouL
adherlng Lo Lhe Lechnlcal rules appllcable ln [udlclal proceedlngs."

Moreover, Lhe appolnLlve offlclal or employee
may be removed or dlsmlssed summarlly lf (1) Lhe charge ls serlous and Lhe evldence of gullL ls sLrong, (2) when
Lhe respondenL ls a recldlvlsL, and (3) when Lhe respondenL ls noLorlously undeslrable.

1he provlslons for admlnlsLraLlve dlsclpllnary acLlons agalnsL elecLlve local offlclals are markedly dlfferenL from
appolnLlve offlclals.

1he rules on Lhe removal and suspenslon of elecLlve local offlclals are more sLrlngenL. 1he
procedure of requlrlng poslLlon papers ln lleu of a hearlng ln admlnlsLraLlve cases ls expressly allowed wlLh respecL
Lo appolnLlve offlclals buL noL Lo Lhose elecLed. An elecLlve offlclal, elecLed by popular voLe, ls dlrecLly responslble
Lo Lhe communlLy LhaL elecLed hlm. 1he offlclal has a deflnlLe Lerm of offlce flxed by law whlch ls relaLlvely of shorL
duraLlon. Suspenslon and removal from offlce deflnlLely affecLs and shorLens Lhls Lerm of offlce. When an elecLlve
offlclal ls suspended or removed, Lhe people are deprlved of Lhe servlces of Lhe man Lhey had elecLed. lmpllclL ln
Lhe rlghL of suffrage ls LhaL Lhe people are enLlLled Lo Lhe servlces of Lhe elecLlve offlclal of Lhelr cholce. Suspenslon
A81 lll

131

and removal are Lhus lmposed only afLer Lhe elecLlve offlclal ls accorded hls rlghLs and Lhe evldence agalnsL hlm
sLrongly dlcLaLes Lhelr lmposlLlon.

Conducto v. Monzon (1998)

lAC1S:
8en[amln Maghlrang was a barangay chalrman ln San ablo ClLy. Pe appolnLed hls slsLer-ln-law Lo Lhe poslLlon of
barangay secreLary, hence, Lhe complalnL from !esus ConducLo arose. lnlLlally, an admlnlsLraLlve case for abuse of
auLhorlLy, serlous lrregularlLy and vlolaLlon of law was flled agalnsL Maghlrang, ln conLravenLlon of provlslons of
Lhe Local CovernmenL Code. 1he ueparLmenL of lnLerlor and Local CovernmenL found Maghlrang vlolaLlve of Lhe
Local CovernmenL Code and was lndorsed Lo Lhe Cmbudsman. llnally, Lhe uepuLy Cmbudsman of Luzon had Lhe
case prosecuLed and an lnformaLlon was flled for unlawful AppolnLmenL (ArL. 244 of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code).
Whlle Lhe case was pendlng ln Lhe courL of !udge llumlnado C. Monzon, Maghlrang was re-elecLed Lo hls poslLlon.
SubsequenLly, Lhe complalnanL submlLLed a moLlon Lo suspend Maghlrang ln llghL of Lhe valld lnformaLlon and Sec.
13 of 8.A. no. 3019 LhaL makes lL mandaLory for lncumbenL publlc offlcers Lo be suspended from offlce for crlmlnal
prosecuLlon under a valld lnformaLlon. !udge Monzon, however, denled Lhls moLlon on Lhe ground LhaL
Maghlrang's re-elecLlon meanL Maghlrang can no longer be removed for acLs commlLLed ln hls prevlous Lerm.

lSSuL:
uld Lhe [udge valldly deny Lhe moLlon for suspenslon?

8uLlnC:
no. 1he case was broughL agalnsL Lhe [udge for lgnorance of Lhe law, and lndeed, Lhere was a flndlng LhaL Lhe
[udge has lgnored a sLeady Lrend of [urlsprudence LhaL makes Lhe suspenslon of an lncumbenL publlc offlcer
mandaLory. 1he rule ls LhaL lL ls nelLher ln Lhe dlscreLlon nor duLy of Lhe [udlclary Lo deLermlne wheLher prevenLlve
suspenslon ls requlred Lo prevenL Lhe accused from uslng hls offlce for undue lnfluence of hls prosecuLlon. All LhaL
ls requlred ls for Lhe courL Lo make a flndlng LhaL Lhe accused sLands charged under a valld lnformaLlon.

1he !udge cannoL applylng Lhe rule LhaL a publlc offlclal cannoL be removed for admlnlsLraLlve mlsconducL
commlLLed durlng a prlor Lerm slnce Lhls ls a crlmlnal acLlon, Lhe docLrlne Lherefore ls lnappllcable.
1he courL clLes varlous cases:
ln loqco v. 5oocbez, Lhe re-elecLlon operaLes Lo exLlngulsh admlnlsLraLlve llablllLy, nC1 crlmlnal llablllLy.
!udge Monzon wrongfully clLed loscool v. ltovloclol 8ootJ of Noevo cljo because agaln, he was noL
careful wlLh Lhe nuances beLween an admlnlsLraLlve and crlmlnal case. lL was wrongfully clLed because
Lhls case referred Lo an admlnlsLraLlve case.
loclooo v 1be ltovloclol Covetoot et ol., Ollvetos v. vllloloz, ooJ AqoloolJo v. 5ootos - Same rullng as
loqco
1he resulL of Lhls case ls Lhe !udge was reprlmanded and was flned 3,000 for hls dlsregard of sLeady docLrlne slnce
lL wlll be a LhreaL Lo Lhe sLablllLy of Lhe [udlclal sysLem lf [udges were lefL Lo Lhelr own whlms Lo overLurn conslsLenL
stote Jeclsls.

ab||co v. V|||apando (2002)

lAC1S:
Cn Aug. 3, 1999, Solomon Maagad, and 8enaLo lernandez, boLh members of Lhe 5ooqqoolooq 8oyoo of San
vlcenLe, alawan, flled wlLh Lhe 5ooqqoolooq loololowlqoo of alawan an admlnlsLraLlve complalnL agalnsL
Ale[andro vlllapando (Lhen Mayor of San vlcenLe, alawan) for abuse of auLhorlLy and culpable vlolaLlon of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon alleglng LhaL vlllapando, on behalf of Lhe munlclpallLy, enLered lnLo a consulLancy agreemenL wlLh
Crlando 1lape, a defeaLed mayoralLy candldaLe ln Lhe May 1998 elecLlons. 1hls, accordlng Lo Lhem, amounLed Lo
A81 lll

132

an appolnLmenL Lo a governmenL poslLlon wlLhln Lhe prohlblLed one-year perlod under ArL. lx-8, SecL. 6, of Lhe
1987 ConsLlLuLlon.
vlllapando answered LhaL he dld noL appolnL 1lape, buL merely hlred hlm, lnvoklng Lhe Aug. 21, 1992 Cplnlon no.
106 of Lhe uC! sLaLlng LhaL Lhe appolnLmenL of a defeaLed candldaLe wlLhln one year from Lhe elecLlon as a
consulLanL does noL consLlLuLe an appolnLmenL Lo a governmenL offlce as prohlblLed by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.
5ooqqoolooq loololowlqoo of alawan: vlllapando ls gullLy of Lhe admlnlsLraLlve charge and lmposed Lhe penalLy
of dlsmlssal from servlce. C..: afflrmed.
endlng vlllapando's M8 of Lhe C.. declslon (!une 16, 2000), abllco (Lhen vlce-mayor of San vlcenLe) Look hls
oaLh of offlce as Mayor. 1hus, vlllapando flled wlLh Lhe 81C of alawan a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl and prohlblLlon
wlLh prellmlnary ln[uncLlon and prayer for a 18C, whlch seeks Lo annul Lhe oaLh admlnlsLered Lo abllco. 1he 18C
effecLlve for 72 hours was granLed, as a resulL of whlch abllco ceased from dlscharglng Lhe funcLlons of mayor.
Powever, vlllapando's moLlon for exLenslon of sald 18C was denled. Pence, abllco resumed hls assumpLlon of Lhe
funcLlons of Mayor of San vlcenLe, alawan. vlllapando flled a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl and prohlblLlon before Lhe CA
seeklng Lo annul Lhe C.. declslon, Lhe declslon of Lhe 5ooqqoolooq loololowlqoo of alawan, and Lhe 81C of
alawan order denylng Lhe moLlon for exLenslon of Lhe 18C.
CA: C.. and 5ooqqoolooq loololowlqoo of alawan declslons are vold. abllco ls Lo vacaLe Lhe Cfflce of Mayor of
San vlcenLe. Pence, Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon.
lSSuL:
WCn local leglslaLlve bodles and/or Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL, on appeal, valldly lmpose Lhe penalLy of dlsmlssal
from servlce on errlng elecLlve local offlclals
PLLu:
nC. SecLlon 60 of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code:
SecLlon 60. CtoooJs fot ulsclpllooty Actloos. - An elecLlve local offlclal may be dlsclpllned, suspended, or
removed from offlce on any of Lhe followlng grounds:
. . .
An elecLlve local offlclal may be removed from offlce on Lhe grounds enumeraLed above by order of Lhe
proper courL.
lrom Lhe lasL paragraph of Sec. 60, Lhe penalLy of dlsmlssal from servlce upon an errlng elecLlve local offlclal may
be decreed only by a courL of law. ln 5olollmo v. Coloqooo,

lL was held LhaL "Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL ls wlLhouL
any power Lo remove elecLed offlclals, slnce such power ls excluslvely vesLed ln Lhe proper courLs as expressly
provlded for ln Lhe lasL paragraph of Sec. 60."
ArLlcle 124 (b), 8ule xlx of Lhe 8ules and 8egulaLlons lmplemenLlng Lhe LCC, however, adds LhaL - "(b) An elecLlve
local offlclal may be removed from offlce on Lhe grounds enumeraLed ln paragraph (a) of Lhls ArLlcle [grounds
under Sec. 60, LCC of 1991] by order of Lhe proper courL or Lhe dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLy whlchever flrsL acqulres
[urlsdlcLlon Lo Lhe excluslon of Lhe oLher."1he dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLy perLalns Lo Lhe 5ooqqoolooq
loololowlqoo/loolooqsoJ/8oyoo and Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL.
As held ln 5olollmo, Lhls granL Lo Lhe "dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLy" of Lhe power Lo remove elecLlve local offlclals ls clearly
beyond Lhe auLhorlLy of Lhe CverslghL CommlLLee LhaL prepared Lhe 8ules and 8egulaLlons. no rule or regulaLlon
may alLer, amend, or conLravene a provlslon of law, such as Lhe LCC. lmplemenLlng rules should conform, noL
clash, wlLh Lhe law LhaL Lhey lmplemenL, for a regulaLlon whlch operaLes Lo creaLe a rule ouL of harmony wlLh Lhe
sLaLuLe ls a nulllLy.
A81 lll

133

1he power Lo remove errlng elecLlve local offlclals from servlce ls lodged excluslvely wlLh Lhe courLs. Pence, ArLlcle
124 (b), 8ule xlx, of Lhe l88 of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code, lnsofar as lL vesLs power on Lhe "dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLy"
Lo remove from offlce errlng elecLlve local offlclals, ls vold for belng repugnanL Lo Lhe lasL paragraph of Sec. 60 of
Lhe LCC. 1he law on suspenslon or removal of elecLlve publlc offlclals musL be sLrlcLly consLrued and applled, and
Lhe auLhorlLy ln whom such power of suspenslon or removal ls vesLed musL exerclse lL wlLh uLmosL good falLh, for
whaL ls lnvolved ls noL [usL an ordlnary publlc offlclal buL one chosen by Lhe people Lhrough Lhe exerclse of Lhelr
consLlLuLlonal rlghL of suffrage. 1helr wlll musL noL be puL Lo naughL by Lhe caprlce or parLlsanshlp of Lhe
dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLy. Where Lhe dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLy ls glven only Lhe power Lo suspend and noL Lhe power Lo
remove, lL should noL be permlLLed Lo manlpulaLe Lhe law by usurplng Lhe power Lo remove. eLlLlon uLnlLu.

Cff|ce of the Cmbudsman v. k|cardo Lvange||sta (2009)

lAC1S:
rlsclla vlllanueva, co-chalr of Lhe Local School 8oard (LS8) of Agulrre, angaslnan, flled an admlnlsLraLlve
case wlLh Lhe Cmbudsman agalnsL Mayor LvangellsLa, munlclpal Lreasurer Mellcan, and munlclpal
accounLanL Llmos. She alleged LhaL Lhe Lhree made use of Lhe Speclal LducaLlon lund (SLl) Lo purchase
speech klLs and LexLbooks wlLhouL Lhe auLhorlzaLlon of Lhe LS8 and LhaL Lhe sald speech klLs and
LexLbooks were noL even recelved by Lhe reclplenL schools.
vlllanueva also prayed for Lhe prevenLlve suspenslon of Lhe Lhree.
WlLhouL furnlshlng Lhe respondenLs wlLh a copy of Lhe complalnL, Lhe Cmbudsman lssued an Crder
prevenLlvely suspendlng Lhem for four (4) monLhs, wlLhouL pay.
1he respondenLs flled a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl wlLh Lhe CourL of Appeals.
1he CourL of Appeals reversed Lhe prevenLlve suspenslon order by Lhe Cmbudsman on Lhe followlng
grounds: (1) Lhe Crder was lssued wlLhouL compllance wlLh Sec. 26 of Lhe Cmbudsman AcL whlch requlres
LhaL Lhe respondenLs be lnformed of Lhe charges agalnsL Lhem, (2) Lhere was hasLe ln Lhe lssuance of Lhe
Crder slnce Lhe Cmbudsman dld noL awalL Lhe recommendaLlon of hls depuLy.
1hus, Lhe Cmbudsman flled a 8ule 63 cerLlorarl wlLh Lhe Supreme CourL.

lSSuL:
1. WheLher or noL a prevenLlve suspenslon order may lssue even wlLhouL noLlfylng Lhe respondenL ln an
admlnlsLraLlve case of Lhe charge/s agalnsL hlm?
2. WheLher or noL a prevenLlve suspenslon order may be lmplemenLed agalnsL a mayor who ls subsequenLly
reelecLed Lo offlce?

PLLu/8A1lC:
1. ?LS. A prevenLlve suspenslon order by Lhe Cmbudsman may lssue even wlLhouL noLlfylng Lhe respondenL of Lhe
charge as per Lhe Cmbudsman AcL and Lhe prevalllng [urlsprudence on Lhe maLLer.

under Sec. 24 of Lhe Cmbudsman AcL, a prevenLlve suspenslon order may lssue when Lwo requlslLes concur: (1)
evldence of gullL ls sLrong, Anu (2) Lhe charge lnvolves dlshonesLy, oppresslon, grave mlsconducL, neglecL ln Lhe
performance of duLy, C8 Lhe charge warranLs Lhe removal of Lhe offlcer from servlce, C8 Lhe respondenL's
conLlnued sLay ln offlce may pre[udlce Lhe case agalnsL hlm.

ln Lhe lnsLanL case, Lhe Lwo requlslLes were complled wlLh.
(1) 1be evlJeoce of qollt ls sttooq-Lhe followlng pleces of evldence welgh heavlly agalnsL Lhe respondenLs: (a)
Local 8udgeL reparaLlon lorm no. 131 lndlcaLlng Lhe balance of Lhe SLl,
(b) 8ecords from Lhe offlce of Lhe munlclpal accounL,
(c) LeLLer daLed uecember 13, 2004 of vlllanueva Lo Lhe Munlclpal 1reasurer requesLlng
clarlflcaLlon of Lhe SLl balance,
(d) sLaLus of approprlaLlon, alloLmenL and obllgaLlon of Lhe SLl as of uecember 31, 2003,
(e) SLl sLaLemenL of lncome and expenses for 2003,
A81 lll

134

(f) LeLLer of Lhe munlclpal accounLanL Lo Mayor LvangellsLa enumeraLlng Lhe dlsbursemenLs
charged Lo Lhe SLl whlch lncludes dlsbursemenLs for speech klLs and LexLbooks for 2003-
2003,
(g) CerLlflcaLlons daLed lebruary 11, 2003 lssued by prlnclpals and head Leachers sLaLlng Lhey dld
noL recelve speech klLs nor LexL books for 2004-2003.

(2) 1be cbotqes oqolost tbe tespooJeots lovolve Jlsbooesty, opptessloo, qtove mlscooJoct, oeqlect lo tbe
petfotmooce of Joty. Moteovet, tbey olso wottoot temovol ftom setvlce-1he charge lnvolves dlshonesLy.
under Lhe Clvll Servlce Law/Memo Clrculars (for Mellcan and Llmos) dlshonesLy warranLs removal from
offlce. under Sec. 60 (c) of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code (for LvangellsLa), dlshonesLy ls also a ground for
removal from offlce.

Moreover, ln Lhe cases of LasLlmosa v. vasquez and Pagad v. Cozo-uadole, Lhe Supreme CourL, conslsLenL
wlLh Lhe provlslon of Lhe Cmbudsman AcL ruled LhaL nelLher prlor noLlce nor a hearlng ls requlred for Lhe
lssuance of a prevenLlve suspenslon order.

1he requlremenL of servlng noLlce upon respondenL ls requlred ln cases of lnqulry by Lhe Cmbudsman and
noL ln cases of lmposlng prevenLlve suspenslon.

2. nC. 1he docLrlne of condonaLlon applles. under Lhe sald docLrlne, an elecLlve offlclal subsequenLly reelecLed
may noL be held llable for admlnlsLraLlve offenses commlLLed durlng hls/her prevlous Lerm of offlce. 1he
raLlonale for Lhls rule ls LhaL lL ls assumed LhaL Lhe elecLoraLe elecLed Lhe publlc offlcer Lo offlce wlLh full
knowledge of hls pasL mlsconducL/s.

Powever, condonaLlon applles only Lo admlnlsLraLlve llablllLy and noL crlmlnal llablllLy.

ulSCSl1lvL:
eLlLlon parLlally granLed. 8eversed lnsofar as Mellcan and Llmos. CranLed lnsofar as LvangellsLa.

Sangguan|ng 8arangay of Don Mar|ano vs. unong 8arangay Mart|nes (2008)

lacLs of Lhe case:
Cn nov 3, 2004, Lhe Sangguanlang 8arangay of uon Marlano Marcos flled admlnlsLraLlve charges of dlshonesLy and
grafL and corrupLlon agalnsL Severlno MarLlnez, lLs barangay capLaln, before Lhe Sanggunlang 8ayan of
8ayombong, nueva vlscaya.

lL alleged LhaL MarLlnez:
1. falled Lo submlL and fully remlL Lo Lhe barangay Lreasurer Lhe lncome from Lhe solld wasLe managemenL pro[ecL
for Lhe pasL Lhree years (slnce 2001), parLlcularly Lhe sale of ferLlllzer derlved from composLlng,
2. falled Lo submlL/remlL Lo Lhe barangay Lreasurer Lhe sale of recyclable maLerlals Laken from Lhe garbage
collecLlon
3. used Lhe garbage Lruck for oLher purposes for prlvaLe persons, Lhe barangay derlved no lncome from Lhese
acLlvlLles because none were reporLed ln Lhe year-end reporL
4. spenL barangay funds for Lhe repalr, upkeep and gasollne of Lhe garbage Lruck, lnsLead of uslng Lhe money from
Lhe garbage fees collecLed under Lhe Solld WasLe ManagemenL ro[ecL
3. collecLed Lravelllng expenses for a semlnar/lakbay-aral ln 2003 buL dld noL aLLend Lhe semlnar, because he was
ln Lhe barangay on Lhe daLe of Lhe semlnar
6. refused Lo dlscuss Lhe problems when Lhese were ralsed durlng Lhe barangay sesslons, lnsLead ad[ournlng Lhe
sesslon.
MarLlnez falled Lo answer Lhe complalnL and was declared ln defaulL by Lhe Sanggunlang 8ayan. Pe was placed
under prevenLlve suspenslon for 60 days ln !une 2003, unLll AugusL 8 2003. Cn !uly 28, 2003, Lhe Sanggunlang
A81 lll

133

8ayan rendered lLs declslon, lmposlng upon MarLlnez Lhe penalLy of removal from offlce. 1he declslon was
conveyed Lo 8ayombong Mayor Severlno 8agasao for lmplemenLaLlon. 8agasao however sald he was noL
empowered Lo order MarLlnez' removal from offlce, and lnsLead ordered hls lndeflnlLe suspenslon. Pe dlrecLed
one of Lhe barangay kagawads (Cenen SanLos) Lo conLlnue dlscharglng Lhe funcLlons of Lhe barangay capLaln ln an
acLlng capaclLy.
MarLlnez flled a speclal clvll acLlon for cerLlorarl wlLh a prayer for Lemporary resLralnlng order and prellmlnary
ln[uncLlon before Lhe 8ayombong 81C, quesLlonlng Lhe valldlLy of Lhe Sanggunlang 8ayan's order. 1he 81C held
LhaL boLh order of Lhe Sanggunlang 8ayan and 8agasao's memorandum were vold. lL held LhaL Lhe proper courL"
and noL Lhe Sanggunlang 8ayan, ls empowered Lo remove an elecLlve local offlclal from offlce, clLlng SecLlon 60 of
Lhe Local CovernmenL Code. nelLher could 8agasao prevenL MarLlnez from assumlng hls offlce on Lhe basls of a
vold order. 1he case was appealed Lo Lhe Supreme CourL.
MarLlnez' Lerm of offlce explred on CcLober 29, 2007, whlch rendered Lhe case mooL and academlc, buL Lhe
Supreme CourL held LhaL lL was capable of repeLlLlon yeL evadlng revlew" and ruled on lL.

lssue:
May Lhe Sanggunlang 8ayan remove from offlce a local elecLlve offlclal?

Peld:
nC.

8aLlo:
SecLlon 60 of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code sald LhaL an elecLlve local offlclal may be removed from offlce.by order
of Lhe proper courL. 1he SenaLe dellberaLlons on Lhe Local CovernmenL Code show LhaL Lhey meanL Lhe reglonal
Lrlal courL of Lhe Sandlganbayan. 1he phrase was replaced wlLh Lhe proper courL" because Lhe cases flled under
Lhese courLs may sLlll be appealed or be Lhe sub[ecL of an ln[uncLlon.
1he SC noLed LhaL ln Salallma v Culngona, Lhe CourL en banc ruled LhaL even Lhe resldenL of Lhe 8epubllc had no
power Lo remove local elecLlve offlclals because LhaL power ls excluslvely vesLed ln Lhe proper courLs.
Whlle admlnlsLraLlve cases lnvolvlng elecLlve barangay offlclals may be flled wlLh, heard and declded by Lhe
Sanggunlang anlungsod or Sanggunlang 8ayan, as Lhe case may be, Lhey could only suspend Lhe errlng local
elecLlve offlclal. lf removal of sald offlclal from offlce ls warranLed, Lhey could resolve LhaL charges be flled before
Lhe proper courL.
1he SC sald lL was clear ln abllco v vlllapando LhaL Lhe removal of elecLlve offlclals was an excluslve [udlclal
prerogaLlve, and was meanL Lo check any caprlclousness or parLlsan acLlvlLy by Lhe dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLy.
Congress clearly meanL LhaL Lhe removal of an elecLlve local offlclal be done only afLer a Lrlal before Lhe
approprlaLe courL, where courL rules of procedure and evldence can ensure lmparLlallLy and falrness and proLecL
agalnsL pollLlcal maneuverlngs. LlevaLlng Lhe removal of an elecLlve local offlclal from offlce from an admlnlsLraLlve
case Lo a courL case may be [usLlfled by Lhe facL LhaL such removal noL only punlshes Lhe offlclal concerned buL
also, ln effecL, deprlves Lhe elecLoraLe of Lhe servlces of Lhe offlclal for whom Lhey voLed."
1hus, lf Lhe acLs allegedly commlLLed by Lhe barangay offlclal are of a grave naLure and, lf found gullLy, would
merlL Lhe penalLy of removal from offlce, Lhe case should be flled wlLh Lhe reglonal Lrlal courL. Cnce Lhe courL
assumes [urlsdlcLlon, lL reLalns [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe case even lf lL would be subsequenLly apparenL durlng Lhe Lrlal
LhaL a penalLy less Lhan removal from offlce ls approprlaLe. Cn Lhe oLher hand, Lhe mosL exLreme penalLy LhaL Lhe
Sanggunlang anlungsod or Sanggunlang 8ayan may lmpose on Lhe errlng elecLlve barangay offlclal ls suspenslon,
A81 lll

136

lf lL deems LhaL Lhe removal of Lhe offlclal from servlce ls warranLed, Lhen lL can resolve LhaL Lhe proper charges be
flled ln courL."

8|en v. 8o (2010)

lAC1S:
edro 8. 8o, slnce 1993, has applled wlLh Lhe uLn8-CLn8C Legazpl ClLy for Lhe lease of a 10,000 square meLer
foreshore loL ln alale 8each, 8gy. San lsldro, llawod.
endlng hls appllcaLlon, he lnLroduced lmprovemenLs ln Lhe area necessary ln puLLlng up and ln runnlng a beach
resorL.
8uL a monLh before Lhe uLn8 released lLs approval ln Aprll 2003 for Lhe blddlng of Lhe lease coverlng Lhe publlc
land Col. 8o was applylng for, hls coLLage and hls coconuL Lrees were desLroyed.
Pe named Lhe barangay offlclals of San lsldro and 8len as Lhe ones who led Lhe desLrucLlon of hls properLles.
1he barangay offlclals of San lsldro, on Lhe oLher hand, conLended LhaL Lhe beach properLy should be used
lnsLead for barangay pro[ecLs and noL Lo beneflL prlvaLe lndlvlduals.
ln an ocular lnspecLlon conducLed by Ln8C on Lhe sub[ecL beach properLy subsequenL Lo Lhe desLrucLlon of Lhe
properLles of 8o, Ln8C found almosL all of Lhe barangay offlclals had Lhelr own coLLages erecLed Lhereon.
8o flled a case for abuse of auLhorlLy agalnsL 8len and Lhe barangay offlclals of San lsldro. 8o sLressed LhaL all of
Lhem connlved ln dolng Lhls ln[usLlce Lo hlm ln order LhaL respondenLs [lncludlng hereln peLlLloner] may be able Lo
consLrucL Lhelr own prlvaLe coLLages for Lhelr own beneflL.
uepuLy Cmbudsman for Luzon found all respondenLs Lhereln, lncludlng hereln peLlLloner 8len, admlnlsLraLlvely
llable for Abuse of AuLhorlLy.
CA afflrmed.
8len appealed Lo Lhe SC conLendlng he ls noL a barangay offlclal of San lsldro llawod, Lhus, he has no auLhorlLy
and [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe sub[ecL properLy.

lSSuL:
Won 8len should be held llable for abuse of auLhorlLy.

PLLu:
?LS.
8len's sLaLus as A8C resldenL ls noL dlspuLed.
Pe ls Lhe A8C resldenL Lo whom Lhe barangay offlclals show deference Lo.
Also, as correcLly held by Lhe Cmbudsman, he ls Lhe ex-offlclo member of Lhe Sanggunlang 8ayan whlch ls
slgnlflcanLly menLloned Lo be Lhe leglslaLlve body wlLh Lhe power Lo revlew barangay ordlnances and wlLh Lhe
auLhorlLy Lo dlsclpllne barangay offlclals.
1he presence of hls coLLage as well as LhaL of Lhe oLher barangay offlclals ln San lsldro llawod ln alale 8each
showed an apparenL connlvance among Lhem.
lL Lhen follows LhaL hls parLlclpaLlon as a hlgher auLhorlLy had puL a semblance of legallLy over Lhe removal of
complalnanL's lmprovemenLs ln order LhaL Lhey may proLecL Lhelr personal lnLeresLs over Lhe foreshore loL.
ln Lhls sense, Lhere shows hls mlsdemeanor as a publlc offlcer, an abuse of hls auLhorlLy.

Cff|ce of the Cmbudsman v. 8arr|ga (2011)

lacLs:
1he peLlLloner found 8arrlga, Munlclpal AccounLanL, gullLy of conducL pre[udlclal Lo Lhe besL lnLeresL of
Lhe servlce and lmposed 1-year suspenslon. CA denled 8arrlga's peLlLlon for revlew. Whlle Lhe case was pendlng ln
Lhe SC, Lhe peLlLloner lssued Lwo orders dlrecLlng Lhe Munlclpal Mayor Lo lmplemenL 8arrlga's suspenslon from
servlce. 8arrlga challenged Lhe sald orders argulng LhaL Lhe peLlLloner lacked auLhorlLy Lo lmplemenL Lhe
suspenslon whlle Lhe case was pendlng on appeal. CA ruled ln 8arrlga's favor, nulllfylng Lhe orders.
A81 lll

137

lssue:
WCn Lhe CA gravely abused lLs dlscreLlon ln nulllfylng Lhe orders of Lhe peLlLloner Lo Lhe munlclpal mayor for Lhe
lmmedlaLe lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe penalLy of suspenslon from servlce even Lhough Lhe case was pendlng on appeal

Peld:
?es

As clearly provlded ln Lhe 8ules of rocedure of Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman and as held ln Offlce of tbe
OmboJsmoo v. cA ooJ Mocobolos, declslons of Lhe Cmbudsman are lmmedlaLely execuLory even pendlng appeal
ln Lhe CA.

An appeal shall noL sLop Lhe declslon from belng execuLory. ln case Lhe penalLy ls suspenslon or removal and Lhe
respondenL wlns such appeal, he shall be consldered as havlng been under prevenLlve suspenslon and shall be pald
Lhe salary and such oLher emolumenLs LhaL he dld noL recelve by reason of Lhe suspenslon or removal.

A declslon of Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman ln admlnlsLraLlve cases shall be execuLed as a maLLer of course. 1he
Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman shall ensure LhaL Lhe declslon shall be sLrlcLly enforced and properly lmplemenLed. 1he
refusal or fallure by any offlcer wlLhouL [usL cause Lo comply wlLh an order of Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman Lo
remove, suspend, demoLe, flne, or censure shall be a ground for dlsclpllnary acLlon agalnsL sald offlcer.

"#$%&' (&))&*+#,- .&*#*

Mo||aneda v. Umacob (2001)

lAC1S:
SomeLlme SepL 7, 1994, Leonlda umacob, a publlc school, Leacher wenL Lo Lhe offlce of Mr. 8olando . Suase Lo
follow up her requesL for Lransfer Lo a dlfferenL dlsLrlcL. 1hereln, Arnold Mollaneda, school ulvlslon
SuperlnLendenL, afLer enLerLalnlng her requesL hugged her, embraced her, klssed her nose and llp ln a Lorrld
manner, and mashed her breasL. Mollaneda dld Lhese acLs for several Llmes Lhen warned umacob noL Lo Lell Lhe
lncldenL Lo anybody.

umacob reporLed Lhe lncldenL Lo Lhe pollce sLaLlon and flled a complalnL for acLs of lasclvlousness before Lhe
Munlclpal 1rlal CourL. She also flled an admlnlsLraLlve complalnL as well wlLh Lhe Clvll Servlce Commlsslon -
8eglonal Cfflce xl, uavao ClLy (CSC-8C xl). She furnlshed Lhe ueparLmenL of LducaLlon, CulLure and SporLs -
8eglonal Cfflce xl, uavao ClLy (uLCS-8C xl) a copy of her affldavlL-complalnL.

A uLCS lnvesLlgaLlng commlLLee was formed, whlch laLer recommended Lo Lhe uLCS 8eglonal ulrecLor "Lhe
dropplng of Lhe case" for lack of merlL. Meanwhlle, Lhe case before Lhe CSC was heard before ALLy. AnacleLo
8uena, whlch hearlng was aLLended by boLh parLles and Lhelr counsel. CSC found Mollaneda gullLy, whlch was
afflrmed by Lhe CourL of Appeals. 1hus Mollaneda elevaLed Lhe case Lo Lhe SC. Mollaneda alleges LhaL 1) umacob
was gullLy of forum shopplng, 2) Pe was denled due process, and 3) wlLnesses' LesLlmonles were hearsay. endlng
Lhe SC case, Lhe Munlclpal 1rlal CourL dlsmlssed Lhe case of acLs of lasclvlousness.

lSSuLS:
1) WheLher or noL umacob was gullLy of forum shopplng
2) WheLher or noL Mollaneda was denled of due process
3) WheLher or noL courL erred ln glvlng welghL Lo wlLnesses' LesLlmonles
4) WheLher or noL dlsmlssal of Lhe case ln Lhe M1C merlLs dlsmlssal of Lhe CSC case

A81 lll

138

PLLu:
1) no. WlLh regard Lo Lhe uLCS and CSC, uLCS was [usL furnlshed a copy of Lhe complalnL - lL was noL flled before
Lhe uLCS. 1he resoluLlon of uLCS was [usL a recommendaLory resoluLlon. WlLh regard Lo Lhe flllng of Lhe case
boLh ln Lhe CSC and Lhe courL, Lhe case flled before Lhe CSC ls an admlnlsLraLlve case whlle LhaL before Lhe
courL ls a crlmlnal case, Lhus lL does noL consLlLuLe forum shopplng.

2) no. uurlng Lhe hearlng, Mollaneda acLlvely parLlclpaLed ln all proceedlngs and cross-examlned all wlLnesses.
1he hearlng of Lhe case before a hearlng offlcer raLher Lhan Lhe commlsslon lLself ls noL a denlal of due
process. lL ls a well seLLled prlnclple LhaL admlnlsLraLlve bodles may deslgnaLe hearlng and recepLlon of
evldence Lo a subordlnaLe, on Lhe basls of whlch evldence Lhe body wlll declde Lhe case. uue process ln
admlnlsLraLlve proceedlngs merely requlres LhaL Lhe Lrlbunal or body or any of lLs [udges musL acL on lLs or hls
own lndependenL conslderaLlon of Lhe law and facLs of Lhe conLroversy, and noL slmply accepL Lhe vlews of a
subordlnaLe.

3) no. 1he wlLnesses' LesLlmonles were offered noL Lo prove lLs LruLh, buL merely Lo prove LhaL umacob Lold Lhe
wlLnesses whaL Lransplred ln Lhe offlce. WhaL was glven more credence was Lhe LesLlmony of umacob whlch
was sLralghL and repleLe wlLh deLalls conslsLenL wlLh human naLure.

4) no. Long-lngralned ln our [urlsprudence ls Lhe rule LhaL Lhe dlsmlssal of a crlmlnal case agalnsL an accused who
ls a respondenL ln an admlnlsLraLlve case on Lhe ground of lnsufflclency of evldence does noL foreclose Lhe
admlnlsLraLlve proceedlng agalnsL hlm or glve hlm a clean blll of healLh ln all respecLs. ln dlsmlsslng Lhe case,
Lhe M1C ls slmply saylng LhaL Lhe prosecuLlon was unable Lo prove Lhe gullL of Lhe respondenL beyond
reasonable doubL, a condlLlon slne qua non for convlcLlon because of Lhe presumpLlon of lnnocence whlch Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon guaranLees an accused. Powever, ln admlnlsLraLlve proceedlngs, Lhe quanLum of proof requlred
ls only subsLanLlal evldence, whlch Lhe courL flnds ln Lhls case.

Iacut|n v. eop|e (2002)

lAC1S
ur. 8lco !acuLln ls Lhe ClLy PealLh Cfflcer of Cagayan de Cro ClLy.
Cn november 28,1993, !ulleL C. ?ee, Lhen a 22-year old fresh graduaLe of nurslng, LogeLher wlLh her
faLher, wenL Lo Lhe offlce of peLlLloner aL Lhe ClLy PealLh Cfflce Lo seek employmenL.
!ulleL was lnformed by Lhe docLor LhaL Lhe ClLy PealLh Cfflce had [usL Lhen fllled up Lhe vacanL poslLlons
for nurses buL LhaL he would sLlll see lf he mlghL be able Lo help her.
1he followlng day, !ulleL and her faLher reLurned Lo Lhe ClLy PealLh Cfflce, and Lhey were lnformed by
peLlLloner LhaL Lhere was a vacancy ln a famlly plannlng pro[ecL for Lhe clLy and LhaL, lf she were
lnLeresLed, he could lnLervlew her for Lhe [ob.
eLlLloner Lhen sLarLed puLLlng up Lo her a number of quesLlons. AL one polnL (her faLher has been asked
Lo leave Lhe offlce for !ulleL's formal lnLervlew) she was asked wheLher or noL she already had a boyfrlend,
or wheLher she was sLlll a vlrgln. ur. !acuLln laLer offered her Lhe [ob where she would be Lhe sub[ecL of a
"research" program. She was requesLed Lo be back afLer lunch.
AL 3:00 o'clock ln Lhe afLernoon, she wenL back Lo Lhe offlce of Lhe accused. As all efforLs Lo look for a [ob
ln oLher hosplLals falled, accused renewed Lhe offer Lo Lhe complalnanL Lo be a parL of Lhe research ln Lhe
lamlly lannlng rogram where Lhere would be physlcal examlnaLlon. ComplalnanL Lold hlm she would
noL agree because Lhe research lncluded hugglng. Pe Lhen assured her LhaL he was [usL klddlng. WlLh
assurance glven, complalnanL changed her mlnd and agreed Lo Lhe research, for she ls now convlnced LhaL
she would be of help Lo Lhe research and would galn knowledge from lL.
Cn Lhe undersLandlng of Lhe complalnanL LhaL Lhey wlll proceed Lo Lhe cllnlc where Lhe research wlll be
conducLed, she agreed Lo go wlLh Lhe accused.
lnslde Lhe car, ur. !acuLln asked her lf she has Laken a baLh. She explalned LhaL she was noL able Lo do so
because she lefL Lhe house hurrledly.
A81 lll

139

SLlll lnslde Lhe car, accused dlrecLed her Lo ralse her fooL so he could see wheLher she has varlcose velns
on her legs. 1hlnklng LhaL lL was parL of Lhe research, she dld as lnsLrucLed.
Pe Lhen lnsLrucLed her Lo lower her panLs and Lo ralse her shlrL. Shocked, she exclalmed, 'hala ka!'
because he Lrled Lo lnserL hls hand lnLo her panLy. Accused Lhen held her abdomen, saylng, 'you are llke
my daughLer, 'uay'! (vlsayan word of endearmenL),' and leL Lhe back of hls palm Louch her forehead,
lndlcaLlng Lhe LradlLlonal way of maklng Lhe young respecL Lhelr elders.
leellng embarrassed and uncomforLable, yeL unsure wheLher she was enLerLalnlng mallce, she ralsed her
shlrL up Lo her breasL. Pe Lhen fondled her breasL. 8eacLlng, she lmpulslvely lower her shlrL and embraced
her bar whlle sllenLly asklng Cod whaL was happenlng Lo her and asklng Lhe courage Lo reslsL accused's
physlcal advances
llnally, she lnformed hlm LhaL she would noL conLlnue wlLh Lhe research. 1he accused reLorLed LhaL
complalnanL was enLerLalnlng mallce.
A week laLer, !ulleL Lold her slsLer abouL Lhe lncldenL. Cn 16 uecember 1993, she aLLempLed Lo slash her
wrlsL wlLh a fasLener rlghL afLer relaLlng Lhe lncldenL Lo her moLher.
ur. Adaza, a psychologlcal counsellng experL, would laLer LesLlfy LhaL !ulleL, LogeLher wlLh her slsLer, came
Lo see her on 21 uecember 1993, and LhaL !ulleL appeared Lo be emoLlonally dlsLurbed, blamlng herself
for belng so sLupld as Lo allow ur. !acuLln Lo molesL her. ur. Adaza concluded LhaL !ulleL's frusLraLlon was
due Lo posL Lrauma sLress.

lSSuL:
WCn ur. !acuLln ls gullLy of sexual harassmenL?

8A1lC
?LS. Sexual harassmenL ln a work-relaLed or employmenL envlronmenL ls commlLLed when Lhe sexual favor ls
made as a condlLlon ln Lhe hlrlng or ln Lhe employmenL, re-employmenL or conLlnued employmenL of sald
lndlvldual.

eLlLloner was Lhe ClLy PealLh Cfflcer of Cagayan de Cro ClLy, a poslLlon he held when complalnanL, a newly
graduaLed nurse, saw hlm Lo enllsL hls help ln her deslre Lo galn employmenL.

Whlle Lhe ClLy Mayor had Lhe excluslve prerogaLlve ln appolnLlng clLy personnel, lL should sLand Lo reason,
neverLheless, LhaL a recommendaLlon from peLlLloner ln Lhe appolnLmenL of personnel ln Lhe munlclpal healLh
offlce could carry good welghL. lndeed, peLlLloner hlmself would appear Lo have conveyed, by hls words and
acLlons, an lmpresslon LhaL he could faclllLaLe !ulleL's employmenL. lndeed, peLlLloner would noL have been able Lo
Lake undue llberallLles on Lhe person of !ulleL had lL noL been for hls hlgh poslLlon ln Lhe ClLy PealLh Cfflce of
Cagayan de Cro ClLy.

C|v|| Serv|ce Comm|ss|on v. 8e|agan (2004)

lAC1S:
ur. Allyson 8elagan has served Lhe governmenL for 37 years. Pe was uLCS SuperlnLendenL ln 8agulo ClLy when Lhe
case arose. Pe was charged by Lwo complalnanLs for sexual harassmenL, one complalnanL belng Magdalena Capuz.
SomeLlme ln 1994, Mrs. Capuz needed Lo apply for a permlL Lo operaLe a pre-school and durlng an lnspecLlon
conducLed by 8elagan, he grabbed Lhe complalnanL, and klssed her on Lhe cheek. When Mrs. Capuz wenL Lo
follow-up on her appllcaLlon, 8elagan replled Moq-Jote mooo toyo.

1he second complalnanL, Llgaya Annawl, a publlc school Leacher ln Lhe dlsLrlcL of 8elagan's [urlsdlcLlon, sald LhaL
8elagan, on separaLe occaslons, Louched her breasLs, klssed her cheek, Louched her grolns, embraced her from
behlnd and pulled her close Lo hlm, hls organ presslng Lhe lower parL of her back.

uLCS dlsmlssed 8elagan from servlce afLer flndlng hlm gullLy of sexual advances/lndlgnlLles/harassmenL. 1he Clvll
Servlce Commlsslon afflrmed Lhe case flled by Magdalena buL dlsmlssed Lhe case of Llgaya.
A81 lll

160

Cn appeal, 8elagan quesLloned Lhe credlblllLy of Lhe compalnL of Magdalena, sLaLlng LhaL she was charged of
several offences ln Lhe M1C of 8agulo ClLy (22 cases) and several complalnLs on Lhe 8arangay level (23 lncldenLs).
1he complalnLs dealL wlLh mosLly oral defamaLlon and were made ln Lhe years 1978 unLll 1986.

1he CSC ruled LhaL Lhe characLer of Magdalena was of mlnor slgnlflcance Lo Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhe gullL of Lhe
accused.

1he CA, however, sLaLed LhaL Magdalena was an unrellable wlLness glven her aggresslveness and propenslLy for
Lrouble.

lSSuL:
WCn complalnlng wlLness ls credlble?

8uLlnC:
?es. Cenerally, Lhe characLer of a parLy ls regarded as legally lrrelevanL ln deLermlnlng a conLroversy. 1he only
excepLlon ls lf lL's for a crlmlnal case. Such LhaL, ln rape cases, Lhe chasLlLy of Lhe alleged vlcLlm and lf sald vlcLlm ls
morally loose wlll casL doubL on Lhe convlcLlon of Lhe accused. ln Lhls case, no menLlon was made on Magdalena's
chasLlLy, and even lf Lhere were, Lhls ls an admlnlsLraLlve case, noL a crlmlnal case.

WhaL 8elagan aLLempLed was Lo lmpeach Lhe credlblllLy of Lhe wlLness. CredlblllLy means Lhe dlsposlLlon and
lnLenLlon Lo Lell Lhe LruLh ln Lhe LesLlmony glven. Powever, ln Lhls case, Magdalena's derogaLory record was noL
sufflclenL Lo dlscredlL her credlblllLy. 1he offences alleged were commlLLed mosLly ln Lhe 80s, almosL Len years
before Lhe lncldenL ln conLenLlon. rlor behavlour musL be lmmedlaLe Lo have bearlng on Lhe credlblllLy of Lhe
LesLlmony.

ln addlLlon, Lhere was fallure Lo prove LhaL Magdalena was convlcLed, Lherefore, Lhe presumpLlon of lnnocence
applles Lo her and Lhese complalnLs cannoL be used Lo lmpeach or dlscredlL her.

She also LesLlfled ln a sLralghLforward, candld and sponLaneous manner. Per LesLlmony was also corroboraLed.
nowevet, due Lo Lhe facL LhaL 8elagan has spenL 37 years ln servlce, Lhe Supreme CourL reduced hls penalLy from
dlsmlssal Lo suspenslon of one-year wlLhouL pay, especlally conslderlng 8elagan's prlor lmpeccable record and Lhe
facL LhaL he ls already reLlrlng.

(CrlLlque: AfLer Lhey ruled on prlor conducL, Lhey declde Lhls way on Lhe dlsposlLlon. Supreme CourL fllp-flopplng
wlLhln a case!)

Narvasa v. Sanchez (2010)

lacLs:
- 1hree women employees of Lhe MunlclpallLy of uladl, nueva vlzcaya flled complalnLs for sexual
harassmenL agalnsL Lhe munlclpal assessor 8en[amln Sanchez !r.
- 1hese were Lhe acLs of harassmenL commlLLed by respondenL:

a. agalnsL Mary Cay dela Cruz- glvlng noLes saylng, l llke you", and sendlng a LexL message whlch says,
Mary Cay..ooq tomls oq bollk mo."
b. agalnsL Zenalda CayaLon- sendlng LexL messages such as: poowl ko oo bo sexy?", l llke you", have a
daLe wlLh me", l slepL and dreamL nlce Lhlngs abouL you"
c. agalnsL 1eresa narvasa- respondenL pulled her Lowards hlm and aLLempLed Lo klss her

- Mayor Marvlc adllla found respondenL gullLy for Lhe Lhree complalnLs for sexual harassmenL. Pe was
meLed ouL Lhe penalLles of reprlmand for hls 1
sL
offense and 30 days suspenslon for hls 2
nd
offense.
A81 lll

161

Powever, as regards hls Lhlrd offense whlch ls also agalnsL narvasa, he was deemed Lo have commlLLed
grave sexual harassmenL for whlch he was dlsmlssed from governmenL servlce.
- Sanchez appealed Lo Lhe CSC who only passed upon Lhe declslon on Lhe case flled by narvasa slnce Lhe
penalLy of reprlmand and suspenslon for noL more Lhan 30 days cannoL be appealed. 1he CSC afflrmed
Lhe penalLy of dlsmlssal. Powever, upon appeal Lo Lhe CA, Lhe same courL downgraded Lhe offense Lo
slmple mlsconducL and meLed Lhe appeal Lo suspenslon for one monLh and a day.

lssue:
WCn Lhe sexual harassmenL commlLLed by Sanchez agalnsL narvasa consLlLuLes grave or slmple mlsconducL.

Peld and 8aLlo:
- lL consLlLuLes grave mlsconducL. MlsconducL means lnLenLlonal wrongdolng or dellberaLe vlolaLlon of a
rule of law or sLandard of behavlor. 1o consLlLuLe an admlnlsLraLlve offense, mlsconducL should relaLe Lo
or be connecLed wlLh Lhe performance of Lhe offlclal funcLlons and duLles of a publlc offlcer. ln grave
mlsconducL, as dlsLlngulshed from slmple mlsconducL, Lhe elemenLs of corrupLlon, clear lnLenL Lo vlolaLe
Lhe law or flagranL dlsregard of an esLabllshed rule musL be manlfesL.

- 8espondenL's acLs of grabblng peLlLloner and aLLempLlng Lo klss her were, no doubL, lnLenLlonal.
Conslderlng LhaL Lhe acLs respondenL commlLLed agalnsL peLlLloner were much more aggresslve, lL was
lmposslble LhaL Lhe offenslve naLure of hls acLlons could have escaped hlm. lL does noL appear LhaL
peLlLloner and respondenL were carrylng on an amorous relaLlonshlp LhaL mlghL have [usLlfled hls aLLempL
Lo klss peLlLloner whlle Lhey were separaLed from Lhelr companlons. Worse, as peLlLloner and respondenL
were boLh marrled (Lo oLher persons), respondenL noL only Look hls marlLal sLaLus llghLly, he also lgnored
peLlLloner's marrled sLaLe, and good characLer and repuLaLlon.
-
- LengLh of servlce as a facLor ln deLermlnlng Lhe lmposable penalLy ln admlnlsLraLlve cases ls a double-
edged sword. ln facL, respondenL's long years of governmenL servlce should be seen as a facLor whlch
aggravaLed Lhe wrong LhaL he commlLLed. Pavlng been ln Lhe governmenL servlce for so long, he, more
Lhan anyone else, should have known LhaL publlc servlce ls a publlc LrusL, LhaL publlc servlce requlres
uLmosL lnLegrlLy and sLrlcLesL dlsclpllne, and, as such, a publlc servanL musL exhlblL aL all Llmes Lhe hlghesL
sense of honesLy and lnLegrlLy.

/0*102'0,&)3 &1-04,* 45#) 641&' 72240,-05# 899010&'*

Mendez v. C|v|| Serv|ce Comm|ss|on (1991)

lacLs:
o eLlLloner, lrollan Mendez, was a legal research asslsLanL ln Lhe Cuezon ClLy Cfflce of Lhe ClLy ALLorney.
o AcLlng 8eglsLer of ueeds of Cuezon ClLy, vlcenLe n. Coloyan, flled an admlnlsLraLlve complalnL agalnsL
peLlLloner for gross mlsconducL and dlshonesLy. Pe alleged LhaL peLlLloner Lore off a porLlon of 1C1 no. 209287
from Lhe reglsLry book of Cuezon ClLy and pockeLed lL.
o AfLer Lhree monLhs of lnvesLlgaLlon, Lhen Cuezon ClLy Mayor Adellna 8odrlguez dlsmlssed Lhe sald
complalnL agalnsL Lhe peLlLloner for lnsufflclency of evldence.
o Coloyan appealed Lo Lhe MS8
o MS8 reversed and found peLlLloner gullLy as charged and dlsmlssed hlm from servlce.
o CSC afflrmed.
o 1he peLlLloner flled a moLlon for reconslderaLlon on Lhe followlng grounds:
o Coloyan ls noL an aggrleved parLy or "parLy adversely affecLed by Lhe declslon" allowed by law Lo flle an
appeal.
o Pls exoneraLlon by Lhe clLy mayor ls unappealable pursuanL Lo SecLlon 37, paragraph [b] of . u. 807
(hlllpplne Clvll Servlce Law).
o CSC denled sald moLlon for reconslderaLlon, rullng LhaL Lhere ls noLhlng ln Lhe sald law whlch precludes an
A81 lll

162

appeal from Lhe declslon of Lhe dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLles Lo deLermlne, among oLhers, wheLher Lhe declslon
rendered ls supporLed by Lhe facLs on record and Lhe law.

lssues:
WCn peLlLloner's exoneraLlon by Lhe clLy mayor ls appealable
Sub-lssue:
Who may brlng Lhe appeal?

Peld:
nC. Lhe rlghL Lo appeal ls merely a sLaLuLory prlvllege and may be exerclsed only ln Lhe manner and ln accordance
wlLh Lhe provlslon of law. [vlcLorlas Mllllng Co., lnc. vs. Cfflce of Lhe resldenLlal AsslsLanL for Legal Affalrs]. . u.
807 does noL conLemplaLe a revlew of declslons exoneraLlng offlcers or employees from admlnlsLraLlve charges.
SecLlon 37 paragraph [a] Lhereof provldes LhaL Lhe Commlsslon shall declde upon appeal all admlnlsLraLlve
dlsclpllnary cases lnvolvlng Lhe lmposlLlon of a penalLy of suspenslon for more Lhan LhlrLy days, or flne ln an
amounL exceedlng LhlrLy days' salary, demoLlon ln rank or salary or Lransfer, removal or dlsmlssal from offlce...."
Sald provlslon musL be read LogeLher wlLh SecLlon 39 paragraph [a] of . u 803 whlch conLemplaLes: Appeals,
where allowable, shall be made by Lhe parLy adversely affecLed by Lhe declslon."

1hus, Lhe rlghL Lo appeal ls quallfled, such LhaL lL musL be flled by Lhe parLy adversely affecLed by Lhe declslon. 1he
phrase "parLy adversely affecLed by Lhe declslon" refers Lo Lhe governmenL employee agalnsL whom Lhe
admlnlsLraLlve case ls flled for Lhe purpose of dlsclpllnary acLlon whlch may Lake Lhe form of suspenslon, demoLlon
ln rank or salary, Lransfer, removal or dlsmlssal from offlce. ln Lhe lnsLanL case, Coloyan who flled Lhe appeal
cannoL be consldered an aggrleved parLy because he ls noL Lhe respondenL ln Lhe admlnlsLraLlve case below.

llnally, pursuanL Lo SecLlon 37 paragraph [b] of . u. 807, Lhe clLy mayor, as head of Lhe clLy governmenL, ls
empowered Lo enforce [udgmenL wlLh flnallLy on lesser penalLles llke suspenslon from work for one monLh and
forfelLure of salary equlvalenL Lo one monLh agalnsL errlng employees.

8y lnference or lmpllcaLlon, Lhe remedy of appeal may be avalled of only ln a case where Lhe respondenL ls found
gullLy of Lhe charges flled agalnsL hlm. 8uL when Lhe respondenL ls exoneraLed of sald charges, as ln Lhls case, Lhere
ls no occaslon for appeal.

Maca||ngag and Car|os v. Chang (1992)

locts.
ursuanL Lo an admlnlsLraLlve charge agalnsL hlm for dlshonesLy, neglecL of duLy, and acL pre[udlclal Lo Lhe
besL lnLeresL of Lhe servlce (for lllegal dlsbursemenLs and anomalous handllng of publlc funds), an Crder
of revenLlve suspenslon was lssued agalnsL 8oberLo Chang, Lhen Lhe acLlng munlclpal Lreasurer of
MakaLl.
Sald Crder was slgned by Lorlnda Carlos, Lhe LxecuLlve dlrecLor of Lhe 8ureau of Local CovernmenL, and
vlcLor Macallncag, undersecreLary of llnance, who was Lhen Lhe acLlng SecreLary.
Chang flled a complalnL for prohlblLlon wlLh prellmlnary ln[uncLlon wlLh Lhe lower courL.
1he Lrlal courL found ln LhaL ln order for prevenLlve suspenslon Lo Lake effecL, Lhere are Lwo sLeps
lnvolved:
1) servlce of Lhe copy Lhe order on Lhe respondenL, and
2) Jeslqootloo of bls teplocemeot.
1he order of prevenLlve suspenslon was held Lo have been lncompleLe and wlLhouL effecL slnce an acLlng
munlclpal Lreasurer had yeL Lo be appolnLed Lo replace Chang.

lssoe.
A81 lll

163

Won Lhe SecreLary of llnance has [urlsdlcLlon Lo lssue an Crder of revenLlve Suspenslon agalnsL Lhe acLlng
munlclpal Lreasurer of MakaLl, MeLro Manlla even lf an acLlng munlclpal Lreasurer had yeL Lo be appolnLed Lo
replace Chang. ?LS.

nlu.
revenLlve suspenslon ls governed by Sec. 41 of .u. 807 or Lhe Clvll Servlce Law, whlch does noL requlre a
replacemenL Lo be deslgnaLed for Lhe Crder Lo Lake effecL.
8 337 (Lhe LCC ln effecL aL Lhe Llme) provldes for Lhe auLomaLlc assumpLlon of Lhe asslsLanL munlclpal
Lreasurer or nexL ln rank offlcer ln case of suspenslon of Lhe munlclpal Lreasurer.
1here can be no quesLlon LhaL Lhe Crder of revenLlve Suspenslon became effecLlve upon respondenL
Chang's recelpL Lhereof.
Chang argues LhaL LC 392, whlch gave rlse Lo Lhe creaLlon of Lhe MeLropollLan Manlla AuLhorlLy, vesLed ln
Lhe resldenL of Lhe hlllpplnes Lhe power Lo appolnL Lhe munlclpal Lreasurer, and Lhus only Lhe resldenL
may suspend or remove hlm.
Powever, SecLlon 8 of LC 392 provldes LhaL Lhe appolnLmenLs made by Lhe resldenL of Lhe hlllpplnes
shall be sub[ecL Lo Lhe Clvll Servlce Law, rules and regulaLlons.
Moreover, Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Munlclpal 1reasurer unquesLlonably falls under Lhe ueparLmenL of llnance.
Pence, Lhe SecreLary of llnance ls Lhe proper dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLy Lo lssue Lhe prevenLlve suspenslon
order.
Lven assumlng LhaL Lhe power Lo appolnL lncludes Lhe power Lo dlsclpllne (as argued by Chang), AcLlng
SecreLary Macallngag, as SecreLary of llnance, ls Lhe alLer ego of Lhe resldenL.
lL ls Lherefore wlLhln hls auLhorlLy Lo prevenLlvely suspend Chang.

Garc|a v. a[aro and the C|ty of Dagupan (2002)

lacLs:
A!A8C was Lhen Lhe ClLy 1reasurer of uagupan whlle Carcla was Lhe Local 1reasury Cfflcer lll
Way back ln 1990, he was Senlor 8evenue CollecLor whose lmmedlaLe superlor was Lhe laLe Mr. vlray, Lhe
Chlef of Lhe Local 1axes, Lhen Lhe AsslsLanL ClLy 1reasurer, and Lhe ClLy 1reasurer hlmself.
eLlLloner has been raLlng unsaLlsfacLory ln hls performance for several semesLers whlch ls Lhe reason a
lormal Charge was flled agalnsL peLlLloner recelved by hlm on !une 1, 1990, 10:00 a.m. and, as a maLLer of
procedure, lf Lhe charge ls a ma[or offense, by clvll servlce laws, he was prevenLlvely suspended for nlneLy
(90) days, also duly recelved by Mr. Carcla on !une 4, 1990 aL 2:00 p.m.
1hen an lnvesLlgaLlon was scheduled and a subpoena was lssued Lo Mr. Carcla Lo appear and LesLlfy on
AugusL 13, 1990 duly recelved by hlm on AugusL 1, 1990, 8:33.
Agaln Mr. Carcla dld noL answer and refused Lo honor Lhe subpoena Lo submlL hlmself for lnvesLlgaLlon.
So a[aro proceeded wlLh ex-parLe lnvesLlgaLlon and gaLhered and submlLLed LesLlmonles Lo supporL Lhe
allegaLlons ln Lhe lormal Charge Lhen submlLLed Lhe resulL of Lhelr flndlngs Lo Lhe ueparLmenL of llnance
for declslon.
A ueclslon was promulgaLed by Lhe ueparLmenL of llnance on AugusL 1, 1991. 1he maLLer of prevenLlve
suspenslon of Mr. Carcla was submlLLed Lo Lhe 8eglonal ulrecLor, 8ureau of Local CovernmenL llnance
whlch was 'favorably approved' by Lhe 8eglonal ulrecLor.
1hls case sLemmed from Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe peLlLloner for Lhe poslLlon of supervlslng revenue collecLor
and he was duly appolnLed. 1he same appolnLmenL was opposed by Mrs. Lvangellne LsLrada and by a
resoluLlon of Lhe Clvll Servlce Commlsslon, Lhe appolnLmenL of Mrs. Lvangellne LsLrada was duly
conflrmed. Mrs. LsLrada was recommended flrsL and she was lssued an appolnLmenL by Lhe ClLy Mayor
and was submlLLed Lo Lhe CSC. lL was conLesLed by Mr. Carcla. 1he flrsL rullng of Lhe CSC was adverse Lo
Mrs. LsLrada and she requesLed for reconslderaLlon. ln Lhe meanLlme, Mr. Carcla was able Lo geL an
appolnLmenL from Lhe same ClLy Mayor buL lL was noL approved. 1he CSC reconsldered Lhe requesL of
Mrs. LsLrada favorably as shown by 8esoluLlon 91-339 daLed March 14, 1991. 1haL poslLlon was affecLed
by Lhe reorganlzaLlon and lL was changed Lo Local 1reasury CperaLlons Cfflcer lll now occupled by Mrs.
LsLrada.
A81 lll

164

uesplLe Lhe facL LhaL a[aro was always upheld by Lhe CSC and Lhe ueparLmenL of llnance, Lhls case
based on unfounded allegaLlons was flled agalnsL hlm and he was Lhe one belng harassed by Lhe
peLlLloner.
81C: ln favor of a[aro
CA: afflrmed 81C
o a[aro was vesLed wlLh legal power and auLhorlLy Lo lnsLlLuLe dlsclpllnary acLlon agalnsL
subordlnaLe offlcers and employees
o 8equlslLes of admlnlsLraLlve due process had been fully observed by a[aro whlle lnvesLlgaLlng
peLlLloner. 8uL desplLe belng lnformed of Lhe charges agalnsL hlm and belng glven Lhe
opporLunlLy Lo be heard ln a formal lnvesLlgaLlon, peLlLloner chose noL Lo answer Lhose charges

lssues:
1. WheLher Lhe clLy Lreasurer of uagupan can dlsclpllne peLlLloner
2. WheLher peLlLloner's rlghL Lo due process was vlolaLed

Peld:
1. ?LS. 1he AdmlnlsLraLlve Code of 1987 ls Lhe prlmary law governlng appolnLlve offlclals and employees ln
Lhe governmenL. 1hls Code enumeraLes Lhe grounds for dlsclpllnlng Lhem. 1hey may be removed or
dlsmlssed summarlly (1) when Lhe charge ls serlous and Lhe evldence of gullL ls sLrong, (2) when Lhe
respondenL ls a recldlvlsL x x x, and (3) when Lhe respondenL ls noLorlously undeslrable." 1echnlcal rules of
procedure and evldence are noL sLrlcLly applled, due process ln Lhe admlnlsLraLlve conLexL cannoL be fully
equaLed wlLh LhaL ln Lhe sLrlcL [udlclal sense.

1he power Lo dlsclpllne ls speclflcally granLed by SecLlon 47 of Lhe AdmlnlsLraLlve Code of 1987 Lo heads
of deparLmenLs, agencles and lnsLrumenLallLles, provlnces and clLles. Cn Lhe oLher hand, Lhe power Lo
commence admlnlsLraLlve proceedlngs agalnsL a subordlnaLe offlcer or employee ls granLed by SecLlon 34
of Lhe Cmnlbus 8ules lmplemenLlng 8ook v of Lhe sald AdmlnlsLraLlve Code Lo Lhe secreLary of a
deparLmenL, Lhe head of offlce of equlvalenL rank, Lhe head of a local governmenL unlL, Lhe chlef of an
agency, Lhe reglonal dlrecLor or a person wlLh a sworn wrlLLen complalnL.

lurLher, Lhe clLy Lreasurer may lnsLlLuLe, moto ptoplo, dlsclpllnary proceedlngs agalnsL a subordlnaLe
offlcer or employee. Local AdmlnlsLraLlve 8egulaLlons (LA8) no. 2-83, whlch was lssued by Lhe MlnlsLry of
llnance on March 27, 1983, auLhorlzed Lhe mlnlsLer (now secreLary) of flnance, Lhe reglonal dlrecLor, and
head of a local Lreasury or an assessmenL offlce Lo sLarL admlnlsLraLlve dlsclpllnary acLlon agalnsL offlcers
or employees subordlnaLe Lo Lhem.

ln Lhe case aL bar, Lhe clLy Lreasurer ls Lhe proper dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLy referred Lo ln SecLlon 47 of Lhe
AdmlnlsLraLlve Code of 1987. 1he Lerm agency" refers Lo any of Lhe varlous unlLs of Lhe governmenL
lncludlng a deparLmenL, a bureau, an offlce, an lnsLrumenLallLy, a governmenL-owned or conLrolled
corporaLlon, or a locol qovetomeot ot o Jlstloct oolt Lhereln. a[aro, as Lhe clLy Lreasurer, was Lhe head of
Lhe Cfflce of Lhe 1reasurer, whlle peLlLloner, a senlor revenue collecLor, was an offlcer under hlm. 1hus,
Lhe clLy Lreasurer ls Lhe proper dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLy who could lnvesLlgaLe peLlLloner and lssue a
prevenLlve suspenslon order agalnsL hlm.

eLlLloner's conLenLlon LhaL lL ls only Lhe clLy mayor who may dlsclpllne hlm ls noL persuaslve. SecLlon 433
(b-1-x)

of Lhe 1991 Local CovernmenL Code sLaLes LhaL Lhe clLy mayor may cause Lo be lnsLlLuLed
admlnlsLraLlve or [udlclal proceedlngs agalnsL any offlclal or employee of Lhe clLy." 1hls rule ls noL
lncongruenL wlLh Lhe provlslons of Lhe 1987 AdmlnlsLraLlve Code, whlch auLhorlzes Lhe heads of agencles
Lo dlsclpllne subordlnaLe employees. Llkewlse, Lhe old Local CovernmenL Code does noL vesL ln clLy
mayors Lhe sole power Lo dlsclpllne and Lo lnsLlLuLe crlmlnal or admlnlsLraLlve acLlons agalnsL any offlcers
or employees under Lhelr [urlsdlcLlon. ln facL, Lhere ls no provlslon under Lhe presenL Local CovernmenL
Code expressly resclndlng Lhe auLhorlLy of Lhe ueparLmenL of llnance Lo exerclse dlsclpllnary auLhorlLy
A81 lll

163

over lLs employees. 8y Lhe same Loken, Lhere ls noLhlng LhaL prohlblLs Lhe clLy Lreasurer from flllng a
complalnL agalnsL peLlLloner

As a corollary, Lhe power Lo dlsclpllne evldenLly lncludes Lhe power Lo lnvesLlgaLe. As held ln noqoJ v.
Cozo-uoJole, Lhe raLlonale for prevenLlve suspenslon ls LhaL Lhls ls noL a penalLy buL [usL a prellmlnary
sLep ln admlnlsLraLlve lnvesLlgaLlon, hence, lL can be decreed on an offlclal under lnvesLlgaLlon afLer
charges are broughL and even before Lhe charges are heard. naLurally, such would occur prlor Lo any
flndlng of gullL or lnnocence. 1here ls, Lherefore, noLhlng lmproper ln suspendlng an offlcer pendlng hls
lnvesLlgaLlon and before Lhe charges agalnsL hlm are heard and be glven opporLunlLy Lo prove hls
lnnocence.

ln Lhe presenL case, a[aro was auLhorlzed Lo lssue Lhe assalled revenLlve Suspenslon Crder agalnsL
peLlLloner, because Lhe laLLer was charged wlLh gross neglecL of duLy, refusal Lo perform offlclal duLles
and funcLlons, and lnsubordlnaLlon -- grounds LhaL allowed Lhe lssuance of such Crder, as provlded by
SecLlon 31 of Lhe 1987 AdmlnlsLraLlve Code. Clearly, Lhe clLy Lreasurer acLed wlLhln Lhe scope of hls power
when he commenced Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon and lssued Lhe assalled Crder.

2. nC. ln an admlnlsLraLlve proceedlng, Lhe essence of due process ls slmply Lhe opporLunlLy Lo explaln one's
slde. Such process requlres noLlce and an opporLunlLy Lo be heard before [udgmenL ls rendered. Cne may
be heard, noL solely by verbal presenLaLlon ln an oral argumenL, buL also -- and perhaps even many Llmes
more credlLably and pracLlcably -- Lhrough pleadlngs. So long as Lhe parLles are glven Lhe opporLunlLy Lo
explaln Lhelr slde, Lhe requlremenLs of due process are saLlsfacLorlly complled wlLh. Moreover, Lhls
consLlLuLlonal mandaLe ls deemed saLlsfled lf a person ls granLed an opporLunlLy Lo seek reconslderaLlon
of an acLlon or a rullng.

ln Lhe case aL bar, Lhe admlnlsLraLlve proceedlngs were conducLed ln accordance wlLh Lhe procedure seL
ouL ln Lhe 1987 AdmlnlsLraLlve Code and oLher perLlnenL laws.
1) eLlLloner was furnlshed a copy of Lhe May 30, 1990 formal charge agalnsL hlm.
2) a[aro requesLed Lhe approval of Lhe Crder of revenLlve Suspenslon ln hls !une 1, 1990
leLLer addressed Lo Lhe 8ureau of Local CovernmenL llnance reglonal dlrecLor, who approved Lhe
Crder ln Lhe llrsL lndorsemenL daLed !une 4, 1990.
J) A subpoena daLed !uly 31, 1990 was lssued Lo peLlLloner orderlng hlm Lo LesLlfy durlng an
lnvesLlgaLlon on AugusL 13, 1990. Powever, he admlLLedly refused Lo aLLend Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon,
Lhus, lL was conducLed ex potte.
4) 1he ueparLmenL of llnance afflrmed a[aro's flndlngs ln lLs AugusL 1, 1991 ueclslon.

arLles who choose noL Lo avall Lhemselves of Lhe opporLunlLy Lo answer charges agalnsL Lhem cannoL
complaln of a denlal of due process. eLlLloner's refusal Lo aLLend Lhe scheduled hearlngs, desplLe due
noLlce, was aL hls own perll. Pe Lherefore cannoL valldly clalm LhaL hls rlghL Lo due process was vlolaLed.

As Lo peLlLloner's clalm for damages, Lhe exLanL rule ls LhaL a publlc offlcer shall noL be llable by way of
moral and exemplary damages for acLs done ln Lhe performance of offlclal duLles, unless Lhere ls a clear
showlng of bad falLh, mallce or gross negllgence. 1here was no such showlng ln Lhe presenL case.

kLCALL

k|vera vs. Come|ec (2007)

A81 lll

166

Lvardone v. CCMLLLC
lacLs: lellpe Lvardone Lhe mayor of SulaL, LasLern Samar, havlng been elecLed Lo Lhe poslLlon durlng Lhe 1988
local elecLlons. Pe assumed offlce lmmedlaLely afLer proclamaLlon. ln 1990, Alexander 8. Apelado, vlcLozlno L.
Aclan and noel A. nlval flled a peLlLlon for Lhe recall of Lvardone wlLh Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Local LlecLlon 8eglsLrar,
MunlclpallLy of SulaL. 1he Comelec lssued a 8esoluLlon approvlng Lhe Lhe recommendaLlon of LlecLlon 8eglsLrar
vedasLo Sumbllla Lo hold Lhe slgnlng of peLlLlon for recall agalnsL Lvardone. Lvardone flled a peLlLlon for
prohlblLlon wlLh urgenL prayer of resLralnlng order and/or wrlL of prellmlnary ln[uncLlon. LaLer, ln an en banc
resoluLlon, Lhe Comelec nulllfled Lhe slgnlng process for belng vlolaLlve of Lhe 18C of Lhe courL. Pence, Lhls presenL
peLlLlon.

lssue 1: WCn 8esoluLlon no. 2272 promulgaLed by Lhe CCMLLLC by vlrLue of lLs powers under Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon and 8 337 (Local CovernmenL Code) was valld

Peld: ?es

8aLlo: Lvardone malnLalns LhaL ArLlcle x, SecLlon 3 of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon repealed 8aLas ambansa 8lg. 337 ln
favor of one Lo be enacLed by Congress. Slnce Lhere was, durlng Lhe perlod maLerlal Lo Lhls case, no local
governmenL code enacLed by CongressafLe r Lhe effecLlvlLy of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon nor any law for LhaL maLLer on
Lhe sub[ecL of recall of elecLed governmenL offlclals, Lvardone conLends LhaL Lhere ls no basls for CCMLLLC
8esoluLlon no. 2272 and LhaL Lhe recall proceedlngs ln Lhe case aL bar ls premaLure.

1he CCMLLLC avers LhaL Lhe consLlLuLlonal provlslon does noL refer only Lo a local governmenL code whlch ls ln
fuLurum buL also lne sse. lL merely seLs forLh Lhe guldellnes whlch Congress wlll conslder ln amendlng Lhe
provlslons of Lhe presenL LCC. endlng Lhe enacLmenL of Lhe amendaLory law, Lhe exlsLlng Local CovernmenL Code
remalns operaLlve.

ArLlcle xvlll, SecLlon 3 of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon express provldes LhaL all exlsLlng laws noL lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhe
1987 ConsLlLuLlon shall remaln operaLlve, unLll amended, repealed or revoked. 8epubllc AcL no. 7160 provldlng for
Lhe Local CovernmenL Code of 1991, approved by Lhe resldenL on 10 CcLober 1991, speclflcally repeals 8.. 8lg.
337 as provlded ln Sec. 334, 1lLle lour of sald AcL. 8uL Lhe Local CovernmenL Code of 1991 wlll Lake effecL only on
1 !anuary 1992 and Lherefore Lhe old Local CovernmenL Code (8.. 8lg. 337) ls sLlll Lhe law appllcable Lo Lhe
presenL case. rlor Lo Lhe enacLmenL of Lhe new Local CovernmenL Code, Lhe effecLlveness of 8.. 8lg. 337 was
expressly recognlzed ln Lhe proceedlngs of Lhe 1986 ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon. We Lherefore rule LhaL 8esoluLlon
no. 2272 promulgaLed by Lhe CCMLLLC ls valld and consLlLuLlonal. ConsequenLly, Lhe Lhe CCMLLLC had Lhe
auLhorlLy Lo approve Lhe peLlLlon for recall and seL Lhe daLe for Lhe slgnlng of sald peLlLlon.

lssue 2: WCn Lhe 18C lssued by Lhls CourL rendered nugaLory Lhe slgnlng process of Lhe peLlLlon for recall held
pursuanL Lo 8esoluLlon no. 2272.

Peld: no

8aLlo: ln Lhe presenL case, Lhe records show LhaL Lvardone knew of Lhe noLlce of 8ecall flled by Apelado, on or
abouL 21 lebruary 1990 as evldenced by Lhe 8eglsLry 8eLurn 8ecelpL, yeL, he was noL vlgllanL ln followlng up and
deLermlnlng Lhe ouLcome of such noLlce. Lvardone alleges LhaL lL was only on or abouL 3 !uly 1990 LhaL he came Lo
know abouL Lhe 8esoluLlon of Lhe CCMLLLC seLLlng Lhe slgnlng of Lhe peLlLlon for recall on 14 !uly 1990. 8uL
desplLe hls urgenL prayer for Lhe lssuance of a 18C, Lvardone flled Lhe peLlLlon for prohlblLlon only on 10 !uly 1990.
lndeed, Lhls CourL lssued a 18C on 12 !uly 1990 buL Lhe slgnlng of Lhe peLlLlon for recall Look place [usL Lhe same
on Lhe scheduled daLe Lhrough no faulL of Lhe CCMLLLC and Apelado. 1he slgnlng process was underLaken by Lhe
consLlLuenLs of Lhe MunlclpallLy of SulaL and lLs LlecLlon 8eglsLrar ln good falLh and wlLhouL knowledge of Lhe 18C
earller lssued by Lhls CourL. As aLLesLed by LlecLlon 8eglsLrar Sumbllla, abouL 2,030 of Lhe 6,090 reglsLered voLers
of SulaL, LasLern Samar or abouL 34 slgned Lhe peLlLlon for recall. As held ln arades vs. LxecuLlve SecreLary Lhere
A81 lll

167

ls no Lurnlng back Lhe clock. 1he rlghL Lo recall ls complemenLary Lo Lhe rlghL Lo elecL or appolnL. lL ls lncluded ln
Lhe rlghL of suffrage. lL ls based on Lhe Lheory LhaL Lhe elecLoraLe musL malnLaln a dlrecL and elasLlc conLrol over
publlc funcLlonarles. lL ls also predlcaLed upon Lhe ldea LhaL a publlc offlce ls "burdened" wlLh publlc lnLeresLs and
LhaL Lhe represenLaLlves of Lhe people holdlng publlc offlces are slmply agenLs or servanLs of Lhe people wlLh
deflnlLe powers and speclflc duLles Lo perform and Lo follow lf Lhey wlsh Lo remaln ln Lhelr respecLlve offlces.
WheLher or noL Lhe elecLoraLe of SulaL has losL confldence ln Lhe lncumbenL mayor ls a pollLlcal quesLlon. lL
belongs Lo Lhe realm of pollLlcs where only Lhe people are Lhe [udge. "Loss of confldence ls Lhe formal wlLhdrawal
by an elecLoraLe of Lhelr LrusL ln a person's ablllLy Lo dlscharge hls offlce prevlously besLowed on hlm by Lhe same
elecLoraLe. 1he consLlLuenLs have made a [udgmenL and Lhelr wlll Lo recall Lvardone has already been ascerLalned
and musL be afforded Lhe hlghesL respecL. 1hus, Lhe slgnlng process held lasL 14 !uly 1990 for Lhe recall of Mayor
lellpe . Lvardone of sald munlclpallLy ls valld and has legal effecL.

Powever, recall aL Lhls Llme ls no longer posslble because of Lhe llmlLaLlon provlded ln Sec. 33 (2) of 8.. 8lg, 337.
1he ConsLlLuLlon has mandaLed a synchronlzed naLlonal and local elecLlon prlor Lo 30 !une 1992, or more
speclflcally, as provlded for ln ArLlcle xvlll, Sec. 3 on Lhe second Monday of May, 1992. 1hus, Lo hold an elecLlon on
recall approxlmaLely seven (7) monLhs before Lhe regular local elecLlon wlll be vlolaLlve of Lhe above provlslons of
Lhe appllcable Local CovernmenL Code.

Garc|a v. CCMLLLC (1993)

lAC1S:
eLlLloners broughL sulL for cerLlorarl and prohlblLlon wlLh wrlL of prellmlnary ln[uncLlon Lo annul Lhe resoluLlon of
Lhe reparaLory 8ecall Assembly of 8aLaan lnlLlaLlng recall proceedlngs agalnsL
Lhelr governor, Lnrlque 1. Carcla. 1he flrsL Llme Lhe local governmenL offlclals consLlLuLed Lhemselves lnLo a 8A,
Lhey lssued 8esoluLlon no. 1 as formal lnlLlaLlon of Lhe recall proceedlngs. 1hls was opposed by Carcla before Lhe
Commlsslon on LlecLlons, whlch was denled, aL whlch polnL he flled Lhe peLlLlon for cerLlorarl. 1haL flrsL peLlLlon
was granLed by Lhe Supreme CourL, holdlng LhaL Lhe fallure of Lhe members of Lhe 8A Lo noLlfy all Lhe members
of Lhe Assembly was faLal Lo Lhe valldlLy of Lhe resoluLlon. ln vlew of Lhe declslon, Lhe offlclals of 8aLaan agaln
convened lnLo a 8A, duly senL lLs noLlces, and once agaln lssued a resoluLlon lnlLlaLlng recall proceedlngs. 1haL
became Lhe sub[ecL of Lhe lnsLanL supplemenLal peLlLlon, assalllng Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of SecLlon 70 of 8A 7160
for belng vlolaLlve of Lhe excluslve rlghL of Lhe people Lo lnlLlaLe recall proceedlngs, and furLher for conLravenLlon
of Lhe equal proLecLlon clause.

lSSuLS:
1. WCn Lhe people have Lhe sole and excluslve rlghL Lo lnlLlaLe recall proceedlngs
2. WCn Lhe procedure for recall ln 8A 7160 vlolaLes Lhe equal proLecLlon clause for belng pre[udlced agalnsL
offlclals belonglng Lo Lhe mlnorlLy

PLLu:
1. nC. 1he hlsLory of SecLlon 70 reveals a consclous efforL on Lhe parL of our lawmakers Lo lnsLlLuLe an
alLernaLlve mode of lnlLlaLlng recall aparL from Lhe old means of commencemenL of Lhe process solely by Lhe
people. 1he lawmakers had observed LhaL Lhe mode was almosL lmposslble Lo lmplemenL and had been poorly
used, Lhus preclplLaLlng Lhe enacLmenL of SecLlon 3 ArLlcle x, whlch soughL Lo provlde for a more responslble and
accounLable sysLem of decenLrallzaLlon wlLh effecLlve means of recall. 1here ls noLhlng ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon LhaL
suggesLs LhaL Lhe power Lo lnlLlaLe recall proceedlngs ls Lhe sole and excluslve prerogaLlve of Lhe people. Congress
was glven Lhe power Lo choose Lhe mechanlsm of recall- wlLhouL llmlL as Lo Lhe number of modes and wlLh Lhe
requlslLe only LhaL Lhe same be effecLlve-and lL has ln lLs wlsdom provlded for one LhaL can be lnlLlaLed by elLher
a
preparaLory recall assembly or Lhe people Lhemselves. lndeed, Lhere ls no greaL dlfference beLween Lhe Lwo, as
recall proceedlngs lnlLlaLed by Lhe recall assembly ls also lnlLlaLlon by Lhe people, albelL done lndlrecLly Lhrough
A81 lll

168

Lhelr represenLaLlves.

2. nC. eLlLloners conLend LhaL SecLlon 70 vlolaLes Lhe equal proLecLlon clause for belng pre[udlclal Lo Lhe
mlnorlLy, slnce Lhe ma[orlLy can always consLlLuLe lLself lnLo a 8A and render lneffecLual Lhe popular mandaLe of
an elecLlve offlclal by lnlLlaLlng recall proceedlngs. 1hese are fears LhaL do noL provlde sufflclenL ground Lo declare
a law unconsLlLuLlonal. All powers are suscepLlble of abuse, Lhe mere posslblllLy however does noL mean LhaL Lhe
granL of power ls lnflrm. Cn Lhe conLrary, Lhere are sufflclenL safeguards ln Lhe law LhaL o guaranLee agalnsL Lhe
senseless abuse of Lhls power by members of Lhe ma[orlLy. llrsL, Lhe 8A's composlLlon ls pollLlcally neuLral,
composed of all mayors, vlce-mayors and sanggunlan members wlLhouL regard Lo Lhelr pollLlcal parLy. Second, Lhe
only ground for recall ls loss of confldence of Lhe people, Lhe 8A Lherefore acLs for Lhe people and noL for Lhelr
respecLlve members' parLles when Lhey declde on wheLher or noL Lo lnlLlaLe recall proceedlngs. 1he requlremenL
of noLlce ls anoLher safeguard, and furLher a quallfled ma[orlLy ls requlred by Lhe law Lo convene Lhe 8A ln sesslon
whlch musL be held ln a publlc place. LasL, Lhe recall resoluLlon musL be adopLed durlng a sesslon lL calls for Lhe
purpose.

lL ls plaln LhaL Lhe fear of peLlLloners ls premlsed on Lhe erroneous assumpLlon LhaL Lhe lnlLlaLlon of recall
proceedlngs ls equlvalenL Lo Lhe recall lLself. 1hls ls noL so. 1he resoluLlon of recall ls a mere proposal Lo sub[ecL Lhe
offlclal Lo a new LesL of hls mandaLe from Lhe elecLoraLe, whlch can always choose Lo elLher afflrm or wlLhdraw lL.

aras v. CCMLLLC (1997)

lAC1S:
eLlLloner uanllo L. aras, who was Lhen lncumbenL unong 8arangay of ula, CabanaLuan ClLy, won durlng Lhe
regular barangay elecLlon ln 1994. AL leasL 29.30 of Lhe reglsLered voLers slgned a peLlLlon for 8ecall, whlch was
orlglnally seL on 13 november 1993. 8ecause of aras' CpposlLlon, CCMLLLC deferred and reseL Lhe elecLlon Lo 16
november 1993. undaunLed, eLlLloner soughL Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL's lnLervenLlon by flllng a peLlLlon for
ln[uncLlon. 1he 81C lnlLlally lssued a Lemporary resLralnlng order. 1he 81C, however, subsequenLly dlsmlsed Lhe
peLlLlon and llfLed Lhe resLranlng order lL had lssued.

1he CCMLLLC Lhen re-scheduled Lhe elecLlon for a Lhlrd Llme Lo 13 !anuary 1996. 1he eLlLloner Lhen counLered by
flllng Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon for cerLlorarl wlLh urgenL prayer for ln[uncLlon. 1he Supreme CourL ordered Lhe Cfflce of
Lhe SollclLor Ceneral Lo commenL ln behalf of CCMLLLC. 1he CSC, however, manlfesLed an oplnlon adverse Lo
CCMLLLC. CCMLLLC Lhen flled lLs own commenL, Lo whlch aras replled.

ClLlng SecLlon 74 (b) of 8epubllc AcL no. 7160, oLherwlse known as Lhe Local CovernmenL Code, whlch sLaLes LhaL
no recall shall Lake place wlLhln one (1) year from Lhe daLe of Lhe offlclal's assumpLlon Lo offlce or one (1) year
lmmedlaLely precedlng a regular local elecLlon", aras lnslsLs LhaL Lhe scheduled !anuary 13, 1996 recall elecLlon ls
now barred as Lhe Sanggunlang kabaLaan (Sk) elecLlon was seL by 8epubllc AcL no. 7808 on Lhe flrsL Monday of
May 1996, and every Lhree years LhereafLer.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL, as aras would have lL, he cannoL be sub[ecL of recall scheduled mere days before Lhe Sk elecLlon,
pursuanL Lo SecLlon 74(b) of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code.

PLLu:
no.

lL ls a rule ln sLaLuLory consLrucLlon LhaL every parL of Lhe sLaLuLe musL be lnLerpreLed wlLh reference Lo Lhe
conLexL, l.e., LhaL every parL of Lhe sLaLuLe musL be consldered LogeLher wlLh Lhe oLher parLs, and kepL subservlenL
Lo Lhe general lnLenL of Lhe whole enacLmenL. 1he evldenL lnLenL of SecLlon 74 ls Lo sub[ecL an elecLlve local offlclal
Lo recall elecLlon once durlng hls Lerm of offlce. aragraph (b) consLrued LogeLher wlLh paragraph (a) merely
deslgnaLes Lhe perlod when such elecLlve local offlclal may be sub[ecL of a recall elecLlon, LhaL ls, durlng Lhe second
A81 lll

169

year of hls Lerm of offlce. 1hus, subscrlblng Lo peLlLloner's lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe phrase regular local elecLlon Lo
lnclude Lhe Sk elecLlon wlll unduly clrcumscrlbe Lhe novel provlslon of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code on recall, a
mode of removal of publlc offlcers by lnlLlaLlon of Lhe people before Lhe end of hls Lerm. And lf Lhe Sk elecLlon
whlch ls seL by 8.A. no. 7808 Lo be held every Lhree years from May 1996 were Lo be deemed wlLhln Lhe purvlew
of Lhe phrase regular local elecLlon," as erroneously lnslsLed by peLlLloner, Lhen no recall elecLlon can be
conducLed renderlng lnuLlle Lhe recall provlslon of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code.

ln Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon of a sLaLuLe, Lhe CourL should sLarL wlLh Lhe assumpLlon LhaL Lhe leglslaLure lnLended Lo enacL
an effecLlve law, and Lhe leglslaLure ls noL presumed Lo have done a valn Lhlng ln Lhe enacLmenL of a sLaLuLe. An
lnLerpreLaLlon should, lf posslble, be avolded under whlch a sLaLuLe or provlslon belng consLrued ls defeaLed, or as
oLherwlse expressed, nulllfled, desLroyed, emasculaLed, repealed, explalned away, or rendered lnslgnlflcanL,
meanlngless, lnoperaLlve or nugaLory. lL ls llkewlse a baslc precepL ln sLaLuLory consLrucLlon LhaL a sLaLuLe should
be lnLerpreLed ln harmony wlLh Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. 1hus, he lnLerpreLaLlon of SecLlon 74 of Lhe Local CovernmenL
Code, speclflcally paragraph (b) Lhereof, should noL be ln confllcL wlLh Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal mandaLe of SecLlon 3 of
ArLlcle x of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon Lo enacL a local governmenL code whlch shall provlde for a more responslve and
accounLable local governmenL sLrucLure lnsLlLuLed Lhrough a sysLem of decenLrallzaLlon wlLh effecLlve mechanlsms
of recall, lnlLlaLlve, and referendum x x x."

Ma|onzo v. CCMLLLC (1997)

lAC1S:
Malonzo was elecLed as Mayor of Caloocan ClLy ln Lhe elecLlons held on May 8, 1993. Powever, barely a year afLer
hls elecLlon, on !uly 7, 1996, 1,037 unong 8arangays, Sanggunlang 8arangay members and Sk chalrmen
consLlLuLlng a ma[orlLy of Lhe reparaLory 8ecall Assembly of Caloocan passed reparaLory 8ecall Assembly
8esoluLlon no. 01-96, expresslng loss of confldence ln Mayor Malonzo, and calllng for Lhe lnlLlaLlon of recall
proceedlngs agalnsL hlm.

1he sald resoluLlon, along wlLh oLher relevanL documenLs, was flled by Lhe 8A wlLh Lhe CCMLLLC. Malonzo flled a
peLlLlon wlLh CCMLLLC challenglng Lhe valldlLy of recall process. 1he CCMLLLC, however, re[ecLed Lhe peLlLlon. lL
Lhen declared Lhe recall proceedlngs Lo be ln order.

Malonzo Lhen flled a eLlLlon for cettlototl WlLh rayer lor 1emporary 8esLralnlng Crder and AppllcaLlon for WrlL
of rellmlnary ln[uncLlon", assalllng Lhe CCMLLLC's resoluLlon as havlng been lssued wlLh grave abuse of
dlscreLlon. Malonzo challenged Lhe recall proceedlngs, essenLlally clalmlng LhaL Lhe noLlces for Lhe meeLlng of Lhe
8A were noL properly served. Moreover, he argued LhaL lL was Lhe Llga ng mga 8arangay and noL Lhe 8A whlch
lnlLlaLed Lhe recall, conLrary Lo Lhe requlremenLs under Lhe Local CovernmenL Code. Pe also clalmed LhaL Lhe
proceedlng followed for adopLlng Lhe recall resoluLlon was defecLlve and Lherefore vold.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe recall proceedlng was valld.

PLLu:
?es. 1he recall process was valld. 1he noLlces were propery served Lo Lhe members of Lhe 8A. Moreover, lL was
Lhe 8A whlch lnlLlaLed Lhe recall and noL Lhe Llga ng mga 8arangay. 1he resoluLlon was properly adopLed ln a
meeLlng conducLed by Lhe 8A.

8A1lC
l. Servlce of Lhe noLlces
1he CCMLLLC adequaLely ruled on Lhe lssue of Lhe servlce of noLlces Lo Lhe members of Lhe 8A. ln
response Lo peLlLloner's requesL for a Lechnlcal examlnaLlon of Lhe recall documenLs, Lhe CCMLLLC
dlrecLed lLs LlecLlon 8ecords and SLaLlsLlcs ueparLmenL (L8Su) Lo resolve Lhe maLLer of noLlces senL Lo
A81 lll

170

Lhe reparaLory 8ecall Assembly members. 1he L8Su ln Lurn performed lLs Lask and reporLed lLs
flndlngs Lo Lhe CCMLLLC.

1he L8Su and Lhe CCMLLLC found LhaL Lhe noLlces were properly served.
AL Lhe Llme Lhe 8A was convened, Lhere were 1, 699 barangay offlclals. 1, 927 noLlces were senL.
Servlce was done Lhrough personal dellvery or by mall. MosL of Lhese were properly recelved whlle
Lhere were some who refused Lo accepL Lhe noLlce. 1hese were all duly noLed. 1he CCMLLLC found
no lrregularlLles ln Lhe servlce of Lhe noLlces.

Morever, LhaL Alex uavld, presldenL of Lhe Llga ng mga 8arangay, senL Lhe noLlces ls of no momenL.
As a member of Lhe 8A, he could valldly exerclse Lhe prerogaLlves aLLached Lo hls membershlp.

needless Lo sLaLe, Lhe lssue of proprleLy of Lhe noLlces senL Lo Lhe 8A members ls facLual ln naLure,
and Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhe same ls Lherefore a funcLlon of Lhe CCMLLLC. ln Lhe absence of paLenL
error, or serlous lnconslsLencles ln Lhe flndlngs, Lhe CourL should noL dlsLurb Lhe same. 1he facLual
flndlngs of Lhe CCMLLLC, based on lLs own assessmenLs and duly supporLed by gaLhered evldence,
are concluslve upon Lhe courL, more so, ln Lhe absence of a subsLanLlaLed aLLack on Lhe valldlLy of Lhe
same.

ll. valldlLy of Lhe recall proceedlngs
Malonzo's lnslsLence, LhaL Lhe lnlLlaLlon of Lhe recall proceedlngs was lnflrm slnce lL was convened by
Lhe Llga ng mga 8arangays, ls mlsplaced. 1he Llga ng mga 8arangay ls undoubLedly an enLlLy dlsLlncL
from Lhe reparaLory 8ecall Assembly. lL [usL so happens LhaL Lhe personallLles represenLlng Lhe
barangays ln Lhe Llga are Lhe very members of Lhe reparaLory 8ecall Assembly, Lhe ma[orlLy of
whom meL on !uly 7, 1996, and voLed ln favor of Lhe resoluLlon calllng for Lhe recall of Mayor
Malonzo, afLer dellberaLlon reporLed ln Lhe record, ln accordance wlLh Lhe exlsLlng law. 1hus, Lhe
unong 8arangays and Sanggunlang 8arangay members convened and voLed as members of Lhe
reparaLory 8ecall Assembly of Lhe ClLy of Caloocan, and noL as members of Lhe Llga ng mga
8arangay. 1he recall proceedlngs, Lherefore, cannoL be denled merlL on Lhls ground. 1he law on recall
dld noL prescrlbe an elaboraLe proceedlng. nelLher dld lL demand a speclflc procedure. WhaL ls
fundamenLal ls compllance wlLh Lhe provlslon LhaL Lhere should be a sesslon called for Lhe purpose of
lnlLlaLlng recall proceedlngs, aLLended by a ma[orlLy of all Lhe members of Lhe preparaLory recall
assembly, ln a publlc place and LhaL Lhe resoluLlon resulLlng from such assembly be adopLed by a
ma[orlLy of all Lhe 8A members

C|aud|o v. CCMLLLC [2000]

lAC1S
!ovlLo Claudlo was Lhe duly elecLed mayor of asay ClLy durlng Lhe 11 May 1998 elecLlons. Pe assumed
offlce on 1 !uly 1998.
Cn 19 May 1999, an ad hoc commlLLee was formed for Lhe purpose of convenlng a reparaLory 8ecall
Assembly (8A").
Cn 29 May 1999, ma[orlLy of Lhe members of Lhe 8A adopLed a 8esoluLlon Lo lnlLlaLe Lhe 8ecall of Mayor
!ovlLo Claudlo for Loss of Confldence.
Cn 2 !uly 1999, Lhe peLlLlon for recall was formally submlLLed Lo Lhe Cfflce of Lhe LlecLlon Cfflcer. Coples
of Lhe peLlLlon were posLed ln publlc places ln asay ClLy and Lhe auLhenLlclLy of Lhe slgnaLures Lhereln
was verlfled by Lhe elecLlon offlcer for asay ClLy.
1he peLlLlon was opposed on several grounds. rlnclpally, LhaL Lhe convenlng of Lhe 8A Look place wlLhln
Lhe one-year prohlblLed perlod under Sec. 74, LCC whlch provldes:
A81 lll

171

llmltotloos oo kecoll. - (o) Aoy electlve locol offlclol moy be tbe sobject of o tecoll electloo ooly
ooce Jotloq bls tetm of offlce fot loss of cooflJeoce.
(b) No tecoll sboll toke ploce wltblo ooe (1) yeot ftom tbe Jote of tbe offlclol's ossomptloo to
offlce ot ooe (1) yeot lmmeJlotely pteceJloq o teqolot locol electloo. xxxx
1he CCMLLLC granLed Lhe peLlLlon. lL ruled LhaL Lhe peLlLlon dld noL vlolaLe Lhe one-year ban because Lhe
peLlLlon was flled on 2 !uly 1999, one day afLer Claudlo's assumpLlon of offlce.

lSSuLS
1. Won Lhe word recall ln Sec. 74(b), LCC covers a process whlch lncludes Lhe convenlng of Lhe reparaLory 8ecall
Assembly and lLs approval of Lhe recall resoluLlon.
2. Won Lhe Lerm "regular local elecLlon" ln Lhe lasL clause of Sec. 74(b), LCC lncludes Lhe elecLlon perlod for LhaL
regular elecLlon or slmply Lhe daLe of such elecLlon.

PLLu/8A1lC
1. 1be wotJ tecoll lo 5ec. 74(b), lCc tefets to tbe to tbe electloo ltself by meoos of wblcb votets JeclJeJ wbetbet
tbey sboll tetolo tbelt locol offlclol ot elect bls teplocemeot.

8ecall ls a process whlch lnvolves Lhe followlng sLeps:
(1) Lhe convenlng of Lhe preparaLory assembly or gaLherlng of Lhe slgnaLures of aL leasL 23
reglsLered voLers ln Lhe LCu,
(2) Lhe flllng of Lhe recall resoluLlon or peLlLlon wlLh Lhe CCMLLLC,
(3) Lhe verlflcaLlon of Lhe resoluLlon or peLlLlon,
(4) flxlng of Lhe daLe of Lhe recall elecLlon, and
(3) holdlng of Lhe elecLlon.

1haL Lhe word recall" used ln Sec. 74(b), LCC, refers Lo Lhe recall elecLlon lLself ls due Lo Lhe followlng reasons:

(1) Sec. 69, LCC provldes LhaL Lhe power of recall shall be exerclsed by Lhe reglsLered voLers of Lhe
LCu Lo whlch Lhe local elecLlve offlclal belongs. lL ls clear LhaL Lhe power of recall referred Lo ln
Sec. 69 ls Lhe power Lo reLaln/replace offlclals and noL Lhe power Lo lnlLlaLe recall proceedlngs.
1hus, Lhe llmlLaLlons under Sec. 74 (LlmlLaLlons on 8ecall) apply only Lo Lhe recall elecLlons.

ln Cotclo v. cOMlc, the delegaLlon of Lhe power Lo lnlLlaLe recall proceedlngs from Lhe
elecLoraLe Lo Lhe 8As was quesLloned. 1he Supreme CourL held LhaL whaL Lhe ConsLlLuLlon gave
Lo Lhe people ls Lhe power Lo recall and noL Lhe power Lo lnlLlaLe Lhe recall proceedlngs. 1he
holdlng of Lhe 8A ls noL Lhe recall lLself.

(2) 1haL Lhe word recall refers Lo Lhe recall elecLlon ls conslsLenL wlLh Lhe purposes
3
of Lhe llmlLaLlons
on recall.

1he purpose of Lhe flrsL llmlLaLlon ls Lo provlde a reasonable basls for [udglng Lhe performance of
Lhe offlclal (Angobung v. CCMLLLC). 1hls [udgmenL ls noL glven durlng Lhe prellmlnary
proceedlngs (such as Lhe convenlng of Lhe 8A) buL Lhrough Lhe voLe durlng Lhe recall elecLlon
lLself.

(3) 1haL Lhe word recall refers Lo Lhe recall elecLlon ls Lo uphold Lhe consLlLuLlonal rlghLs of speech
and freedom of assembly of 8A members.

S
(1) that no iecall shall take place within one yeai fiom the uate of assumption of office of the official conceineu; anu (2) that no iecall
shall take place within one yeai immeuiately pieceuing a iegulai local election.
A81 lll

172

1o hold LhaL llmlLaLlon lncludes Lhe formaLlon of oplnlon Lhrough publlc dlscusslons on Lhe
maLLer of recall of an offlclal ls Lo curLall Lhese consLlLuLlonal rlghLs.

2. 1be tetm teqolot electloos Joes oot locloJe tbe electloo petloJ.
1o consLrue Lhe word regular elecLlons" as lncludlng Lhe elecLlon perlod would emasculaLe Lhe rlghL of Lhe
people Lo exerclse Lhe power of recall.

ln lotos v. cOMlc, Lhe Supreme CourL held LhaL Lhe llmlLaLlons on Sec. 74 (a) and Sec. 74 (b) would mean
LhaL a local elecLlve offlclal may be sub[ecL only Lo recall durlng Lhe second year of hls/her Lerm (ln Lhls case,
from 1 !uly 1999 Lo mld-May 2000)

lf Lhe regular elecLlons" menLloned ln Sec. 74(b) would lnclude Lhe elecLlon perlod, whlch commences 90 days
from Lhe daLe of Lhe elecLlon and exLends Lo 30 days LhereafLer, Lhe perlod durlng whlch Lhe power of recall
may be exerclsed wlll be reduced even more. (ln Lhls case, from 1 !uly 1999 Lo mld-lebruary 2000)

PLLu/8A1lC
eLlLlon ulSMlSSLu.

nUMAN kLSCUkCLS AND DLVLLCMLN1
1.ract|ce of rofess|on by Mayors, Governors and other e|ect|ve off|c|a|s

Iave||ana v. DILG and Santos (1992)

lAC1S
ALLorney Lrwln !avellana was an elecLed member of Lhe ClLy Councll of 8ago, negros CrlenLal. ComplalnanL
ulvlnagracla flled an admlnlsLraLlve case agalnsL hlm for vlolaLlon of ulLC Memorandum Clrculars LhaL requlred
elecLed offlclals seeklng Lo conLlnue Lhe pracLlce of law Lo flrsL secure auLhorlLy from Lhe ulLC 8eglonal ulrecLor ln
hls reglon. !avellana was alleged Lo have engaged ln Lhe pracLlce of law durlng hls elecLed Lerm wlLhouL securlng
Lhe requlred auLhorlzaLlon and was also alleged Lo have represenLed lnLeresLs adverse Lo Lhe clLy when he
represenLed a prlvaLe parLy ln a complalnL agalnsL Lhe clLy englneer.

!avellana, on Lhe oLher hand, moved Lo dlsmlss Lhe complalnL conLendlng LhaL Lhe memorandum clrculars
prescrlblng auLhorlzaLlon Lo pracLlce law were unconsLlLuLlonal because Lhe Supreme CourL has Lhe sole and
excluslve auLhorlLy Lo regulaLe Lhe pracLlce of law. 1he ulLC denled !avellana's moLlon, and !avellana lnsLlLuLed
Lhls peLlLlon for cerLlorarl wlLh Lhe SC.

1he LCC was slgned lnLo law Lwo years afLer Lhe complalnL was flled.

lSSuLS
(1) WCn !avellana's engagemenL as counsel for employees seeklng Lo pursue clalms agalnsL Lhe clLy englneer
amounLed Lo Lhe pracLlce of law represenLlng lnLeresLs adverse Lo Lhe governmenL
?es. 1he complalnL for lllegal dlsmlssal flled by !avellana's cllenLs agalnsL Lhe ClLy Lnglneer was, ln effecL, a
complalnL agalnsL Lhe clLy governmenL whlch was Lhe real employer of !avellana's cllenLs. 1hus, ln represenLlng
sald cllenLs ln LhaL case, !avellana was represenLlng lnLeresLs adverse Lo Lhe governmenL of whlch he ls an elecLed
offlclal.
(2) WCn Lhe ulLC memorandum clrculars and Sec 90 of Lhe LCC prescrlblng rules for Lhe pracLlce of law by
elecLed offlclals were unconsLlLuLlonal.
no. 1hese dld noL Lrespass on Lhe SC's power and auLhorlLy Lo regulaLe Lhe pracLlce of law. 1hese only prescrlbed
toles of cooJoct fot pobllc offlclols to ovolJ coofllcts of lotetest betweeo tbe Jlscbotqe of tbelt pobllc Jotles ooJ
tbe ptlvote ptoctlce of tbelt ptofessloo.
A81 lll

173

nelLher dld Lhese rules dlscrlmlnaLe agalnsL lawyers as agalnsL oLher professlons slnce Lhey were applled Lo all
provlnclal and munlclpal offlclals. lf any resLrlcLlons were lmposed on offlclals engaged ln Lhe pracLlce of law, lL ls
because Lhe pracLlce of law ls more llkely Lhan oLhers Lo relaLe Lo, or affecL, Lhe area of publlc servlce. 1he
classlflcaLlon and dlfference ln LreaLmenL was Lherefore noL arblLrary, and Lhus consLlLuLlonal.

2. C|v|| Serv|ce Law, ku|es, kegu|at|ons

LCCAL 8CAkDS AND CCUNCILS
Csea v. Ma|aya (2002)
SecLlon 99 of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code of 1991 applles Lo appolnLmenLs made by Lhe ueparLmenL of LducaLlon,
CulLure and SporLs. 1hls ls because aL Lhe Llme of Lhe enacLmenL of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code, schools dlvlslon
superlnLendenLs were appolnLed by Lhe ueparLmenL of LducaLlon, CulLure and SporLs Lo speclflc dlvlslon or
locaLlon. ln 1994, Lhe Career LxecuLlve Servlce 8oard lssued Memorandum Clrcular no. 21, Serles of 1994, placlng
Lhe poslLlons of schools dlvlslon superlnLendenL and asslsLanL schools dlvlslon superlnLendenL wlLhln Lhe career
execuLlve servlce. ConsequenLly, Lhe power Lo appolnL persons Lo career execuLlve servlce poslLlons was
Lransferred from Lhe ueparLmenL of LducaLlon, CulLure and SporLs Lo Lhe resldenL.9 1he appolnLmenL may noL be
speclflc as Lo locaLlon. 1he prerogaLlve Lo deslgnaLe Lhe appolnLees Lo Lhelr parLlcular sLaLlons was vesLed ln Lhe
ueparLmenL of LducaLlon, CulLure and SporLs SecreLary, pursuanL Lo Lhe exlgencles of Lhe servlce, as provlded ln
ueparLmenL of LducaLlon, CulLure and SporLs Crder no. 73, Serles of 1996.

LCCAL 1AkA1ICN AND IISCAL MA11LkS

|mente| v. Agu|rre

lacLs:
Cn 27 uecember 1997, resldenL 8amos lssued AC 372 wlLh Lhe followlng conLenLlous provlslons:
5ectloo 1 - All governmenL deparLmenLs and agencles, lncludlng SuCs, CCCCs and LCus wlll ldenLlfy and
lmplemenL measures ln l? 1998 LhaL wlll reduce LoLal expendlLures for Lhe year by aL leasL 23 of
auLhorlzed regular approprlaLlons for non-personal servlces lLems,

5ectloo 2 - endlng Lhe assessmenL and evaluaLlon of Lhe uevelopmenL 8udgeL CoordlnaLlng CommlLLee
of Lhe emerglng flscal slLuaLlon, Lhe amounL equlvalenL Lo 10 of Lhe l8A Lo LCus shall be wlLhheld.
Cn 10 uecember 1998, resldenL LsLrada lssued AC 43, amendlng SecLlon 4 of AC 372 by reduclng Lo 3
Lhe amounL of l8A Lo be wlLhheld

letltlooets otqomeots.
ln lssulng AC 372, Lhe resldenL exerclsed Lhe power of conLrol over LCus when ln facL he only has Lhe
power of general supervlslon, pursuanL Lo Lhe prlnclple of local auLonomy.
1he dlrecLlve Lo wlLhhold 10 of Lhe l8A ls ln conLravenLlon of SecLlon 286 of LCC and SecLlon 6, ArLlcle x
of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, provldlng for Lhe auLomaLlc release Lo each LCu.

kespooJeots otqomeots.
AC 372 was lssued Lo allevlaLe Lhe economlc dlfflculLles broughL abouL by Lhe peso devaluaLlon and lL was
merely an exerclse of Lhe resldenL's power of supervlslon over LCus
lL does noL vlolaLe flscal auLonomy because lL merely dlrecLs Lhe LCus Lo ldenLlfy measures LhaL wlll
reduce Lhelr LoLal expendlLures.
1he wlLhholdlng of 10 of Lhe LCus' l8A does noL vlolaLe Lhe sLaLuLory prohlblLlon slnce lLs merely
Lemporary ln naLure pendlng Lhe assessmenL and evaluaLlon by Lhe u8CC of Lhe emerglng flscal slLuaLlon.
A81 lll

174

lssues:
1. WCn SecLlon 1 of AC 372 whlch dlrecLs" all LCus Lo reduce Lhelr expendlLures by 23 ls a valld exerclse
of Lhe resldenL's power of general supervlslon over LCus. ?LS
2. WCn SecLlon 4 of AC 372 whlch wlLhholds 10 of Lhe LCus' l8A ls a valld exerclse of Lhe resldenL's
power of general supervlslon over LCus. nC

8aLlo:
LCus have admlnlsLraLlve auLonomy ln Lhe exerclse of Lhelr funcLlons, as well as flscal auLonomy.
llscal auLonomy - LCus have Lhe power Lo creaLe Lhelr own sources of revenue ln addlLlon Lo Lhelr
equlLable share ln Lhe naLlonal Laxes released by Lhe naLlonal governmenL as well as Lhe power Lo allocaLe
Lhelr resources ln accordance wlLh Lhelr prlorlLles.

8equlslLes before Lhe resldenL may lnLerfere ln local flscal maLLers (LCC, SecLlon 284):
1. unmanaged publlc secLor deflclL of Lhe naLlonal governmenL
2. ConsulLaLlons wlLh Lhe presldlng offlcers of Lhe SenaLe and Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves and Lhe
presldenLs of Lhe varlous local leagues
3. Correspondlng recommendaLlon of Lhe secreLarles of uCl, ulLC and u8M
4. Any ad[usLmenL ln Lhe alloLmenL shall ln no case be less Lhan 30 of Lhe collecLlon of naLlonal lnLernal
revenue Laxes of Lhe Lhlrd flscal year precedlng Lhe currenL one

CourL:
8espondenLs falled Lo comply wlLh Lhese requlslLes before Lhe lssuance and lmplanLaLlon of AC 372.
Cn Lhe flrsL lssue, SecLlon 1 ls merely advlsory ln characLer and does noL consLlLuLe a mandaLory order
LhaL lnLerferes wlLh Lhe local auLonomy. lL ls merely an advlsory Lo prevall upon LCLs Lo recognlze Lhe
need for flscal resLralnL ln a perlod of economlc dlfflculLy.
Cn Lhe second lssue, baslc feaLure of local flscal auLonomy ls Lhe auLomaLlc release of Lhe shares of LCus
ln Lhe naLlonal lnLernal revenue(ConsLl, ArLlcle x, Sec. 6). LCC, SecLlon 286 speclfles LhaL Lhe release shall
be made dlrecLly Lo Lhe LCu concerned wlLhln 3 days afLer every quarLer of Lhe year and shall noL be
sub[ecL Lo any llen or holdback LhaL may be lmposed by Lhe naLlonal governmenL for whaLever purpose.
1hls wlLhholdlng, alLhough Lemporary, conLravenes Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and Lhe law slnce lL ls LanLamounL Lo
a holdback and any reLenLlon ls prohlblLed.

ulscusslon:
5cope of tbe lteslJeots powet of qeoetol sopetvlsloo ovet lCus
ConsLlLuLlon, ArLlcle x, SecLlon 4: 1he resldenL of Lhe hlllpplnes shall exerclse general supervlslon over local
governmenLs."

Supervlslon ConLrol
Cverseelng or Lhe power or Lhe power or auLhorlLy of
any offlcer Lo see LhaL subordlnaLe offlcers perform
Lhelr duLles. lf Lhey fall, Lhe former may Lake such
acLlon or sLep prescrlbed by law Lo make Lhem perform
Lhelr duLles
ower of an offlcer Lo
- AlLer
- Modlfy
- nulllfy
- SeL aslde
WhaL a subordlnaLe has done ln Lhe performance of hls
duLles and Lo subsLlLuLe Lhe [udgmenL of Lhe former for
Lhe laLLer
Supervlslng offlclals merely see Lo lL LhaL Lhe rules are
followed, buL Lhey Lhemselves do noL lay down such
rules, nor do Lhey have Lhe dlscreLlon Lo modlfy or
replace Lhem.
Cfflcers ln conLrol lay down Lhe rules ln Lhe
performance or accompllshmenL of an acL. lf Lhese rules
are noL followed, Lhey may order Lhe acL undone or
redone by Lhelr subordlnaLes.
Peads of pollLlcal subdlvlslons are elecLed by Lhe people Members of Lhe CablneL and oLher execuLlve offlclals
A81 lll

173

and Lhelr soverelgn powers emanaLe from Lhe
elecLoraLe. 1hey are sub[ecL Lo Lhe resldenL's
supervlslon only, noL conLrol, as long as Lhelr acLs are
exerclsed wlLhln Lhe sphere of Lhelr leglLlmaLe powers.
are alLer egos of Lhe resldenL and Lhey are sub[ecL Lo
hls power of conLrol

xteot of locol ootooomy
Local auLonomy slgnlfled a more responslve and accounLable local governmenL sLrucLure lnsLlLuLed
Lhrough a sysLem of decenLrallzaLlon.
uecenLrallzaLlon - devoluLlon of naLlonal admlnlsLraLlon, noL power, Lo local governmenLs. Local offlclals
remaln accounLable Lo Lhe cenLral governmenL as Lhe law may provlde.

noLe: ln Lhe hlllpplnes, only admlnlsLraLlve powers over local affalrs are delegaLed Lo pollLlcal subdlvlslons Lo
make governance more dlrecLly responslve and effecLlve aL Lhe local levels.

uecenLrallzaLlon of AdmlnlsLraLlon uecenLrallzaLlon of ower
CenLral governmenL delegaLes admlnlsLraLlve powers
Lo pollLlcal subdlvlslons ln order Lo broaden Lhe base
of governmenL power and make local governmenLs
more responslve and accounLable.
1hls lnvolves an abdlcaLlon of pollLlcal power ln Lhe
favor of LCus declared Lo be auLonomous.
resldenL exerclses general supervlslon Lo ensure LhaL
local affalrs are admlnlsLered accordlng Lo law.
1hls amounLs Lo self-lmmolaLlon slnce Lhe
auLonomous governmenL becomes accounLable noL
Lo Lhe cenLral auLhorlLles buL Lo lLs consLlLuency.

NC v. Centra| 8oard of Assessment Appea|s Gk No. 171470

LCCAL GCVLkNMLN1 UNI1S
A. 1he 8arangay
:&-&)%,;&, <&+=&)&,;&3

Aqu|no vs. Aure, Gk 1S3S67 (2008)

lacLs:
lnvolved ls a parcel of land slLuaLed ln Cuezon ClLy, wlLh an area of 449 square meLers reglsLered wlLh Lhe
8eglsLry of ueeds of Cuezon ClLy.

Aure and Aure Lendlng flled a ComplalnL for e[ecLmenL agalnsL Aqulno before Lhe Me1C alleglng LhaL Lhey
acqulred Lhe sub[ecL properLy from spouses Aqulno by vlrLue of a ueed of Sale. Aure clalmed LhaL afLer Lhe
spouses Aqulno recelved subsLanLlal conslderaLlon for Lhe sale of Lhe sub[ecL properLy, Lhey refused Lo vacaLe.

ln her Answer, Aqulno counLered LhaL Lhe ComplalnL lacks cause of acLlon for Aure and Aure Lendlng do
noL have any legal rlghL over Lhe sub[ecL properLy. Aqulno admlLLed LhaL Lhere was a sale buL such was governed
by Lhe Memorandum of AgreemenL (MCA) slgned by Aure. As sLaLed ln Lhe MCA, Aure shall secure a loan from a
bank or flnanclal lnsLlLuLlon ln hls own name uslng Lhe sub[ecL properLy as collaLeral and Lurn over Lhe proceeds
Lhereof Lo Lhe spouses Aqulno. Powever, even afLer Aure successfully secured a loan, Lhe spouses Aqulno dld noL
recelve Lhe proceeds Lhereon or beneflLed Lherefrom.

1he M1C declded ln favor of Aqulno and dlsmlssed Lhe complalnL for e[ecLmenL for non-compllance wlLh
Lhe brgy. conclllaLlon process, among oLher grounds. 1he Me1C observed LhaL Aure and Aqulno are resldenLs of
A81 lll

176

Lhe samebotooqoy buL Lhere ls no showlng LhaL any aLLempL has been made Lo seLLle Lhe case amlcably aL
Lhe botooqoy level. Also, Lhe Me1C ruled LhaL slnce Lhe quesLlon of ownershlp was puL ln lssue, Lhe acLlon was
converLed from a mere deLalner sulL Lo one lncapable of pecunlary esLlmaLlon" whlch properly resLs wlLhln Lhe
orlglnal excluslve [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe 81C.

Cn appeal, Lhe 81C afflrmed Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe ComplalnL on Lhe same ground LhaL Lhe dlspuLe was noL
broughL before Lhe 8arangay Councll for conclllaLlon before lL was flled ln courL. 1he ueclslon sLressed LhaL
Lhe botooqoy conclllaLlon process ls a cooJltlo sloe poo ooo for Lhe flllng of an e[ecLmenL complalnL lnvolvlng
resldenLs of Lhe same botooqoy, and fallure Lo comply LherewlLh consLlLuLes sufflclenL cause for Lhe dlsmlssal of
Lhe acLlon.

Aure appealed Lhe 81C ueclslon wlLh Lhe CourL of Appeals and argued LhaL mere allegaLlon of ownershlp
should noL dlvesL Lhe Me1C of [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe e[ecLmenL sulL slnce [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe sub[ecL maLLer ls
conferred by law and should noL depend on Lhe defenses and ob[ecLlons ralsed by Lhe parLles.

1he CourL of Appeals rendered a ueclslon, reverslng Lhe Me1C and 81C ueclslons and remandlng Lhe case
Lo Lhe Me1C for furLher proceedlngs and flnal deLermlnaLlon of Lhe subsLanLlve rlghLs of Lhe parLles. 1he appellaLe
courL declared LhaL Lhe fallure of Aure Lo sub[ecL Lhe maLLer Lo botooqoy conclllaLlon ls noL a [urlsdlcLlonal flaw and
lL wlll noL affecL Lhe sufflclency of Aure's ComplalnL slnce Aqulno falled Lo seasonably ralse such lssue ln her
Answer. 1he CourL of Appeals furLher ruled LhaL mere allegaLlon of ownershlp does noL deprlve Lhe Me1C of
[urlsdlcLlon over Lhe e[ecLmenL case for [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe sub[ecL maLLer ls conferred by law and ls deLermlned
by Lhe allegaLlons advanced by Lhe plalnLlff ln hls complalnL. Pence, mere asserLlon of ownershlp by Lhe defendanL
ln an e[ecLmenL case wlll noL ousL Lhe Me1C of lLs summary [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe same.

lssues:
WheLher or noL brgy conclllaLlon ls a [urlsdlcLlonal defecL warranLlng dlsmlssal and wheLher or noL allegaLlons of
ownershlp ousLs Lhe Me1C of [urlsdlcLlon ln an e[ecLmenL case. no Lo boLh.

1he botooqoy [usLlce sysLem was esLabllshed as a means decongesL hlgher courLs of cases. 1hls could be
accompllshed Lhrough a proceedlng before Lhe botooqoy courLs whlch ls essenLlally arblLraLlon ln characLer and
should also be compulsory. lL would be ln keeplng wlLh kaLarungang ambarangay Law, and Lhe pollcy behlnd lL
would be served lf an ouL-of-courL seLLlemenL of Lhe case ls reached volunLarlly by Lhe parLles.

1he prlmordlal ob[ecLlve of resldenLlal uecree no. 1308 ls Lo reduce Lhe number of courL llLlgaLlons and
prevenL Lhe deLerloraLlon of Lhe quallLy of [usLlce whlch has been broughL by Lhe lndlscrlmlnaLe flllng of cases ln
Lhe courLs. 1o ensure Lhls ob[ecLlve, SecLlon 6 of resldenLlal uecree no. 1308 requlres Lhe parLles Lo undergo a
conclllaLlon process before Lhe lopoo cboltmoo ot tbe looqkot oq 1oqopoqkosooJo as a precondlLlon Lo flllng a
complalnL ln courL sub[ecL Lo cerLaln excepLlons whlch are lnappllcable Lo Lhls case. 1he sald secLlon has been
declared compulsory ln naLure.

1here ls no dlspuLe hereln LhaL Lhe presenL case was never referred Lo Lhe 8arangay Lupon for conclllaLlon
before Aure and Aure Lendlng lnsLlLuLed Clvll Case.

lL ls Lrue LhaL Lhe preclse Lechnlcal effecL of fallure Lo comply wlLh Lhe requlremenL of SecLlon 412 of Lhe
Local CovernmenL Code on botooqoy conclllaLlon ls non-exhausLlon of admlnlsLraLlve remedles. neverLheless, Lhe
conclllaLlon process ls noL a [urlsdlcLlonal requlremenL, so LhaL non-compllance LherewlLh cannoL affecL Lhe
[urlsdlcLlon whlch Lhe courL has oLherwlse acqulred over Lhe sub[ecL maLLer or over Lhe person of Lhe defendanL.
As enunclaLed ln Lhe landmark case of koyoles v. lotetmeJlote Appellote coott.

OtJlootlly, ooo-compllooce wltb tbe cooJltloo pteceJeot ptesctlbeJ by l.u. 1508 coolJ offect tbe
sofflcleocy of tbe plolotlff's coose of octloo ooJ moke bls complolot voloetoble to Jlsmlssol oo qtoooJ of lock of
coose of octloo ot ptemototlty, bot tbe some woolJ oot pteveot o coott of competeot jotlsJlctloo ftom exetclsloq lts
A81 lll

177

powet of oJjoJlcotloo ovet tbe cose befote lt, wbete tbe JefeoJoots, os lo tbls cose, folleJ to object to socb exetclse
of jotlsJlctloo lo tbelt ooswet ooJ eveo Jotloq tbe eotlte ptoceeJloqs o poo.

wblle petltlooets coolJ bove pteveoteJ tbe ttlol coott ftom exetclsloq jotlsJlctloo ovet tbe cose by
seosooobly tokloq exceptloo tbeteto, tbey losteoJ lovokeJ tbe vety some jotlsJlctloo by fllloq oo ooswet ooJ
seekloq offltmotlve tellef ftom lt. wbot ls mote, tbey pottlclpoteJ lo tbe ttlol of tbe cose by ctoss-exomloloq
tespooJeot llooos. upoo tbls ptemlse, petltlooets coooot oow be olloweJ beloteJly to oJopt oo locooslsteot
postote by ottockloq tbe jotlsJlctloo of tbe coott to wblcb tbey boJ sobmltteJ tbemselves voloototlly.

ln Lhe case aL bar, Aqulno cannoL be allowed Lo aLLack Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe Me1C over Clvll Case afLer
havlng submlLLed herself volunLarlly LhereLo. Also Aqulno's Answer before Lhe Me1C ln Clvll Case lacked of any
ob[ecLlon on her parL Lo any deflclency ln Lhe complalnL whlch could ousL Lhe Me1C of lLs [urlsdclLlon. 8y Aqulno's
fallure Lo seasonably ob[ecL Lo Lhe deflclency ln Lhe ComplalnL, she ls deemed Lo have already acqulesced or
walved any defecL aLLendanL LhereLo. ConsequenLly, Aqulno cannoL LhereafLer move for Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe
e[ecLmenL sulL for Aure and Aure Lendlng's fallure Lo resorL Lo Lhe botooqoy conclllaLlon process, slnce she ls
already precluded from dolng so. 1he facL LhaL Aqulno ralsed such ob[ecLlon durlng Lhe pre-Lrlal and ln her
oslLlon aper ls of no momenL, for Lhe lssue of non-recourse Lo botooqoy medlaLlon proceedlngs should be
lmpleaded ln her Answer.

As provlded under SecLlon 1, 8ule 9 of Lhe 1997 8ules of Clvll rocedure:
Sec. 1. uefeoses ooJ objectloos oot pleoJeJ. - uefenses and ob[ecLlons noL pleaded elLher ln a moLlon Lo dlsmlss
or ln Lhe answer are deemed walved.

Whlle Lhe aforequoLed provlslon applles Lo a pleadlng (speclflcally, an Answer) or a moLlon Lo dlsmlss, a
slmllar or ldenLlcal rule ls provlded for all oLher moLlons ln SecLlon 8 of 8ule 13 of Lhe same 8ule whlch sLaLes:
Sec. 8. Omolbos Motloo. - Sub[ecL Lo Lhe provlslons of SecLlon 1 of 8ule 9, a moLlon aLLacklng a pleadlng,
order, [udgmenL, or proceedlng shall lnclude all ob[ecLlons Lhen avallable, and all ob[ecLlons noL so lncluded shall
be deemed walved.

1he splrlL LhaL surrounds Lhe foregolng sLaLuLory norm ls Lo requlre Lhe parLy flllng a pleadlng or moLlon Lo
ralse all avallable excepLlons for rellef durlng Lhe slngle opporLunlLy so LhaL slngle or mulLlple ob[ecLlons may be
avolded. lL ls clear and caLegorlcal ln SecLlon 1, 8ule 9 of Lhe 8evlsed 8ules of CourL LhaL fallure Lo ralse defenses
and ob[ecLlons ln a moLlon Lo dlsmlss or ln an answer ls deemed a walver Lhereof, and baslc ls Lhe rule ln sLaLuLory
consLrucLlon LhaL when Lhe law ls clear and free from any doubL or amblgulLy, Lhere ls no room for consLrucLlon or
lnLerpreLaLlon Where Lhe law speaks ln clear and caLegorlcal language, Lhere ls no occaslon for lnLerpreLaLlon,
Lhere ls only room for appllcaLlon. 1hus, alLhough Aqulno's defense of non-compllance wlLh resldenLlal uecree
no. 1308 ls merlLorlous, procedurally, such defense ls no longer avallable for fallure Lo plead Lhe same ln Lhe
Answer as requlred by Lhe omolbosmoLlon rule.

nelLher could Lhe Me1C dlsmlss Clvll Case no. 17430 moto ptoptlo. 1he 1997 8ules of Clvll rocedure
provlde only Lhree lnsLances when Lhe courL may moto ptoptlo dlsmlss Lhe clalm, and LhaL ls when Lhe pleadlngs or
evldence on Lhe record show LhaL (1) Lhe courL has no [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe sub[ecL maLLer, (2) Lhere ls anoLher
cause of acLlon pendlng beLween Lhe same parLles for Lhe same cause, or (3) where Lhe acLlon ls barred by a prlor
[udgmenL or by a sLaLuLe of llmlLaLlons. 1hus, lL ls clear LhaL a courL may noL moto ptoptlo dlsmlss a case on Lhe
ground of fallure Lo comply wlLh Lhe requlremenL for botooqoy conclllaLlon, Lhls ground noL belng among Lhose
menLloned for Lhe dlsmlssal by Lhe Lrlal courL of a case on lLs own lnlLlaLlve.

Cn Lhe second lssue, !urlsdlcLlon ln e[ecLmenL cases ls deLermlned by Lhe allegaLlons pleaded ln Lhe
complalnL. As long as Lhese allegaLlons demonsLraLe a cause of acLlon elLher for forclble enLry or for unlawful
deLalner, Lhe courL acqulres [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe sub[ecL maLLer.

A81 lll

178

1he necessary allegaLlons ln a ComplalnL for e[ecLmenL are seL forLh ln SecLlon 1, 8ule 70 of Lhe 8ules of
CourL, whlch reads:

5c1lON 1. wbo moy lostltote ptoceeJloqs, ooJ wbeo. - 5object to tbe ptovlsloos of tbe oext socceeJloq
sectloo, o petsoo JeptlveJ of tbe possessloo of ooy looJ ot bollJloq by fotce, lotlmlJotloo, tbteot, sttoteqy, ot
steoltb, ot o lessot, veoJot, veoJee, ot otbet petsoo oqolost wbom tbe possessloo of ooy looJ ot bollJloq ls
oolowfolly wltbbelJ oftet tbe expltotloo ot tetmlootloo of tbe tlqbt to bolJ possessloo, by vlttoe of ooy coottoct,
exptess ot lmplleJ, ot tbe leqol tepteseototlves ot osslqos of ooy socb lessot, veoJot, veoJee, ot otbet petsoo moy
ot ooy tlme wltblo ooe (1) yeot oftet socb oolowfol Jeptlvotloo ot wltbbolJloq of possessloo, btloq oo octloo lo tbe
ptopet Moolclpol 1tlol coott oqolost tbe petsoo ot petsoos oolowfolly wltbbolJloq ot Jeptlvloq of possessloo, ot
ooy petsoo ot petsoos clolmloq ooJet tbem, fot tbe testltotloo of socb possessloo, toqetbet wltb Jomoqes ooJ
costs.

ln Lhe case aL bar, Lhe ComplalnL flled by Aure and Aure Lendlng on 2 Aprll 1997, alleged as follows:
[Aure and Aure Lendlng] became Lhe owners of a house and loL locaLed aL no. 37 Salazar SLreeL corner
Lncarnaclon SLreeL, 8.l. Pomes, Cuezon ClLy by vlrLue of a deed of absoluLe sale execuLed by [Lhe spouses Aqulno]
ln favor of [Aure and Aure Lendlng]. 1lLle Lo Lhe sald properLy had already been lssued ln Lhe name of [Aure] as
shown by a Lransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle , a copy of whlch ls hereLo aLLached and made an lnLegral parL hereof as
Annex A,

Powever, desplLe Lhe sale Lhus Lransferrlng ownershlp of Lhe sub[ecL premlses Lo [Aure and Aure
Lendlng] as above-sLaLed and consequenLly LermlnaLlng [Aqulno's] rlghL of possesslon over Lhe sub[ecL properLy,
[Aqulno] LogeLher wlLh her famlly, ls conLlnuously occupylng Lhe sub[ecL premlses noLwlLhsLandlng several
demands made by [Aure and Aure Lendlng] agalnsL [Aqulno] Lo vacaLe Lhe sub[ecL premlses and surrender
possesslon Lhereof Lo [Aure and Aure Lendlng] causlng damage and pre[udlce Lo [Aure and Aure Lendlng] and
maklng [Aqulno's] occupancy LogeLher wlLh Lhose acLually occupylng Lhe sub[ecL premlses clalmlng rlghL under her,
lllegal.

lL can be lnferred from Lhe foregolng LhaL Aure, LogeLher wlLh Aure Lendlng, soughL Lhe possesslon of Lhe
sub[ecL properLy whlch was never surrendered by Aqulno afLer Lhe perfecLlon of Lhe ueed of Sale, whlch glves rlse
Lo a cause of acLlon for an e[ecLmenL sulL cognlzable by Lhe Me1C. Aure's asserLlon of possesslon over Lhe sub[ecL
properLy ls based on hls ownershlp Lhereof as evldenced by 1C1 bearlng hls name. 1haL Aqulno lmpugned Lhe
valldlLy of Aure's LlLle over Lhe sub[ecL properLy and clalmed LhaL Lhe ueed of Sale was slmulaLed should noL dlvesL
Lhe Me1C of [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe e[ecLmenL case.

As exLenslvely dlscussed by Lhe emlnenL [urlsL llorenz u. 8egalado ln kefoqlo v. coott of Appeols:
As Lhe law on forclble enLry and unlawful deLalner cases now sLands, even where Lhe defendanL ralses Lhe
quesLlon of ownershlp ln hls pleadlngs and Lhe quesLlon of possesslon cannoL be resolved wlLhouL decldlng Lhe
lssue of ownershlp, Lhe MeLropollLan 1rlal CourLs, Munlclpal 1rlal CourLs, and Munlclpal ClrculL 1rlal CourLs
neverLheless have Lhe undoubLed compeLence Lo resolve Lhe lssue of ownershlp albelL only Lo deLermlne Lhe lssue
of possesslon.

1he law, as revlsed, now provldes lnsLead LhaL when Lhe quesLlon of possesslon cannoL be resolved
wlLhouL decldlng Lhe lssue of ownershlp, Lhe lssue of ownershlp shall be resolved only Lo deLermlne Lhe lssue of
possesslon. Cn lLs face, Lhe new 8ule on Summary rocedure was exLended Lo lnclude wlLhln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of
Lhe lnferlor courLs e[ecLmenL cases whlch llkewlse lnvolve Lhe lssue of ownershlp. 1hls does noL mean, however,
LhaL blankeL auLhorlLy Lo ad[udlcaLe Lhe lssue of ownershlp ln e[ecLmenL sulLs has been Lhus conferred on Lhe
lnferlor courLs.

AL Lhe ouLseL, lL musL here be sLressed LhaL Lhe resoluLlon of Lhls parLlcular lssue concerns and applles
only Lo forclble enLry and unlawful deLalner cases where Lhe lssue of possesslon ls lnLlmaLely lnLerLwlned wlLh Lhe
lssue of ownershlp. lL flnds no proper appllcaLlon where lL ls oLherwlse, LhaL ls, where ownershlp ls noL ln lssue, or
A81 lll

179

where Lhe prlnclpal and maln lssue ralsed ln Lhe allegaLlons of Lhe complalnL as well as Lhe rellef prayed for make
ouL noL a case for e[ecLmenL buL one for recovery of ownershlp.

Apropos LhereLo, Lhls CourL ruled ln nllotlo v. coott of Appeols
1hus, an ad[udlcaLlon made Lhereln regardlng Lhe lssue of ownershlp should be regarded as merely
provlslonal and, Lherefore, would noL bar or pre[udlce an acLlon beLween Lhe same parLles lnvolvlng LlLle Lo Lhe
land. 1he foregolng docLrlne ls a necessary consequence of Lhe naLure of forclble enLry and unlawful deLalner
cases where Lhe only lssue Lo be seLLled ls Lhe physlcal or maLerlal possesslon over Lhe real properLy, LhaL ls,
possesslon Je focto and noL possesslon Je jote."

ln oLher words, lnferlor courLs are now condlLlonally vesLed wlLh ad[udlcaLory power over Lhe lssue of
LlLle or ownershlp ralsed by Lhe parLles ln an e[ecLmenL sulL." 1hese courLs shall resolve Lhe quesLlon of ownershlp
ralsed as an lncldenL ln an e[ecLmenL case where a deLermlnaLlon Lhereof ls necessary for a proper and compleLe
ad[udlcaLlon of Lhe lssue of possesslon.

Morata v. Go (1983)

lAC1S:
Spouses vlcLor and llora Co flled a complalnL agalnsL spouses !ullus and Ma. Lulsa MoraLa for recovery of a sum of
money plus damages amounLlng Lo 49,400.00 ln Cll Cebu. Cn Lhe basls of Lhe allegaLlon ln Lhe complalnL LhaL Lhe
parLles-llLlganLs are all resldenLs of Cebu ClLy, Lhe MoraLas flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss, clLlng as grounds Lherefor, Lhe
fallure of Lhe complalnL Lo allege prlor avallmenL by Lhe Cos of Lhe barangay conclllaLlon process requlred by .u.
1308, as well as Lhe absence of a cerLlflcaLlon by Lhe Lupon or angkaL SecreLary LhaL no conclllaLlon or seLLlemenL
had been reached by Lhe parLles. 1he moLlon was opposed by Lhe Cos. 1he [udge denled Lhe moLlon Lo dlsmlss,
rullng LhaL Lhe provlslon of Sec 6 of Lhe law applles only Lo cases cognlzable by Lhe lnferlor courLs menLloned ln
Secs 11 and 12 of Lhe law.

lSSuL:
WCn Lhe complalnL should be dlsmlssed for fallure Lo comply wlLh u 1308

PLLu/8A1lC:
?LS. 1he naLure of Lhe case aL bar does noL fall under Lhe excepLlons clLed ln SecLlons 2
6
and 6
7
of .u. 1308. Slnce
Lhe law does noL dlsLlngulsh, Lhls case/dlspuLe should have been flrsL seLLled amlcably by Lhe Lupon. lurLhermore,
Lhere ls no showlng LhaL LhaL Lhe lnLenLlon of Lhe law ls Lo resLrlcL lLs coverage only Lo cases cognlzable by Lhe
lnferlor courLs for lL would noL have lncluded Lhe rule on venue provlded ln SecLlon 3 (perLalnlng Lo land dlspuLes
whlch are LradlLlonally cognlzable by Clls/81Cs) Lhereof. 1hls ls furLher supporLed by Clrcular no. 22 lssued by Lhen

6
SECTI0N 2. Subject matteis foi amicable settlement.The Lupon of each baiangay shall have authoiity to biing togethei the paities
actually iesiuing in the same city oi municipality foi amicable settlement of all uisputes except:
|1j Wheie one paity is the goveinment ,oi any subuivision oi instiumentality theieof;
|2j Wheie one paity is a public officei oi employee, anu the uispute ielates to the peifoimance of his official functions;
|Sj 0ffenses punishable by impiisonment exceeuing Su uays, oi a fine exceeuing P2uu.uu;
|4j 0ffenses wheie theie is no piivate offenueu paity;
|Sj Such othei classes of uisputes which the Piime Ninistei may in the inteiest of justice ueteimine upon iecommenuation of
the Ninistei of }ustice anu the Ninistei of Local uoveinment.

7
SECTI0N 6. Conciliation pie-conuition to filing of complaint. No complaint, petition, action foi pioceeuing involving any mattei within
the authoiity of the Lupon as pioviueu in Section 2 heieof shall be fileu oi instituteu in couit oi any othei goveinment office foi
aujuuication unless theie has been a confiontation of the paities befoie the Lupon Chaiiman oi the Pangkat anu no conciliation oi
settlement has been ieacheu as ceitifieu by the Lupon Secietaiy oi the Pangkat Secietaiy attesteu by the Lupon oi Pangkat Chaiiman, oi
unless the settlement has been iepuuiateu. Bowevei, the paities may go uiiectly to couit in the following cases:
|1j Wheie the accuseu is unuei uetention;
|2j Wheie a peison has otheiwise been uepiiveu of peisonal libeity calling foi habeas coipus pioceeuings;
|Sj Actions coupleu with piovisional iemeuies such as pieliminaiy injunction, attachment, ueliveiy of peisonal piopeity anu
suppoit penuente lite; anu
|4j Wheie the action may otheiwise be baiieu by the Statute of Limitations
A81 lll

180

C! lernando whlch gave noLlce Lo all Clls Lo recognlze Lhe kaLarungang ambarangay Law and deslsL from acLlng
upon cases falllng wlLhln Lhe auLhorlLy of Lhe Lupons. 1hls clrcular was noLed by resldenL Marcos. Pence, Lhe
CourL declared LhaL Lhe conclllaLlon process aL Lhe barangay level, prescrlbed by .u. 1308 as a pre-condlLlon for
flllng a complalnL ln courL, ls compulsory noL only for cases falllng under Lhe excluslve compeLence of Lhe
meLropollLan and munlclpal Lrlal courLs, buL for acLlons cognlzable by Lhe reglonal Lrlal courLs as well.
lotpose of tbe low. 8y compelllng Lhe dlspuLanLs Lo seLLle Lhelr dlfferences Lhrough Lhe lnLervenLlon of Lhe
barangay leader and oLher respecLed members of Lhe barangay, Lhe anlmoslLy generaLed by proLracLed courL
llLlgaLlons beLween members of Lhe same pollLlcal unlL, a dlsrupLlve facLor Loward unlLy and cooperaLlon, ls
avolded. lL musL be borne ln mlnd LhaL Lhe conclllaLlon process aL Lhe barangay level ls llkewlse deslgned Lo
dlscourage lndlscrlmlnaLe flllng of cases ln courL ln order Lo decongesL lLs clogged dockeLs and, ln Lhe process,
enhance Lhe quallLy of [usLlce dlspensed by lL. 1hus, Lo say LhaL Lhe auLhorlLy of Lhe Lupon ls llmlLed Lo cases
excluslvely cognlzable by Lhe lnferlor courLs ls Lo lose slghL of Lhls ob[ecLlve. Worse, lL would make Lhe law a self-
defeaLlng one. lor whaL would sLop a parLy, say ln an acLlon for a sum of money or damages, as ln Lhe lnsLanL case,
from bloaLlng up hls clalm ln order Lo place hls case beyond Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe lnferlor courL and Lhereby avold
Lhe mandaLory requlremenL of .u. 1308? And why, lndeed, should Lhe law seek Lo ease Lhe congesLlon of dockeLs
only ln lnferlor courLs and noL ln Lhe reglonal Lrlal courLs where Lhe log-[am of cases ls much more serlous? lndeed,
Lhe lawmakers could noL have lnLended such half-measure and self-defeaLlng leglslaLlon.

Uy v. Contreras (1994)

lAC1S
1. lellcldad uy (uy) subleased from Susanna ALayde (ALayde) half of Lhe 2nd floor of a bulldlng locaLed ln
MakaLl. uy operaLed and malnLalned a beauLy parlor Lhere.
2. When Lhe sublease conLracL explred an argumenL arose beLween uy and ALayde because Lhe former was
unable Lo compleLely remove all her movable properLles from Lhe premlses
3. 1he argumenL lead Lo a scuffle beLween uy, ALayde and ALayde's employees.
4. 6 days laLer, ALayde and her employees flled a complalnL wlLh Lhe barangay capLaln of valenzuela, MakaLl.
5. Cn Lhe scheduled confronLaLlon beLween Lhe parLles ln Lhe barangay, only uy appeared. 1he
confronLaLlon was reseL.
6. 2 lnformaLlons for sllghL physlcal ln[urles agalnsL uy wlLh Lhe M1C of MakaLl.
7. ln her counLer-affldavlL, uy alleged Lhe premaLurlLy of flllng Lhe crlmlnal cases because of Lhe undergolng
of conclllaLlon proceedlngs beLween Lhem.
8. She laLer on flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss for non-compllance wlLh Lhe requlremenL of .u. no. 1308 on prlor
referral Lo Lhe Lupong 1agapamayapa and pursuanL Lo SecLlon 18 of Lhe 1991 8evlsed 8ule on Summary
rocedure. She also aLLached Lhe cerLlflcaLlon of Lhe barangay capLaln, aLLesLlng Lo Lhe exlsLence of an
ongolng conclllaLlon proceedlngs beLween Lhem.
9. M1C denled Lhe moLlon Lo dlsmlss, explalnlng LhaL Lhe offense was abouL Lo prescrlbe or barred by Lhe
sLaLuLe of llmlLaLlons anyway.
10. 1he moLlon for reconslderaLlon by uy was denled, hence Lhe flllng of uy wlLh Lhe Supreme CourL of Lhe
speclal clvll acLlon for cerLlorarl.

lSSuLS/PLLu
(1) WCn Lhe [udge of M1C MakaLl gravely abused hls dlscreLlon when he denled Lhe moLlon Lo dlsmlss of Lhe
peLlLloner conslderlng LhaL Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs falled Lo comply wlLh Lhe mandaLory requlremenL of
.u. 1308 as relLeraLed ln Sec. 412 of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code and Lhe 1991 8evlsed 8ule on Summary
rocedure ---> ?LS.

8A1lCnALL
(1) lL may Lhus be observed LhaL Lhe revlsed kaLarungang pambarangay law has aL leasL Lhree new slgnlflcanL
feaLures, Lo wlL:

A81 lll

181

a) lL lncreased Lhe auLhorlLy of Lhe lupon ln crlmlnal offenses from Lhose punlshable by lmprlsonmenL
noL exceedlng LhlrLy days or a flne noL exceedlng 200.00 ln .u. no. 1308 Lo Lhose offenses
punlshable by lmprlsonmenL noL exceedlng one year or a flne noL exceedlng 3,000.00.
b) As Lo venue, lL provldes LhaL dlspuLes arlslng aL Lhe workplace where Lhe conLendlng parLles are
employed or aL Lhe lnsLlLuLlon where such parLles are enrolled for sLudy, shall be broughL ln Lhe
barangay where such workplace or lnsLlLuLlon ls locaLed.
c) lL provldes for Lhe suspenslon of Lhe prescrlpLlve perlods of offenses durlng Lhe pendency of Lhe
medlaLlon, conclllaLlon, or arblLraLlon process.

1he flrsL feaLure has necessarlly broadened Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe lupon and lf Lhe medlaLlon and
conclllaLlon process aL LhaL level would be effecLlvely pursued, few cases would reach Lhe regular courLs,
[usLlce would be achleved aL less expense Lo Lhe llLlganLs, cordlal relaLlonshlps among proLagonlsLs ln a
small communlLy would be resLored, and peace and order Lhereln enhanced.

1he second feaLure, whlch ls covered by paragraph (d), SecLlon 409 of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code, also
broadens Lhe auLhorlLy of Lhe lupon ln Lhe sense LhaL approprlaLe clvll and crlmlnal cases arlslng from
lncldenLs occurrlng ln workplaces or lnsLlLuLlons of learnlng shall be broughL ln Lhe barangay where such
workplace or lnsLlLuLlon ls locaLed. 1haL barangay may noL be Lhe approprlaLe venue ln elLher paragraph
(a) or paragraph (b) of Lhe sald secLlon. 1hls rule provldes convenlence Lo Lhe parLles. rocedural rules
lncludlng Lhose relaLlng Lo venue are deslgned Lo lnsure a falr and convenlenL hearlng Lo Lhe parLles wlLh
compleLe [usLlce beLween Lhem as a resulL. 14 Llsewlse sLaLed, convenlence ls Lhe ralson d' eLre of Lhe
rule on venue.

1he Lhlrd feaLure ls almed aL maxlmlzlng Lhe effecLlveness of Lhe medlaLlon, conclllaLlon, or arblLraLlon
process. lL dlscourages any lnLenLlonal delay of Lhe referral Lo a daLe close Lo Lhe explraLlon of Lhe
prescrlpLlve perlod and Lhen lnvoklng Lhe proxlmlLy of such explraLlon as Lhe reason for lmmedlaLe
recourse Lo Lhe courLs. lL also affords Lhe parLles sufflclenL Llme Lo cool off and face each oLher wlLh less
emoLlonallsm and more ob[ecLlvlLy whlch are essenLlal lngredlenLs ln Lhe resoluLlon of Lhelr dlspuLe. 1he
slxLy-day suspenslon of Lhe prescrlpLlve perlod could spell Lhe dlfference beLween peace and a full-blown,
wearlsome, and expenslve llLlgaLlon beLween Lhe parLles.

Whlle .u. no. 1308 has been repealed by Lhe Local CovernmenL Code of 1991, Lhe [urlsprudence bullL
Lhereon regardlng prlor referral Lo Lhe lupon as a pre-condlLlon Lo Lhe flllng of an acLlon ln courL remalns
appllcable because lLs provlslons on prlor referral were subsLanLlally reproduced ln Lhe Code.

.u. no. 1308 makes Lhe conclllaLlon process aL Lhe 8arangay level a condlLlon precedenL for Lhe flllng of a
complalnL ln CourL. non-compllance wlLh LhaL condlLlon precedenL could effecL Lhe sufflclency of Lhe
plalnLlff's cause of acLlon and make hls complalnL vulnerable Lo dlsmlssal on Lhe ground of lack of cause of
acLlon or premaLurlLy. 1he condlLlon ls analogous Lo exhausLlon of admlnlsLraLlve remedles, or Lhe lack of
earnesL efforLs Lo compromlse sulLs beLween famlly members, lacklng whlch Lhe case can be dlsmlssed.

rlor recourse Lo Lhe conclllaLlon procedure requlred under .u. 1308 ls noL a [urlsdlcLlonal requlremenL,
non-compllance wlLh whlch would deprlve a courL of lLs [urlsdlcLlon elLher over Lhe sub[ecL maLLer or over
Lhe person of Lhe defendanL. Where, however, Lhe facL of non-compllance wlLh and non-observance of
such procedure has been seasonably ralsed as an lssue before Lhe courL flrsL Laklng cognlzance of Lhe
complalnL, dlsmlssal of Lhe acLlon ls proper.

ln vlew of Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs' fallure Lo appear aL Lhe flrsL scheduled medlaLlon on 28 Aprll 1993 for
whlch Lhe medlaLlon was reseL Lo 26 May 1993, no complalnL for sllghL physlcal ln[urles could be valldly
flled wlLh Lhe M1C of MakaLl aL any Llme before such daLe. 1he flllng Lhen of Crlmlnal Cases nos. 143233
and 143234 wlLh Lhe sald courL on 11 May 1993 was premaLure and, pursuanL Lo paragraph (a), SecLlon
412 of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code, respondenL !udge ConLreras should have granLed Lhe moLlon Lo
A81 lll

182

dlsmlss Lhe crlmlnal cases. Pe cannoL [usLlfy lLs denlal by Laklng refuge under SecLlon 6 of .u. no. 1308
(more properly, SecLlon 412(b) (4) of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code of 1991) whlch sLaLes LhaL Lhe parLles
may go dlrecLly Lo courL where Lhe acLlon ls abouL Lo prescrlbe. 1hls ls because, as earller sLaLed, pursuanL
Lo paragraph (c), SecLlon 410 of Lhe Code, Lhe prescrlpLlve perlod was auLomaLlcally suspended for a
maxlmum perlod of slxLy days from 23 Aprll 1993 when Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs flled Lhelr complalnLs
wlLh Lhe lupon of valenzuela, MakaLl.

W|ngarts v. Me[|a (199S)

lAC1S:
1. !ohan WlngarLs was accused ln Lwo crlmlnal cases for mallclous mlschlef (Crlm Case 2663) and grave
LhreaLs (Crlm Case 2664) lnlLlaLed by Col. Munar. A counLer-charge agalnsL Col. Munar for usurpaLlon of
auLhorlLy (Crlm Case 2696) was flled by WlngarLs. All Lhree cases were declded by !udge Sevlllano Me[la.
Crlm Case 2663: WlngarLs was acqulLLed
Crlm Case 2664: 1he charge was dlsmlssed
Crlm Case 2696: AcqulLLed Col Munar eL al

2. 8elaLlve Lo Lhe sald [udgmenLs, WlngarLs flled an admlnlsLraLlve case agalnsL !udge Me[la for mallclous
delay ln Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of [usLlce ln relaLlon Lo Crlm Case 2663, alleglng LhaL Lhe case dragged on for a
year and four monLhs ln Lhe !udges' sala whlch was ulLlmaLely dlsmlssed.

3. A second complalnL for lncompeLence, lgnorance of Lhe law and abuse of auLhorlLy for Laklng cognlzance
of Crlm Case 2664 and lssulng a warranL of arresL agalnsL WlngarLs desplLe Lhe lack of prlor barangay
conclllaLlon.

4. 1he Lhlrd complalnL charged Lhe [udge for renderlng an un[usL declslon ln Crlm case 2696, where CapL.
Manuel and Col. Munar appeared ln Lhe clvll courLs wlLhouL necessary auLhorlzaLlon.

CCu81:
1he courL flnds no reason Lo deparL from Lhe concluslon of Lhe CourL AdmlnlsLraLor wlLh regard Lo flndlng !udge
Me[la llable for lncompeLence and gross lgnorance of Lhe law buL noL llable for mallclous delay ln Lhe
admlnlsLraLlon of [usLlce nor for renderlng an un[usL declslon
!udge Me[la ls llable for lncompeLence and gross lgnorance of Lhe law for Laklng cognlzance of Crlm Case
2664 desplLe Lhe legal obsLacles LhereLo. under Sec 408 (c) of 8A 7160 Lhe 8evlsed kaLarungang
ambarangay Law provldes LhaL offenses punlshable by lmprlsonmenL noL exceedlng (1) year or a flne noL
exceedlng flve Lhousand pesos requlre a barangay conclllaLlon 1he crlme of grave LhreaLs punlshable
under ArL 282 of Lhe 8C falls wlLhln Lhe purvlew of Sec 408. Crave LhreaLs ls punlshable by aresLo mayor
(1 mo and 1 day Lo 6 mos) and a flne of noL exceedlng 300.
Pad Lhe !udge Laken cognlzance of Lhe law Sec 412 of 8A 7160 he could have remanded Lhe case Lo Lhe
lupon lnsLead of Laklng cognlzance of Lhe case and premaLurely lssulng a warranL of arresL. Pls acLuaLlons
however are noL LalnLed wlLh mallce or evll lnLenL, Lhe records reveal LhaL he dlsmlssed Lhe case afLer
moLlon of Lhe defense and recalled Lhe warranL lssued. Pe ls Lherefore ordered Lo pay Lhe flne of 2,000
wlLh a S1L8n WA8nlnC.

Cn Lhe charge of mallclous delay ln admlnlsLraLlon of [usLlce, Lhe [udge cannoL be held llable. Whlle Lhere
was some delay ln Lhe hearlng, lL does noL appear Lo be mallclous or dellberaLe, Lhe [udge should noL be
sub[ecLed Lo llablllLles where delays are broughL abouL by Lhe parLles and Lhelr lawyers. lL was found by
Lhe CourL admlnlsLraLor LhaL lL was deemed submlLLed for declslon on May 6, 1994 and was declded
barely a monLh afLer on !une 8, 1994.

As Lo Lhe charge of renderlng an un[usL declslon, Lo hold a [udge llable lL musL be shown LhaL lL was made
wlLh consclous and dellberaLe lnLenL Lo do an ln[usLlce. 1he complalnanLs dlsmally falled Lo convlnce Lhe
A81 lll

183

courL LhaL !udge Me[la knew LhaL hls challenged [udgmenL ls un[usL. Pe based hls declslon on a clrcular of
Lhe uepL. of uefense, where Munar was auLhorlzed and were able Lo secure Lhelr permlL Lo appear as
prlvaLe prosecuLors, moreover accordlng Lo Me[la a lack of permlL does noL sLrlp Lhem of Lhelr
quallflcaLlons buL merely calls for an admlnlsLraLlve sancLlon. !udge Me[la also Look [udlclal noLlce LhaL Col
Munar was a complalnanL ln Crlm Case 2663 and 2664.

Corpuz v. CA (1997)
lAC1S:
Alvarado and Corpuz were Lwo of Lhe LenanLs of Lorenzo 8arredo who, ln May 1988, declded Lo sell hls properLy Lo
Lhe LenanLs. uue Lo economlc dlfflculLles, Alvarado and Lhe oLher lessees execuLed an "AffldavlL of Walver"
granLlng 8arredo Lhe rlghL Lo sell hls house Lo any person who can afford Lo purchase lL. 8arredo sold hls house Lo
Corpuz for 37,300 and Lhus, Alvarado became Lhe LenanL of Corpuz. ln CcLober 1991, Corpuz senL a wrlLLen noLlce
Lo Alvarado Lo vacaLe Lhe room whlch he was occupylng because Corpuz' chlldren needed lL for Lhelr own use.
Alvarado refusal Lo vacaLe Lhe room prompLed Corpuz Lo flled an acLlon for unlawful deLalner agalnsL Lhe former
wlLh Lhe Me1C of Manlla for recovery of possesslon of sald room.

ln hls answer, Alvarado ralsed Lwo ma[or defenses: (1) Lhe "AffldavlL of Walver" execuLed beLween hlm and
8arredo was a forgery, and (2) Lhe dlspuLe was noL referred Lo Lhe Lupong 1agapayapa.

M1C: (AugusL 11, 1992) ordered Alvarado Lo vacaLe Lhe room. Alvarado appealed Lo Lhe 81C.

81C: (March 11, 1993) reversed M1C's declslon on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe purporLed sale beLween Corpuz and
8arredo was Lhe sub[ecL of a conLroversy pendlng before Lhe nPA whlch musL be resolved flrsL by sald agency. 1he
"AffldavlL of Walver" was a forgery and dlsmlssed Lhe case for unlawful deLalner. M8 of Corpuz was denled.

CA: (!uly 14, 1994) afflrmed ln lLs enLlreLy Lhe 81C declslon. M8 denled. Pence, Lhls peLlLlon.

lSSuLS:
1. WCn Corpuz' unlawful deLalner sulL agalnsL Alvarado should be suspended unLll Lhe resoluLlon of Lhe nPA
case lmpugnlng Lhe sale of sald properLy
2. WCn Lhe e[ecLmenL sulL was noL referred Lo Lhe Lupon 1agapayapa as requlred by u1308

PLLu:
1. nC.
M1C has excluslve [urlsdlcLlon over e[ecLmenL cases. As Lhe law now sLands, Lhe only lssue Lo be resolved ln
forclble enLry and unlawful deLalner cases ls Lhe physlcal or maLerlal possesslon over Lhe real properLy, LhaL ls,
possesslon de facLo.

ln 8efugla v. CA, clLlng ue la SanLa vs. CA, lL was held LhaL Lhe lnferlor courL may look lnLo Lhe evldence of LlLle or
ownershlp and possesslon de [ure lnsofar as sald evldence would lndlcaLe or deLermlne Lhe naLure of possesslon. lL
cannoL resolve Lhe lssue of ownershlp by declarlng who among Lhe parLles ls Lhe Lrue and lawful owner of Lhe
sub[ecL properLy because Lhe resoluLlon of sald lssue would effecL an ad[udlcaLlon on ownershlp whlch ls noL
sancLloned ln Lhe summary acLlon for unlawful deLalner.

SulLs or acLlons for Lhe annulmenL of sale, LlLle or documenL do noL abaLe any e[ecLmenL acLlon respecLlng Lhe
same properLy. 1he underlylng reason ls for Lhe defendanL noL Lo Lrlfle wlLh Lhe e[ecLmenL sulL, whlch ls summary
ln naLure, by Lhe slmple expedlenL of asserLlng ownershlp Lhereon. 1hus, Lhe conLroversy pendlng before Lhe nPA
for Lhe annulmenL of Lhe ueed of Sale and assalllng Lhe auLhenLlclLy of Lhe "AffldavlL of !olnL Walver" cannoL deLer
Lhe M1C from Laklng cognlzance of Lhe e[ecLmenL sulL merely for Lhe purpose of deLermlnlng who has a beLLer
possessory rlghL among Lhe parLles. Alvarado ls noL wlLhouL remedy. A [udgmenL rendered ln an e[ecLmenL case
shall noL bar an acLlon beLween Lhe same parLles respecLlng LlLle Lo Lhe land or bulldlng nor shall lL be concluslve as
Lo Lhe facLs Lhereln found ln a case beLween Lhe same parLles upon a dlfferenL cause of acLlon lnvolvlng
A81 lll

184

possesslon.

2. nC
1hls defense was only sLaLed ln a slngle general shorL senLence ln Alvarado's answer. ln uul v. CA, SC held LhaL
fallure of a parLy Lo speclflcally allege Lhe facL LhaL Lhere was no compllance wlLh Lhe 8arangay conclllaLlon
procedure consLlLuLes a walver of LhaL defense. Alvarado's answer sLaLed no reason or explanaLlon Lo supporL hls
allegaLlon, whlch ls deemed a mere general avermenL. 1he proceedlng ouLllned ln u1308 ls noL a [urlsdlcLlonal
requlremenL and non-compllance LherewlLh cannoL affecL Lhe [urlsdlcLlon whlch Lhe lower courL had already
acqulred over Lhe sub[ecL maLLer and Lhe parLles Lhereln. eLlLlon granLed. M1C declslon relnsLaLed.

8on|fac|o Law Cff|ce v. Iudge 8e||os|||o (2002)

lacLs:
1. ALLy. 8lcardo M. Salomon !r. of Lhe 8onlfaclo Law Cfflce was a plalnLlff ln an e[ecLmenL case, whlch was
broughL before !udge 8elloslllo of Lhe MeLropollLan 1rlal CourL of Cuezon ClLy.
2. 8elloslllo, however, referred Lhe case back Lo Lhe barangay for conclllaLlon proceedlngs desplLe Lhe facL
LhaL lL was alleged ln Lhe verlfled complalnL LhaL Lhe maLLer had already been referred Lo Lhe barangay
and LhaL a copy of Lhe CerLlflcaLlon Lo llle MoLlon was aLLached Lo Lhe verlfled complalnL as an annex.
3. lollowlng an advlce by Lhe clerk of courL, Salomon submlLLed Lhe mlnuLes of Lhe hearlngs held ln Lhe
barangay. SLlll no acLlon was Laken by Lhe courL desplLe Lhe facL LhaL Lhe case falls under Lhe 8ule on
Summary rocedure.
4. WhaL ls more, Lhe [udge Look a long Llme Lo come up wlLh a deLermlnaLlon as Lo wheLher summons
should be lssued or noL, dld noL acL on Lhe noLlce of ulsmlssal flled by 8onlfaclo, and dlsregarded Lhe
8ules on Summary rocedure.
3. Salomon Lherefore charged !udge 8elloslllo wlLh lgnorance of Lhe law, grave abuse of dlscreLlon, and
obvlous parLlallLy.
6. !udge 8elloslllo denled Lhe charges agalnsL hlm and alleged LhaL Lhe plalnLlff falled Lo comply wlLh .u.
1308, LsLabllshlng a SysLem of Amlcably SeLLllng ulspuLes aL Lhe 8arangay Level, whlch ls Sec. 412 of Lhe
Local CovernmenL Code of 1991.
7. 1he case was referred Lo Lhe CourL AdmlnlsLraLor, whlch found Lhe [udge elLher lgnoranL or negllgenL ln
referrlng Lhe case back Lo Lhe barangay desplLe Lhe presence of whaL lL consldered Lo be a valld
CerLlflcaLlon Lo llle AcLlon.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe [udge may noL refer back Lo Lhe barangay a case requlred by Lhe law Lo be flrsL amlcably
seLLled Lhereln desplLe Lhe presence of a CerLlflcaLlon Lo flle AcLlon.

Peld:
?es.

8aLlo:
1. 1he records reveal LhaL Lhe CerLlflcaLlon was lmproperly and premaLurely lssued. 1he angkaL was noL
consLlLuLed, no face Lo face conclllaLlon of Lhe parLles had Laken place before lL ls subsLanLlaLed by Lhe
MlnuLes submlLLed by complalnanL. LvldenLly, complalnanL falled Lo compleLe Lhe barangay conclllaLlon
proceedlngs.
2. 1he records show LhaL Lhe complalnL before Lhe barangay was daLed lebruary 16, 1996 and Lhe hearlng
was seL for lebruary 29, 1996. And yeL, Lhe CerLlflcaLlon Lo llle AcLlon was lssued on March 1, 1996, less
Lhan flfLeen days afLer Lhe flrsL scheduled hearlng before Lhe barangay chalrman, as mandaLed by Lhe law.
A81 lll

183

3. !udges are requlred by AdmlnlsLraLlve Clrcular no. 14-93 Lo carefully deLermlne lf Lhere has been
compllance wlLh prlor 8arangay conclllaLlon procedure under perLlnenL laws as a pre-condlLlon Lo [udlclal
acLlon, parLlcularly wheLher Lhe cerLlflcaLlon Lo flle acLlon aLLached Lo Lhe records of Lhe case comply wlLh
Lhe requlremenLs of Lhe law.
4. 1herefore, !udge 8elloslllo's referral of Lhe case back Lo Lhe barangay cannoL be equaLed wlLh gross
lgnorance of Lhe law. nelLher does lL consLlLuLe grave abuse of dlscreLlon or obvlous parLlallLy.
3. 8uL !udge 8elloslllo falled Lo comply wlLh Lhe 8evlsed 8ule on Summary rocedure and ls Lherefore found
gullLy of undue delay ln renderlng a declslon and ls ordered Lo pay a flne of 11,000 Lo be Laken from Lhe
reLlremenL beneflLs hereLofore wlLhheld from hlm.

Mendova v. Iudge Afab|e (2002)

lAC1S
Mendoza alleged LhaL on lebruary 18, 1998, he flled wlLh Lhe Cfflce of Lhe 8arangay Chalrman a complalnL for
sllghL physlcal ln[urles agalnsL alada, however, desplLe Lhe hearlngs conducLed Lhereon, Lhe parLles falled Lo reach
an amlcable seLLlemenL.

1herefore, on May 4, 1998 complalnanL Mendova flled a complalnL for sllghL physlcal ln[urles before Lhe M1C.
Powever, Lhe case was dlsmlssed by !udge Afable on Lhe ground of prescrlpLlon (Lhe complalnL alleglng a llghL
offense, whlch prescrlbes ln Lwo monLhs).

Mendova Lhus flled an admln complalnL agalnsL !udge Afable. 1he complalnanL alleged LhaL, ln dlsmlsslng Lhe case,
!udge Afable showed hls lgnorance of Lhe law when he dld noL apply Lhe provlslons of SecLlon 410(c) of Lhe LCC,
whlch suspends Lhe prescrlpLlve perlod of offences upon Lhe flllng of Lhe complalnL wlLh Lhe unong 8arangay.
ln hls Answer, !udge Afable merely admlLLed hls error and clalmed a mere menLal lapse on hls parL.

PLLu:
lL ls axlomaLlc LhaL an admlnlsLraLlve complalnL ls noL Lhe approprlaLe remedy for every lrregular or erroneous
order or declslon lssued by a [udge where a [udlclal remedy ls avallable, such as a moLlon for reconslderaLlon, or an
appeal. lor, obvlously, lf subsequenL developmenLs prove Lhe [udge's challenged acL Lo be correcL, Lhere would be
no occaslon Lo proceed agalnsL hlm aL all. 8esldes, Lo hold a [udge admlnlsLraLlvely accounLable for every
erroneous rullng or declslon he renders, assumlng he has erred, would be noLhlng shorL of harassmenL and would
make hls poslLlon doubly unbearable. 1o hold oLherwlse would be Lo render [udlclal offlce unLenable, for no one
called upon Lo Lry Lhe facLs or lnLerpreL Lhe law ln Lhe process of admlnlsLerlng [usLlce can be lnfalllble ln hls
[udgmenL. lL ls only where Lhe error ls so gross, dellberaLe and mallclous, or lncurred wlLh evldenL bad falLh LhaL
admlnlsLraLlve sancLlons may be lmposed agalnsL Lhe errlng [udge.

ln Lhe presenL case, Lhe complalnanL dld noL boLher aL all Lo flle a moLlon for reconslderaLlon of respondenL [udge's
declslon dlsmlsslng Lhe crlmlnal case. no reason was advanced by complalnanL why he falled Lo do so. 1hus,
followlng our seLLled pronouncemenLs clLed above, hls lnsLanL admlnlsLraLlve complalnL ls premaLure.

ln addlLlon, records fall Lo show when complalnanL recelved Lhe 8arangay CerLlflcaLlon Lo llle AcLlon. 1he undaLed
cerLlflcaLlon he submlLLed merely sLaLes LhaL Lhe case was seL for hearlng before Lhe barangay on March 16, 22
and 29, 1998, buL Lhe parLles falled Lo reach an amlcable seLLlemenL. When he flled on May 4, 1998 Lhe crlmlnal
case for sllghL physlcal ln[urles wlLh respondenL's courL, unLll Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe case on november 3, 1998, he
sLlll falled Lo presenL proof of hls recelpL of Lhe 8arangay CerLlflcaLlon Lo llle AcLlon. Clearly, he cannoL now faulL
respondenL [udge for dlsmlsslng Lhe case on Lhe ground of prescrlpLlon.

Whlle respondenL admlLLed hls mlsLake, Lhe same may noL be consldered lgnorance of Lhe law. lf aL all, lL can only
be an error of [udgmenL.

A81 lll

186

llnally, we noLed LhaL Lhe complalnL does noL allege any bad falLh or mallce on Lhe parL of respondenL [udge when
he dlsmlssed Lhe crlmlnal case.

Shar|ca Mar| Go-1an v. Sps. 1an (2008)

lacLs:
Sharlca and SLeven 1an were marrled ln 1999. ln 2003, Sharlca flled a eLlLlon for ermanenL roLecLlon Crder wlLh
a prayer for lssuance of a 1emporary roLecLlve Crder (1C) agalnsL SLeven and her parenLs ln law, Sps. erfecLo
and !uanlLa 1an. She alleged LhaL all Lhree, ln consplracy, were causlng verbal, psychologlcal and economlc abused
upon her, ln vlolaLlon of 8A 9262 (AnLl-vlolence AgalnsL Women and 1helr Chlldren AcL of 2004). 1he 81C granLed
Lhe prayer for a 1C.

Sps. erfecLo and !uanlLa flled a MoLlon Lo ulsmlss wlLh CpposlLlon for Lhe lssuance of ermanenL roLecLlon
Crder, conLendlng LhaL Lhe 81C lacked [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe persons slnce Lhey, as parenLs ln law, were noL covered
by 8A 9262. 1hls was counLered by Sharlca by alleglng LhaL under a llberal lnLerpreLaLlon of 8A 9262, she ls enLlLled
Lo Lhe ermanenL roLecLlon Crder because Lhe alm of Lhe law ls Lo proLecL and keep safe Lhe vlcLlm of vlolence.

1he 81C granLed Lhe MoLlon Lo ulsmlss, reasonlng LhaL Sps. erfecLo and !uanlLy are parenLs-ln-law of Sharlca,
Lherefor Lhey do noL fall wlLhln Lhe amblL of 8A 9262 followlng Lhe sLaLuLory consLrucLlon rule of expresslo unlus
esL excluslo alLerlus. Sharlca, ln her MoLlon for 8econslderaLlon, conLended LhaL Lhe docLrlne of necessary
lmpllcaLlon should have been applled, slnce lL was more ln accord wlLh Lhe broader lnLeresLs of subsLanLlal [usLlce
and due process. 1he M8 was denled, wlLh Lhe 81C resolvlng LhaL Lo lnclude Lhe parenLs-ln-law under Lhe coverage
of 8A 9262 would be a sLralned lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe law, slnce Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween Lhe offender and Lhe
alleged vlcLlm was an essenLlal condlLlon for Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe law.

lSSuL: WPL1PL8 C8 nC1 8LSCnuLn1S-SCuSLS L8lLC1C & !uAnl1A, A8Ln1S-ln-LAW Cl SPA8lCA, MA? 8L
lnCLuuLu ln 1PL L1l1lCn lC8 1PL lSSuAnCL Cl A 8C1LC1lvL C8uL8, ln ACCC8uAnCL Wl1P 8Lu8LlC AC1
nC. 9262, C1PL8WlSL knCWn AS 1PL "An1l-vlCLLnCL ACAlnS1 WCMLn Anu 1PLl8 CPlLu8Ln AC1 Cl 2004

PLLu:
?es. 1he arenLs-ln-law may be lncluded ln Lhe peLlLlon for Lhe lssuance of a proLecLlve order pursuanL Lo 8A 9262.

8aLlo:
8C applles suppleLorlly
SecLlon 3 of 8.A. no. 9262 deflnes ''[v]lolence agalnsL women and Lhelr chlldren'' as "any acL or a serles of acLs
commlLLed by any person agalnsL a woman who ls hls wlfe, former wlfe, or agalnsL a woman wlLh whom Lhe
person has or had a sexual or daLlng relaLlonshlp, or wlLh whom he has a common chlld, or agalnsL her chlld
wheLher leglLlmaLe or llleglLlmaLe, wlLhln or wlLhouL Lhe famlly abode, whlch resulL ln or ls llkely Lo resulL ln
physlcal, sexual, psychologlcal harm or sufferlng, or economlc abuse lncludlng LhreaLs of such acLs, baLLery, assaulL,
coerclon, harassmenL or arblLrary deprlvaLlon of llberLy."

Whlle Lhe sald provlslon provldes LhaL Lhe offender be relaLed or connecLed Lo Lhe vlcLlm by marrlage, former
marrlage, or a sexual or daLlng relaLlonshlp, lL does noL preclude Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe prlnclple of consplracy
under Lhe 8C. 1he law expressly provldes LhaL Lhe 8C shall be suppleLorlly applled (Sec. 47). lurLhermore, ArL. 10
of Lhe 8C provldes LhaL offenses whlch are or ln Leh fuLure may be punlshable by speclal laws, Lhe 8C shall be
supplemenLary Lo such laws unless Lhe laLLer should provlde Lhe conLrary. Pence, legal prlnclples developed from
Lhe enal Code may be applled ln a supplemenLary capaclLy Lo crlmes punlshed under speclal laws, such as 8.A.
no. 9262, ln whlch Lhe speclal law ls sllenL on a parLlcular maLLer. lL musL emphaslzed LhaL Lhe prlnclple of
consplracy under ArLlcle 8 of Lhe 8C may be applled suppleLorlly Lo 8.A. no. 9262 because of Lhe express
provlslon of SecLlon 47 LhaL Lhe 8C shall be supplemenLary Lo sald law. 1hus, general provlslons of Lhe 8C, whlch
by Lhelr naLure, are necessarlly appllcable, may be applled suppleLorlly.

A81 lll

187

1hus, Lhe prlnclple of consplracy may be applled Lo 8.A. no. 9262. lor once consplracy or acLlon ln concerL Lo
achleve a crlmlnal deslgn ls shown, Lhe acL of one ls Lhe acL of all Lhe consplraLors, and Lhe preclse exLenL or
modallLy of parLlclpaLlon of each of Lhem becomes secondary, slnce all Lhe consplraLors are prlnclpals.

Sec. 3(h) of 8A 9262 expressly recognlzes LhaL Lhe acLs of vlolence may be commlLLed by an offender Lhrough
anoLher
x x x (h) Lngaglng ln purposeful, knowlng, or reckless conducL, personally or Lhrough anoLher, LhaL alarms or causes
subsLanLlal emoLlonal or psychologlcal dlsLress Lo Lhe woman or her chlld. 1hls shall lnclude, buL noL be llmlLed Lo,
Lhe followlng acLs x x x

Sec. 8(a) of 8A 9262 provldes LhaL Lhe proLecLlon order may be lssued agalnsL lndlvlduals oLher Lhan Lhe offendlng
husband
x x x 1he proLecLlon orders LhaL may be lssued under Lhls AcL shall lnclude any, some or all of Lhe followlng rellefs:
(a) rohlblLlon of Lhe respondenL from LhreaLenlng Lo commlL or commlLLlng, personally or Lhrough anoLher, any of
Lhe acLs menLloned ln SecLlon 3 of Lhls AcL, (b) rohlblLlon of Lhe respondenL from harasslng, annoylng,
Lelephonlng, conLacLlng or oLherwlse communlcaLlng wlLh Lhe peLlLloner, dlrecLly orlndlrecLly, x x x (Lmphasls
supplled)

Sec. 4 of 8A 9262 calls for a llberal consLrucLlon of Lhe law
Lhus: 1hls AcL shall be llberally consLrued Lo promoLe Lhe proLecLlon and safeLy of vlcLlms of vlolence agalnsL
women and Lhelr chlldren. x x x 1he lnLenL of Lhe sLaLuLe ls Lhe law ls Lo secure Lhe safeLy and proLecLlon of vlcLlms
of vlolence agalnsL women and Lhelr chlldren

and LhaL Lhls lnLenL musL be effecLuaLed by Lhe courLs. ln Lhe presenL
case, Lhe express language of 8.A. no. 9262 reflecLs Lhe lnLenL of Lhe leglslaLure for llberal consLrucLlon as wlll besL
ensure Lhe aLLalnmenL of Lhe ob[ecL of Lhe law accordlng Lo lLs Lrue lnLenL, meanlng and splrlL - Lhe proLecLlon and
safeLy of vlcLlms of vlolence agalnsL women and chlldren.

CLher noLes:
1.1he maxlm "expresslo unlos esL excluslo alLerlus" flnds no appllcaLlon slnce lL ls only an "anclllary rule of
sLaLuLory consLrucLlon." lL ls noL of unlversal appllcaLlon. nelLher ls lL concluslve. lL should be applled only as a
means of dlscoverlng leglslaLlve lnLenL whlch ls noL oLherwlse manlfesL and should noL be permlLLed Lo defeaL Lhe
plalnly lndlcaLed purpose of Lhe leglslaLure.

2. As Lo Lhe lssue of consplracy, ls lL one of evldenLlary maLLer whlch should be Lhreshed ouL ln a full-blown Lrlal on
Lhe merlLs and cannoL be deLermlned ln Lhe presenL peLlLlon slnce Lhls CourL ls noL a Lrler of facLs.

eLlLlon CranLed. lL reversed and seL aslde Lhe resoluLlon of he Lrlal courL lnsofar as dlsmlsslng Lhe peLlLlon agalnsL
Sps. 1an.

kustan-Ang v. CA (2010)

lacLs:
lrlsh Sagud and 8usLan Ang became "on-and-off" sweeLhearLs unLll lrlsh declded Lo break up wlLh 8usLan afLer she
learned LhaL he had Laken a llve-ln parLner whom he had goLLen pregnanL.

8efore 8usLan goL marrled, he Lrled Lo convlnce lrlsh Lo elope wlLh hlm. lrlsh, however, re[ecLed hls proposal. She
changed her cellphone number buL 8usLan somehow managed Lo geL hold of lL and senL her LexL messages. Pe
used Lwo cellphone numbers for sendlng hls messages. lrlsh replled Lo hls LexL messages buL lL was Lo ask hlm Lo
leave her alone.

Cn !une 3, 2003, lrlsh recelved Lhrough mulLlmedla message servlce (MMS) a plcLure of a naked woman wlLh her
face superlmposed on Lhe flgure. 1he sender's cellphone number was one of Lhe numbers LhaL 8usLan used.

A81 lll

188

AfLer she goL Lhe obscene plcLure, lrlsh goL oLher LexL messages from 8usLan. Pe boasLed LhaL lL would be easy for
hlm Lo creaLe slmllarly scandalous plcLures of her. Pe also LhreaLened Lo spread Lhe plcLure Lhrough Lhe lnLerneL.

lrlsh soughL Lhe help of Lhe pollce ln apprehendlng 8usLan. under pollce supervlslon, she conLacLed 8usLan and
asked hlm Lo meeL her aL Lhe LorenLess 8esorL. When 8usLan came, pollce offlcers lnLercepLed and arresLed hlm.
1hey searched hlm and selzed hls Sony Lrlcsson 900 cellphone and several SlM cards. Whlle 8usLan was belng
quesLloned aL Lhe pollce sLaLlon, he shouLed aL lrlsh: "MolooJl ko kosl!"

8usLan clalms LhaL he wenL Lo meeL lrlsh because she asked hlm Lo help her ldenLlfy a pranksLer who was sendlng
her mallclous LexL messages. 8usLan goL Lhe sender's number and, preLendlng Lo be lrlsh, conLacLed Lhe person.
8usLan clalms LhaL he goL back obscene messages from Lhe pranksLer, whlch he forwarded Lo lrlsh from hls
cellphone. Accordlng Lo hlm, Lhls explalned why Lhe obscene messages appeared Lo have orlglnaLed from hls
cellphone number. 8usLan clalms LhaL lL was lrlsh herself who senL Lhe obscene plcLure Lo hlm.
1he 81C found lrlsh's LesLlmony compleLely credlble, glven ln an honesL and sponLaneous manner. 1he Lrlal courL
found 8usLan gullLy of Lhe vlolaLlon of SecLlon 3(h) of 8.A. 9262. 1he CA afflrmed Lhe 81C declslon and denled
8usLan's M8. 8usLan flled a peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl before Lhe SC.

lSSuL:
1. WheLher or noL a "daLlng relaLlonshlp" exlsLed beLween 8usLan and lrlsh as Lhls Lerm ls deflned ln 8.A.
9262, and
2. WheLher or noL a slngle acL of harassmenL, llke Lhe sendlng of Lhe nude plcLure ln Lhls case, already
consLlLuLes a vlolaLlon of SecLlon 3(h) of 8.A. 9262.

PLLu:
1. ?LS. SecLlon 3(e) of 8A 9262 provldes LhaL a "daLlng relaLlonshlp" lncludes a slLuaLlon where Lhe parLles
are romanLlcally lnvolved over Llme and on a conLlnulng basls durlng Lhe course of Lhe relaLlonshlp. 1he
law dld noL use ln lLs provlslons Lhe colloqulal verb "romance" LhaL lmplles a sexual acL. 8aLher, lt oseJ tbe
oooo "tomooce" to Jesctlbe o coople's telotloosblp, l.e., "a love affalr.

1he law lLself dlsLlngulshes a sexual relaLlonshlp from a daLlng relaLlonshlp. SecLlon 3(e) deflnes "daLlng
relaLlonshlp" whlle SecLlon 3(f) deflnes "sexual relaLlons." 1he laLLer "refers Lo a slngle sexual acL whlch
may or may noL resulL ln Lhe bearlng of a common chlld." 1be Jotloq telotloosblp tbot tbe low
cootemplotes coo, tbetefote, exlst eveo wltboot o sexool lotetcootse tokloq ploce betweeo tbose lovolveJ.

An "owoy-botl" or a flghL-and-klss Lhlng beLween Lwo lovers does noL mean LhaL Lhe romanLlc relaLlon
beLween Lhe Lwo should be deemed broken up durlng perlods of mlsundersLandlng.

2. ?LS. SecLlon 3(a) of 8.A. 9262 punlshes "any acL or serles of acLs" LhaL consLlLuLes vlolence agalnsL
women. 1hls means LhaL o sloqle oct of botossmeot, wblcb ttooslotes loto vloleoce, woolJ be eoooqb. 1he
ob[ecL of Lhe law ls Lo proLecL women and chlldren. unlshlng only vlolence LhaL ls repeaLedly commlLLed
would llcense lsolaLed ones.

WhaL ls obscene and ln[urlous Lo an offended woman can of course only be deLermlned based on Lhe
clrcumsLances of each case. Pere, Lhe naked woman on Lhe plcLure, her legs spread open and bearlng
lrlsh's head and face, was clearly an obscene plcLure and, Lo lrlsh a revolLlng and offenslve one. Surely,
any woman llke lrlsh, who ls noL ln Lhe pornography Lrade, would be scandallzed and palned lf she sees
herself ln such a plcLure. WhaL makes lL furLher Lerrlfylng ls LhaL, as lrlsh LesLlfled, 8usLan senL Lhe plcLure
wlLh a LhreaL Lo posL lL ln Lhe lnLerneL for all Lo see. 1haL musL have glven her a nlghLmare.

"&,;;%,0&,; :&=&-&&,

A81 lll

189

Montec|aros v. CCMLLLC (2002)
lAC1S: Sanggunlang kabaLaan (Sk) elecLlons and 8arangay elecLlons were noL held as scheduled as lL was
operaLlonally very dlfflculL" Lo hold boLh elecLlons slmulLaneously ln May 2002. SubsequenLly, Congress enacLed
8.A. no. 9164, whlch provldes LhaL voLers and candldaLes for Lhe Sk elecLlons musL be aL leasL 13 buL less Lhan 18
years of age on Lhe day of Lhe elecLlon." under Lhe Local CovernmenL Code of 1991, membershlp ln Lhe Sk ls
llmlLed Lo youLhs aL leasL 13 buL noL more Lhan 21 years old. eLlLloners, who are all 20 years old, flled Lhe peLlLlon
on Lhelr own behalf and on behalf of oLher youLhs slmllarly slLuaLed, Lo prevenL boLh Lhe posLponemenL of Lhe Sk
elecLlons and Lhe reducLlon of Lhe age requlremenL for membershlp ln Lhe Sk.

lSSuL: WCn Congress can lower Lhe prescrlbed maxlmum age requlremenL under Lhe Local CovernmenL Code of
1991 for membershlp ln Lhe Sk Lo Lhe dlsenfranchlsemenL of abouL 7 mllllon youLhs

8uLlnC: ?es. eLlLloners do noL have a vesLed rlghL Lo Lhe permanence of Lhe age requlremenL under SecLlon
424 of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code of 1991. under 8A no. 9164, Congress merely resLored Lhe age requlremenL ln
u no. 684, Lhe orlglnal charLer of Lhe Sk, whlch flxed Lhe maxlmum age for membershlp ln Lhe Sk Lo youLhs less
Lhan 18 years old. 1he CourL cannoL resLraln Congress from amendlng or repeallng laws, for Lhe power Lo make
laws lncludes Lhe power Lo change Lhe laws.

8A1lC: Congress exerclses Lhe power Lo prescrlbe Lhe quallflcaLlons for Sk membershlp. Cne who ls no
longer quallfled because of an amendmenL ln Lhe law cannoL complaln of belng deprlved of a proprleLary rlghL Lo
Sk membershlp. Cnly Lhose who quallfy as Sk members can conLesL, based on a sLaLuLory rlghL, any acL
dlsquallfylng Lhem from Sk membershlp or from voLlng ln Lhe Sk elecLlons. Sk membershlp ls noL a properLy rlghL
proLecLed by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon because lL ls a mere sLaLuLory rlghL conferred by law.

8. 1he Mun|c|pa||ty

Munez v. Ar||no (199S)
ln uecember 26, 1989, Mayor Asuero lrlsarl of LoreLo, Agusan del Sur summoned Lo hls offlce Apollnarlo S. Munez
(complalnanL) for a conference respecLlng a land dlspuLe whlch Lhe laLLer had wlLh one 1lrso Amado. uue Lo
Munez's fallure Lo appear ln Lhe sald conference, Mayor lrlsarl lssued a warranL of arresL agalnsL hlm on uecember
27, 1989. Munez was arresLed LhereafLer. ComplalnanL Munlz flled Lwo cases agalnsL Mayor lrlsarl. 1he flrsL was
wlLh Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman for grave mlsconducL and usurpaLlon of !udlclal funcLlon and Lhe second, an
admlnlsLraLlve complalnL wlLh Lhe Sanggunlang anlalawlgan of Agusan del Sur for vlolaLlon of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon,
mlsconducL ln offlce and abuse of auLhorlLy. 8ased on Lhelr prellmlnary flndlngs, Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman
flled a crlmlnal case for usurpaLlon of [udlclal funcLlon agalnsL Mayor lrlsarl ln Lhe MC1C. 1he case was laLer
asslgned Lo respondenL !udge Clrlaco Arlno afLer Lhe flrsL [udge lnhlblLed hlmself from Lhe case.

Mayor lrlsarl moved Lo quash Lhe lnformaLlon alleglng LhaL under 143(3) of Lhe former Local CovernmenL Code (8
337), mayors were auLhorlzed Lo lssue warranLs of arresL. !udge Arlno denled Lhe moLlon Lo quash on Lhe ground
LhaL Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon had Lhe effecL of removlng Lhe power of mayors Lo lssue a warranL of arresL. ln Lhe
admlnlsLraLlve case, Lhe Sanggunlang anlalawlgan found hlm gullLy and ordered hlm suspended for 8 monLhs
wlLhouL pay. Cn appeal, however, Lhe ulLC reversed Lhe declslon on Lhe ground LhaL whaL Lhe mayor had lssued
was acLually [usL an lnvlLaLlon or a summons and noL a WarranL of ArresL" as so worded. Mayor lrlsarl Lhen moved
for reconslderaLlon of Lhls M1C from !udge Arlno on Lhe ground LhaL as Lhe ulLC exculpaLed hlm for Lhe same acLs
from whlch Lhe 2 cases were based from, he should be acqulLLed. !udge Arlno, Lhls Llme, slded wlLh Lhe Mayor and
acqulLLed hlm. upon recelpL of Lhe order, Munez flled a complalnL charglng !udge Arlno wlLh knowlngly renderlng
an un[usL [udgmenL for dlsmlsslng Lhe case agalnsL Mayor lrlsarl.

lssue:
A81 lll

190

WCn !udge Arlno ls admlnlsLraLlvely llable for dlsmlsslng Lhe crlmlnal case agalnsL Mayor lrlsarl.

Peld: ?es.

under Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon, Mayors no longer have Lhe power Lo lssue a WarranL of ArresL.
1he courL ruled LhaL Mayor lrlsanl could noL have mlsLaken Lhe WarranL of ArresL" for a Summon. ln facL, Mayor
lrlsarl [usLlfled hls order on Lhe basls of 143(3) of Lhe former LCC (8. 337) whlch expressly provlded LhaL "ln cases
where Lhe mayor may conducL prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon, Lhe mayor shall, upon probable cause afLer examlnaLlon
of wlLnesses, have Lhe auLhorlLy Lo order Lhe arresL of Lhe accused." 1hls provlslon had, however, been repealed
by ArL. lll, s. 2 of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon whlch provldes LhaL "no search warranL or warranL of arresL shall lssue
excepL upon probable cause Lo be deLermlned personally by Lhe [udge.."

1he acLs alleged ln Lhe lnformaLlon consLlLuLe a crlme. under ArL. 241 of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code, Lhe crlme of
usurpaLlon of [udlclal auLhorlLy lnvolves Lhe followlng elemenLs: (1) LhaL Lhe offender ls an offlcer of Lhe execuLlve
branch of Lhe governmenL, and (2) LhaL he assumes [udlclal powers, or obsLrucLs Lhe execuLlon of any order or
declslon rendered by any [udge wlLhln hls [urlsdlcLlon. 1hese elemenLs were alleged ln Lhe lnformaLlon. Mayor
lrlsarl was an offlcer of Lhe execuLlve branch. When he lssued Lhe warranL, Lhere was before hlm no crlmlnal case,
buL only a land dlspuLe. lL would Lhen appear LhaL he assumed a !udlclal funcLlon whlch even a [udge could noL
have done. All Lhe more, Lherefore, respondenL [udge should noL have dlsmlssed Lhe crlmlnal case agalnsL Lhe
mayor.

!udge Clrlaco Arlno should have known LhaL whaL was before hlm was a crlmlnal case and he should have
consldered solely Lhe facLs alleged ln Lhe lnformaLlon ln resolvlng Lhe moLlon Lo dlsmlss of Lhe accused. 1o [usLlfy
hls rellance on Lhe oplnlon of Lhe ulLC, respondenL [udge lnvoked Lhe rule ln admlnlsLraLlve law LhaL Lhe flndlngs of
facLs of admlnlsLraLlve agencles, when supporLed by subsLanLlal evldence, are blndlng on Lhe courLs ln Lhe absence
of a showlng of fraud, lmposlLlon or dlshonesLy. 1he CourL held LhaL Lhls ls grossly erroneous.

!udge Arlno was flned hp 3,000.

Greater 8a|anga Dev't. Corp. v. Mun|c|pa||ty of 8a|anga, 8ataan (1994)
lacLs:
- 1he case lnvolves a parcel of land, LoL 261-8-6-A-3 locaLed behlnd Lhe publlc markeL ln Lhe MunlclpallLy of
8alanga, rovlnce of 8aLaan. lL ls reglsLered ln Lhe name of CreaLer 8alanga uevelopmenL, Corp., owned and
conLrolled by Lhe Camacho famlly. 1he loL was parL of LoL 261-8, formerly reglsLered ln Lhe name of Aurora 8anzon
Camacho, whlch was laLer subdlvlded lnLo cerLaln loLs, some of whlch were sold, oLhers donaLed. llve buyers of
Lhe loL flled a clvll case agalnsL Camacho for parLlLlon and dellvery of LlLles.
- eLlLloner applled for and was granLed a buslness permlL by Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Mayor of 8alanga buL falled Lo
menLlon Lhe exlsLence of Lhe clvll case for parLlLlon and dellvery of LlLles. 1he permlL was granLed Lhe prlvllege of a
real esLaLe dealer/prlvaLely-owned markeL operaLor." Powever, Lhe Sanggunlang 8ayan (S8) passed 8esoluLlon
no. 12 s-88, annulllng Lhe Mayor's permlL lssued Lo eLlLloner, on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe lssue as Lo Lhe ownershlp of
Lhe loL caused anxleLy, uncerLalnLy and resLlveness among Lhe sLallholders and Lraders ln Lhe loL," and advlslng
Lhe Mayor Lo revoke Lhe permlL Lo operaLe a publlc markeL." 1he Mayor Lhen revoked Lhe permlL Lhrough LC no.
1 s-88.
- eLlLloner flled Lhls peLlLlon wlLh prayer for prellmlnary prohlblLory and mandaLory ln[uncLlon or resLralnlng
order and Lo relnsLaLe Lhe Mayor's permlL and Lo curLall Lhe munlclpallLy's collecLlon of markeL and enLrance fees
from Lhe loL occupanLs. Pe alleges LhaL: 1) lL dldn'L vlolaLe any law, Lhus, Lhere's no reason for revocaLlon of Lhe
permlL, 2) 8espondenLs falled Lo observe due process ln Lhe revocaLlon, 3) Lhe collecLlon of markeL fees ls lllegal.
- Cn Lhe oLher hand, 8espondenLs asserL LhaL Lhe Mayor as Lhe local chlef execuLlve has Lhe power Lo lssue,
deny or revoke permlLs. 1hey clalm LhaL Lhe revocaLlon was due Lo Lhe vlolaLlon by eLlLloner of SecLlon 3A-06(b)
A81 lll

191

of Lhe 8alanga 8evenue Code when lL: 1) made false sLaLemenL ln Lhe appllcaLlon form, falllng Lo dlsclose LhaL Lhe
loL was sub[ecL Lo adverse clalms for whlch a clvll case was flled, 2) falled Lo apply for 2 separaLe permlLs for Lhe 2
llnes of buslness (real esLaLe and publlc markeL).

lssue: W/n Lhe revocaLlon of Lhe Mayor's permlL was valld.

Peld: nC.
- 1he powers of munlclpal corporaLlons are Lo be consLrued ln sLrlcLlsslml [urls and any doubL or amblgulLy
musL be consLrued agalnsL Lhe munlclpallLy. 1he auLhorlLy of Lhe Mayor Lo revoke permlLs ls premlsed on a
vlolaLlon by Lhe granLee of any of lLs condlLlons for lLs granL. lor revocaLlon Lo be [usLlfled under Lhe 8alanga
8evenue Code, Lhere musL be: 1) proof of wlllful mlsrepresenLaLlon, and 2) dellberaLe lnLenL Lo make a false
sLaLemenL. Cood falLh ls always presumed.
! ln Lhls case, Lhe appllcaLlon for Mayor's permlL requrles Lhe appllcanL Lo sLaLe Lhe Lype of buslness,
professlon, occupaLlon, prlvlleges applled for." eLlLloner lefL Lhls enLry bank ln lLs appllcaLlon form. lL ls only ln Lhe
Mayor's permlL lLself LhaL peLlLloner's llnes of buslness appear. 8evocaLlon ls noL [usLlfled because eLlLloner dld
noL make any false sLaLemenL Lhereln.
! nelLher was peLlLloner's applylng for Lwo buslnesses ln one permlL a ground for revocaLlon. 1he second
paragraph of SecLlon 3A-06(b) does noL expressly requlre Lwo permlLs for Lhelr conducL of Lwo or more buslnesses
ln one place, buL only LhaL separaLe fees be pald for each buslness. CranLlng, however, LhaL separaLe permlLs are
acLually requlred, Lhe appllcaLlon form does noL conLaln any enLry as regards Lhe number of buslnesses Lhe
appllcanL wlshes Lo engage ln.
- 1he S8's 8esoluLlon merely menLloned Lhe plan Lo acqulre Lhe LoL for expanslon of Lhe 8alanga ubllc
MarkeL ad[acenL LhereLo. 1he S8 doesn'L acLually malnLaln a publlc markeL on Lhe area. unLll exproprlaLlon
proceedlngs are lnsLlLuLed ln courL, Lhe
landowner cannoL be deprlved of lLs rlghL over Lhe land.
- Cf course, Lhe S8 has Lhe duLy ln Lhe exerclse of lLs pollce powers Lo regulaLe any buslness sub[ecL Lo
munlclpal llcense fees and prescrlbe Lhe condlLlons under whlch a munlclpal llcense already lssued may be revoked
(8.. 8lg. 337, Sec. 149 [1] [r]), buL Lhe "anxleLy, uncerLalnLy, resLlveness" among Lhe sLallholders and Lraders dolng
buslness on a properLy noL owned by Lhe MunlclpallLy cannoL be a valld ground for revoklng Lhe permlL of
eLlLloner.
- Also, Lhe manner by whlch Lhe Mayor revoked Lhe permlL Lransgressed peLlLloner's rlghL Lo due process.
1he alleged vlolaLlon of SecLlon 3A-06(b) of Lhe 8alanga 8evenue Code was noL sLaLed ln Lhe order of revocaLlon,
and nelLher was peLlLloner lnformed of Lhls speclflc vlolaLlon. Moreover, 8espondenL MunlclpallLy lsn'L Lhe owner
of LoL 261 8-6-A-3, and Lhus cannoL collecL markeL fees, whlch only an owner can do.

C. 1he C|ty

L|m and Arayb|as v. CA (2002)

lAC1S:
Cn uecember 7, 1992 8lsLro flled before Lhe Lrlal courL a peLlLlon for mandamus and prohlblLlon agalnsL Llm ln hls
capaclLy as Mayor of Lhe ClLy of Manlla. 8lsLro flled Lhe case because pollcemen under Llm's lnsLrucLlons lnspecLed
and lnvesLlgaLed 8lsLro's llcense as well as Lhe work permlLs and healLh cerLlflcaLes of lLs sLaff. 1hls caused Lhe
sLoppage of work ln 8lsLro's nlghL club and resLauranL operaLlons. Llm also refused Lo accepL 8lsLro's appllcaLlon
for a buslness llcense, as well as Lhe work permlL appllcaLlons of 8lsLro's sLaff, for Lhe year 1993.

AcLlng on 8lsLro's appllcaLlon for ln[uncLlve rellef, Lhe Lrlal courL lssued a Lemporary resLralnlng order and a wrlL of
prohlblLory prellmlnary ln[uncLlon.

Powever, desplLe Lhe Lrlal courL's order, Llm sLlll lssued a closure order on 8lsLro's operaLlons even sendlng
pollcemen Lo carry ouL hls closure order. Meanwhlle, Llm flled a moLlon Lo dlssolve Lhe ln[uncLlve order and Lo
A81 lll

192

dlsmlss Lhe case. Llm lnslsLed LhaL Lhe power of a mayor Lo lnspecL and lnvesLlgaLe commerclal esLabllshmenLs and
Lhelr sLaff ls lmpllclL ln Lhe sLaLuLory power of Lhe clLy mayor Lo lssue, suspend or revoke buslness permlLs and
llcenses. 1hls sLaLuLory power ls expressly provlded for ln SecLlon 11 (l), ArLlcle ll of Lhe 8evlsed CharLer of Lhe ClLy
of Manlla and ln SecLlon 433, paragraph 3 (lv) of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code of 1991.

1he Lrlal courL denled Llm's moLlon Lo dlssolve Lhe ln[uncLlon and Lo dlsmlss Lhe case.

Llm flled wlLh Lhe CourL of Appeals a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl, prohlblLlon and mandamus agalnsL 8lsLro and !udge
Wllfredo 8eyes. Llm clalmed LhaL Lhe Lrlal [udge commlLLed grave abuse of dlscreLlon amounLlng Lo lack of
[urlsdlcLlon ln lssulng Lhe wrlL of prohlblLory prellmlnary ln[uncLlon.

1he CourL of Appeals rendered Lhe assalled declslon and ln a resoluLlon denled Llm's moLlon for reconslderaLlon. ln
denylng Llm's peLlLlon, Lhe CourL of Appeals held LhaL Lhe Lrlal courL dld noL commlL grave abuse of dlscreLlon slnce
lL lssued Lhe wrlL afLer hearlng on Lhe basls of Lhe evldence adduced.

ISSUL:
WCn Lhe CA made reverslble errors ln upholdlng Lhe orders of Lhe Lrlal courL.

1he 8ullng of Lhe SC:
nC L88C8 WAS CCMMl11Lu

Llm relles prlmarlly on hls power, as Mayor of Lhe ClLy of Manlla, Lo granL and refuse munlclpal llcenses and
buslness permlLs as expressly provlded for ln Lhe Local CovernmenL Code and Lhe 8evlsed CharLer of Lhe ClLy of
Manlla. Llm argues LhaL Lhe powers granLed by Lhese laws lmpllclLly lnclude Lhe power Lo lnspecL, lnvesLlgaLe and
close down 8lsLro's operaLlons for vlolaLlon of Lhe condlLlons of lLs llcenses and permlLs.

1he auLhorlLy of mayors Lo lssue buslness llcenses and permlLs ls beyond quesLlon. 1he law expressly provldes for
such auLhorlLy. SecLlon 11 (l), ArLlcle ll of Lhe 8evlsed CharLer of Lhe ClLy of Manlla, reads:

"Sec. 11. Ceneral duLles and powers of Lhe mayor. 1he general duLles and powers of Lhe mayor shall be:

x x x.

(l) 1o granL and refuse munlclpal llcenses or permlLs of all classes and Lo revoke Lhe same for vlolaLlon of Lhe
condlLlons upon whlch Lhey were granLed, or lf acLs prohlblLed by law or munlclpal ordlnances are belng
commlLLed under Lhe proLecLlon of such llcenses or ln Lhe premlses ln whlch Lhe buslness for whlch Lhe same have
been granLed ls carrled on, or for any oLher reason of general lnLeresL." (Lmphasls supplled)

Cn Lhe oLher hand, SecLlon 433 (3) (lv) of Lhe Local CovernmenL Code provldes:

"Sec. 433. Chlef LxecuLlve, owers, uuLles and CompensaLlon: xxx.

(b) lor efflclenL, effecLlve and economlcal governance Lhe purpose of whlch ls Lhe general welfare of Lhe ClLy and
lLs lnhablLanLs pursuanL Lo SecLlon 16 of Lhls Code, Lhe ClLy Mayor shall:

(3) x x x.

(lv) lssue llcenses and permlLs and suspend or revoke Lhe same for any vlolaLlon of Lhe condlLlon upon whlch sald
llcenses or permlLs had been lssued, pursuanL Lo law or ordlnance." (Lmphasls supplled)

lrom Lhe language of Lhe Lwo laws, lL ls clear LhaL Lhe power of Lhe mayor Lo lssue buslness llcenses and permlLs
necessarlly lncludes Lhe corollary power Lo suspend, revoke or even refuse Lo lssue Lhe same. Powever, Lhe power
A81 lll

193

Lo suspend or revoke Lhese llcenses and permlLs ls expressly premlsed on Lhe vlolaLlon of Lhe condlLlons of Lhese
permlLs and llcenses. 1he laws speclflcally refer Lo Lhe "vlolaLlon of Lhe condlLlon(s)" on whlch Lhe llcenses and
permlLs were lssued. Slmllarly, Lhe power Lo refuse Lo lssue such llcenses and permlLs ls premlsed on non-
compllance wlLh Lhe prerequlslLes for Lhe lssuance of such llcenses and permlLs. 1he mayor musL observe due
process ln exerclslng Lhese powers, whlch means LhaL Lhe mayor musL glve Lhe appllcanL or llcensee noLlce and
opporLunlLy Lo be heard.

1rue, Lhe mayor has Lhe power Lo lnspecL and lnvesLlgaLe prlvaLe commerclal esLabllshmenLs for any vlolaLlon of
Lhe condlLlons of Lhelr llcenses and permlLs. Powever, Lhe mayor has no power Lo order a pollce rald on Lhese
esLabllshmenLs ln Lhe gulse of lnspecLlng or lnvesLlgaLlng Lhese commerclal esLabllshmenLs. Llm acLed beyond hls
auLhorlLy when he dlrecLed pollcemen Lo rald Lhe new 8angkok Club and Lhe LxoLlc Carden 8esLauranL.

Llm has no auLhorlLy Lo close down 8lsLro's buslness or any buslness esLabllshmenL ln Manlla wlLhouL due process
of law. Llm cannoL Lake refuge under Lhe 8evlsed CharLer of Lhe ClLy of Manlla and Lhe Local CovernmenL Code.
1here ls no provlslon ln Lhese laws expressly or lmplledly granLlng Lhe mayor auLhorlLy Lo close down prlvaLe
commerclal esLabllshmenLs wlLhouL noLlce and hearlng. 1he due process clause of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon requlres LhaL
Llm should have glven 8lsLro an opporLunlLy Lo rebuL Lhe allegaLlons LhaL lL vlolaLed Lhe condlLlons of lLs llcenses
and permlLs.

1he regulaLory powers granLed Lo munlclpal corporaLlons musL always be exerclsed ln accordance wlLh law, wlLh
uLmosL observance of Lhe rlghLs of Lhe people Lo due process and equal proLecLlon of Lhe law. Such power cannoL
be exerclsed whlmslcally, arblLrarlly or despoLlcally. ln Lhe lnsLanL case, we flnd LhaL Llm's exerclse of Lhls power
vlolaLed 8lsLro's properLy rlghLs LhaL are proLecLed under Lhe due process clause of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.

Llm dld noL charge 8lsLro wlLh any speclflc vlolaLlon of Lhe condlLlons of lLs buslness llcense or permlLs. SLlll, Llm
closed down 8lsLro's operaLlons even before Lhe explraLlon of lLs buslness llcense on uecember 31, 1992. Llm also
refused Lo accepL 8lsLro's llcense appllcaLlon for 1993, ln effecL denylng Lhe appllcaLlon wlLhouL examlnlng
wheLher lL complles wlLh legal prerequlslLes.

D. 1he rov|nce

L. Loca| I|sca| Adm|n|strat|on : Sec. 303 - 306, LGC

k|vera vs. Ma|o|os (19S7)
lacLs: 8lvera won Lhe blddlng for Lhe supply of road consLrucLlon maLerlals Lo Lhe MunlclpallLy of Malolos ln
AugusL 1949. Pe slgned a conLracL wlLh Lhe munlclpal mayor Lwo days afLer Lhe blddlng ln whlch lL was sLlpulaLed
LhaL he would dellver Lo Lhe munlclpallLy 2,700 cublc meLers of crushed adobe sLone and 1,400 cublc meLers of
gravel for 19, 233.

AbouL a year laLer, ln !uly 1930, 8lvera wroLe Lo Lhe munlclpal Lreasurer polnLlng ouL LhaL he was yeL Lo be pald
Lhough Lhe consLrucLlon maLerlals had been dellvered, and slnce Lhe flscal year 1949-1930 had already explred, he
asked LhaL Lhe sum be lncluded ln Lhe approprlaLlons for Lhe comlng year as an ouLsLandlng obllgaLlon. 1hree days
laLer, on AugusL 2 1930, Lhe prlnclpal clerk, acLlng ln behalf of Lhe munlclpal Lreasurer, Lold 8lvera Lhe munlclpal
councll had agreed Lo puL Lhe sald amounL as a sLandlng obllgaLlon and LhaL lL had auLhorlzed Lhe munlclpal
Lreasurer Lo pay as soon as funds were avallable. More Lhan a year laLer, on CcLober 16, 1931, Lhe munlclpal
councll raLlfled Lhe publlc blddlng called by Lhe munlclpal Lreasurer for Lhe supply of Lhe road consLrucLlon
maLerlals, as well as Lhe conLracL enLered lnLo by Lhe munlclpal mayor ln behalf of Lhe munlclpallLy ln AugusL 1949.

8lvera flled a clalm for a sum of money before Lhe Cll 8ulacan on CcLober 31, 1931, Lhe Cll dlsmlssed Lhe case
wlLhouL pre[udlce on !anuary 8 1934. Cn !anuary 11 8lvera broughL hls case Lo Lhe resldenLlal ComplalnLs and
AcLlon CommlLLee, whlch forwarded hls clalm Lo Lhe Cfflce of Lhe AudlLor Ceneral. 1he uepuLy AudlLor Ceneral
A81 lll

194

denled 8lvera's clalm on Lhe followlng year (14 !anuary 1933) on Lhe ground LhaL slnce Lhere was no money
approprlaLed Lo pay for Lhe obllgaLlon before Lhe execuLlon of Lhe conLracL, as requlred by Lhe 8evlsed
AdmlnlsLraLlve Code, Lhe conLracL was vold. lL added LhaL even lf Lhere was money approprlaLed for Lhe obllgaLlon,
Lhe dellverles of crushed adobe sLone and gravel could no longer be verlfled by elLher Lhe rovlnclal AudlLor of
8ulacan or hls represenLaLlve. 8lvera appealed Lo Lhe Supreme CourL.

Peld: nC, 8lvera was noL enLlLled Lo paymenL under Lhe conLracL. 1he conLracL was enLered lnLo wlLhouL Lhe
requlremenLs speclfled by Lhe 8evlsed AdmlnlsLraLlve Code, and Lhe provlnclal audlLor dld noL check on Lhe
dellverles made under Lhe conLracL.

8aLlo: Whlle munlclpallLles are allowed Lo enLer lnLo conLracLs and Lhe munlclpal councll may deslgnaLe a
parLlcular offlcer Lo enLer lnLo a conLracL on behalf of Lhe munlclpallLy, Lhe law requlres LhaL before conLracLs
lnvolvlng 2,000 are enLered lnLo or auLhorlzed, Lhe munlclpal Lreasurer musL cerLlfy Lo Lhe offlcer enLerlng lnLo
such conLracL LhaL 1) funds have been approprlaLed for lL and 2) Lhe amounL ls avallable for expendlLure. A
conLracL LhaL was enLered lnLo wlLhouL Lhose Lwo requlremenLs ls vold. 1he CourL also sald LhaL Lhe provlnclal
audlLor or hls represenLaLlve musL check Lhe dellverles made by a conLracLor pursuanL Lo a conLracL enLered lnLo
by Lhe munlclpallLy, oLherwlse, Lhe AudlLor Ceneral was noL duLy bound Lo pass and allow ln audlL paymenL under
Lhe conLracL.

1he AudlLor Ceneral had no alLernaLlve buL Lo comply wlLh Lhe provlslons of Lhe law and as Lhe conLracL enLered
lnLo by Lhe munlclpal mayor of Malolos, 8ulacan, was noL ln accordance wlLh law, Lhe AudlLor Ceneral was correcL
ln denylng Lhe peLlLloner's clalm.

I. App||cat|on of the LGC to Loca| Government Un|ts |n the Autonomous keg|on

G. 1he Autonomous keg|on |n Mus||m M|ndanao

D|somangcop v. Datumanong (2004)

lacLs:
Cn Aug. 1, 1989, 8A 6734 was passed (Crganlc AcL of A8MM). lour provlnces voLed for lncluslon ln
A8MM, namely: Lanao del Sur, Magulndanao, Sulu and 1awl-1awl.
ln accordance wlLh lL, LC 426 was lssued by res. Cory Aqulno on CcL. 12, 1990. 1he same devolved Lo Lhe
A8MM Lhe power of Lhe uWP.
Cn May 20, 1999, uC 119 was lssued by uWP Sec. vlgllar. lL creaLed a uWP Marawl Sub-ulsLrlcL
Lnglneerlng Cfflce whlch shall have [urlsdlcLlon over all naLlonal lnfrasLrucLure pro[ecLs and faclllLles
under Lhe uWP wlLhln Marawl ClLy and Lanao del Sur.
Cn !an. 17, 2001, 8A 8999 whlch creaLed a new Lnglneerlng ulsLrlcL ln Lhe flrsL dlsLrlcL of Lanao del Sur
was passed by res. LsLrada.
Cn March 31, 2001, 8A 9034 whlch amended 8A 6734 was passed. 1he provlnce of 8asllan and Lhe ClLy of
Marawl voLed Lo [oln A8MM Lhrough sald law.
eLlLloners ulsomangcop and ulmaloLang ln Lhelr capaclLy as ClC and Lnglner ll respecLlvely of Lhe llrsL
Lnglneerlng ulsLrlcL of uWP-A8MM ln Lanao del Sur flled a peLlLlon quesLlonlng Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy and
valldlLy of uC 119 and 8A 8999 on Lhe ground LhaL Lhey conLravene Lhe consLlLuLlon and Lhe organlc acLs
of Lhe A8MM.

lssue:
WCn uC 119 and 8A 8999 are boLh lnvalld and consLlLuLlonally lnflrm.

Peld and 8aLlo:

A81 lll

193

Cn 8A 8999
(2) 8A 8999 never became operaLlve and was superseded or repealed by a 8A 9034. 8y creaLlng an offlce
wlLh prevlously devolved funcLlons, 8A 8999, ln essence soughL Lo amend 8A 6074, whlch ls an organlc acL
whlch en[oys afflrmaLlon Lhrough a pleblsclLe. Pence, Lhe provlslons Lhereof cannoL be amended by an
ordlnary sLaLuLe such as 8A 8999. 1he amendaLory law needs Lo be submlLLed also Lo a pleblsclLe whlch ls
lacklng ln Lhe case of 8A 8999. 8A 6734 devolved Lhe funcLlons of Lhe uWP Lo A8MM whlch lncludes
Lanao del Sur.
(3) Moreover, 8A 8999 ls paLenLly lnconslsLenL wlLh 8A 9034 whlch ls a laLer law. 8A 9034, whlch ls anchored
on Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon advances Lhe consLlLuLlonal granL of auLonomy by deLalllng Lhe powers of Lhe
A8MM whlch covers among oLhers Lanao del Sur. Powever, 8A 8999 venLures Lo reesLabllshL he naLlonal
CovernmenL's [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe lnfrasLrucLure programs ln Lanao del Sur. 8A 8999 ls paLenLly
lnconslsLenL wlLh 8A 9034, and lL desLroys Lhe laLLer law's ob[ecLlve of devoluLlon of Lhe funcLlons of
uWP ln llne wlLh Lhe pollcy of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon Lo granL LCus meanlngful and auLhenLlc reglonal
auLonomy.

Cn uC 119
- uC 119 creaLlng Lhe Marawl Sub-ulsLrlcL Lnglneerlng Cfflce whlch has [urlsdlcLlon over lnfrasLrucLure pro[ecLs
wlLhln Marawl ClLy and Lanao del Sur ls vlolaLlve of Lhe provlslons of LC 426 whlch lmplemenLs Lhe Lransfer of
conLrol and supervlslon of Lhe uWP Lo Lhe A8MM ln llne wlLh 8A 6734. 1he offlce creaLed under uC 119 havlng
essenLlally Lhe same powers wlLh Lhe ulsLrlcL Lnglneerlng Cfflce of Lanao del Sur as creaLed under LC 426, ls a
dupllcaLlon. 1he uC ln effecL Lakes back powers whlch have been prevloulsy devolved under LC 426. 8A 9034
however has repealed uC 119 because Lhe former seeks Lo Lransfer conLrol and supervlslon of uWP offlces Lo
A8MM.

Abbas v. CCMLLLC (1989)

eLlLloner Abbas argues LhaL 8A 6734 uncondlLlonally creaLes an auLonomous reglon ln Mlndanao, conLrary Lo Lhe
aforequoLed provlslons of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon on Lhe auLonomous reglon whlch make Lhe creaLlon of such reglon
dependenL upon Lhe ouLcome of Lhe pleblsclLe. ln supporL of hls argumenL, peLlLloner clLes ArL. ll, Sec. 1(1) of 8A
6734 whlch declares LhaL "Lhere ls hereby creaLed Lhe AuLonomous 8eglon ln Musllm Mlndanao, Lo be composed
of provlnces and clLles voLlng favorably ln Lhe pleblsclLe called for Lhe purpose, ln accordance wlLh Sec. 18, ArL. x of
Lhe ConsLlLuLlon." eLlLloner conLends LhaL Lhe Lenor of Lhe above provlslon makes Lhe creaLlon of an auLonomous
reglon absoluLe, such LhaL even lf only Lwo provlnces voLe ln favor of auLonomy, an auLonomous reglon would sLlll
be creaLed composed of Lhe Lwo provlnces where Lhe favorable voLes were obLalned. 1he maLLer of Lhe creaLlon of
Lhe auLonomous reglon and lLs composlLlon needs Lo be clarlfled. llrsL, Lhe quesLloned provlslon lLself ln 8A 6734
refers Lo Sec. 18, ArL. x of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon whlch seLs forLh Lhe condlLlons necessary for Lhe creaLlon of Lhe
auLonomous reglon. 1he reference Lo Lhe consLlLuLlonal provlslon cannoL be glossed over for lL clearly lndlcaLes
LhaL Lhe creaLlon of Lhe auLonomous reglon shall Lake place only ln accord wlLh Lhe consLlLuLlonal requlremenLs.
Second, Lhere ls a speclflc provlslon ln Lhe 1ranslLory rovlslons (ArL. xlx) of Lhe Crganlc AcL, whlch lncorporaLes
subsLanLlally Lhe same requlremenLs embodled ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and fllls ln Lhe deLalls, Lhus: SLC. 13. 1he
creaLlon of Lhe AuLonomous 8eglon ln Musllm Mlndanao shall Lake effecL when approved by a ma[orlLy of Lhe
voLes casL by Lhe consLlLuenL unlLs provlded ln paragraph (2) of Sec. 1 of ArL. ll of Lhls AcL ln a pleblsclLe whlch shall
be held noL earller Lhan 90 days or laLer Lhan 120 days afLer Lhe approval of Lhls AcL: rovlded, 1haL only Lhe
provlnces and clLles voLlng favorably ln such pleblsclLe shall be lncluded ln Lhe AuLonomous 8eglon ln Musllm
Mlndanao. 1he provlnces and clLles whlch ln Lhe pleblsclLe do noL voLe for lncluslon ln Lhe AuLonomous 8eglon
shall remaln Lhe exlsLlng admlnlsLraLlve deLermlnaLlon, merge Lhe exlsLlng reglons." 1hus, under Lhe ConsLlLuLlon
and 8.A. no 6734, Lhe creaLlon of Lhe auLonomous reglon shall Lake effecL only when approved by a ma[orlLy of Lhe
voLes casL by Lhe consLlLuenL unlLs ln a pleblsclLe, and only Lhose provlnces and clLles where a ma[orlLy voLe ln
favor of Lhe Crganlc AcL shall be lncluded ln Lhe auLonomous reglon. 1he provlnces and clLles whereln such a
ma[orlLy ls noL aLLalned shall noL be lncluded ln Lhe auLonomous reglon. lL may be LhaL even lf an auLonomous
reglon ls creaLed, noL all of Lhe 13 provlnces and 9 clLles menLloned ln ArL. ll, Sec. 1(2) of 8A 6734 shall be lncluded
Lhereln. 1he slngle pleblsclLe conLemplaLed by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and 8A 6734 wlll Lherefore be deLermlnaLlve of (1)
A81 lll

196

WheLher Lhere shall be an auLonomous reglon ln Musllm Mlndanao and (2) Whlch provlnces and clLles, among
Lhose enumeraLed ln 8A 6734, shall compromlse lL. As provlded ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, Lhe creaLlon of Lhe
AuLonomous reglon ln Musllm Mlndanao ls made effecLlve upon Lhe approval "by ma[orlLy of Lhe voLes casL by Lhe
consLlLuenL unlLs ln a pleblsclLe called for Lhe purpose" [ArL. x, sec. 18]. 1he quesLlon has been ralsed as Lo whaL
Lhls ma[orlLy means. uoes lL refer Lo a ma[orlLy of Lhe LoLal voLes casL ln Lhe pleblsclLe ln all Lhe consLlLuenL unlLs,
or a ma[orlLy ln each of Lhe consLlLuenL unlLs, or boLh? We need noL go beyond Lhe ConsLlLuLlon Lo resolve Lhls
quesLlon. lf Lhe framers of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon lnLended Lo requlre approval by a ma[orlLy of all Lhe voLes casL ln Lhe
pleblsclLe Lhey would have so lndlcaLed. 1hus, ln ArL. xvlll, Sec. 27, lL ls provlded LhaL "[L]hls ConsLlLuLlon shall Lake
effecL lmmedlaLely upon lLs raLlflcaLlon by a ma[orlLy of Lhe voLes casL ln a pleblsclLe held for Lhe purpose."
Comparlng Lhls wlLh Lhe provlslon on Lhe creaLlon of Lhe auLonomous reglon, whlch reads: 1he creaLlon of Lhe
auLonomous reglon shall be effecLlve when approved by ma[orlLy of Lhe voLes casL by Lhe consLlLuenL unlLs ln a
pleblsclLe called for Lhe purpose, provlded LhaL only provlnces, clLles and geographlc areas voLlng favorably ln such
pleblsclLe shall be lncluded ln Lhe auLonomous reglon." [ArL. x, sec, 18, para, 2]. lL wlll readlly be seen LhaL Lhe
creaLlon of Lhe auLonomous reglon ls made Lo depend, noL on Lhe LoLal ma[orlLy voLe ln Lhe pleblsclLe, buL on Lhe
wlll of Lhe ma[orlLy ln each of Lhe consLlLuenL unlLs and Lhe provlso underscores Lhls. for lf Lhe lnLenLlon of Lhe
framers of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon was Lo geL Lhe ma[orlLy of Lhe LoLallLy of Lhe voLes casL, Lhey could have slmply
adopLed Lhe same phraseology as LhaL used for Lhe raLlflcaLlon of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, l.e. "Lhe creaLlon of Lhe
auLonomous reglon shall be effecLlve when approved by a ma[orlLy of Lhe voLes casL ln a pleblsclLe called for Lhe
purpose." lL ls Lhus clear LhaL whaL ls requlred by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon ls a slmple ma[orlLy of voLes approvlng Lhe
organlc AcL ln lndlvldual consLlLuenL unlLs and noL a double ma[orlLy of Lhe voLes ln all consLlLuenL unlLs puL
LogeLher, as well as ln Lhe lndlvldual consLlLuenL unlLs. More lmporLanLly, because of lLs caLegorlcal language, Lhls
ls also Lhe sense ln whlch Lhe voLe requlremenL ln Lhe pleblsclLe provlded under ArL. x, Sec. 18 musL have been
undersLood by Lhe people when Lhey raLlfled Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. lnvoklng Lhe earller clLed consLlLuLlonal provlslons,
peLlLloner Mama-o, on Lhe oLher hand, malnLalns LhaL only Lhose areas whlch, Lo hls vlew, share common and
dlsLlncLlve hlsLorlcal and culLural herlLage, economlc and soclal sLrucLures, and oLher relevanL characLerlsLlcs
should be properly lncluded wlLhln Lhe coverage of Lhe auLonomous reglon. Pe lnslsLs LhaL 8A 6734 ls
unconsLlLuLlonal because only Lhe provlnces of 8asllan, Sulu, 1awl-1awl, Lanao del Sur, Lanao del norLe and
Magulndanao and Lhe clLles of Marawl and CoLabaLo, and noL all of Lhe 13 provlnces and 9 clLles lncluded ln Lhe
Crganlc AcL, possess such concurrence ln hlsLorlcal and culLural herlLage and oLher relevanL characLerlsLlcs. 8y
lncludlng areas whlch do noL sLrlcLly share Lhe same characLerlsLlcs. 8y lncludlng areas whlch do noL sLrlcLly share
Lhe same characLerlsLlc as Lhe oLhers, peLlLloner clalms LhaL Congress has expanded Lhe scope of Lhe auLonomous
reglon whlch Lhe consLlLuLlon lLself has prescrlbed Lo be llmlLed. eLlLloner's argumenL ls noL Lenable. 1he
ConsLlLuLlon lays down Lhe sLandards by whlch Congress shall deLermlne whlch areas should consLlLuLe Lhe
auLonomous reglon. Culded by Lhese consLlLuLlonal crlLerla, Lhe ascerLalnmenL by Congress of Lhe areas LhaL share
common aLLrlbuLes ls wlLhln Lhe excluslve realm of Lhe leglslaLure's dlscreLlon. Any revlew of Lhls ascerLalnmenL
would have Lo go lnLo Lhe wlsdom of Lhe law. 1hls Lhe CourL cannoL do wlLhouL dolng vlolence Lo Lhe separaLlon of
governmenLal powers. AfLer assalllng Lhe lncluslon of non-Musllm areas ln Lhe Crganlc AcL for lack of basls,
peLlLloner Mama-o would Lhen adopL Lhe exLreme vlew LhaL oLher non-Musllm areas ln Mlndanao should llkewlse
be covered. Pe argues LhaL slnce Lhe Crganlc AcL covers several non-Musllm areas, lLs scope should be furLher
broadened Lo lnclude Lhe resL of Lhe non- Musllm areas ln Mlndanao ln order for Lhe oLher non-Musllm areas
denles sald areas equal proLecLlon of Lhe law, and Lherefore ls vlolaLlve of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. eLlLloner's conLenLlon
runs counLer Lo Lhe very same consLlLuLlonal provlslon he had earller lnvoked. Any deLermlnaLlon by Congress of
whaL areas ln Mlndanao should compromlse Lhe auLonomous reglon, Laklng lnLo accounL shared hlsLorlcal and
culLural herlLage, economlc and soclal sLrucLures, and oLher relevanL characLerlsLlcs, would necessarlly carry wlLh lL
Lhe excluslon of oLher areas. As earller sLaLed, such deLermlnaLlon by Congress of whlch areas should be covered
by Lhe organlc acL for Lhe auLonomous reglon consLlLuLes a recognlzed leglslaLlve prerogaLlve, whose wlsdom may
noL be lnqulred lnLo by Lhls CourL.

and| v. CA (2004)
1he 1991 LCC, however, alLhough a laLer law llke Lhe 8evlsed AdmlnlsLraLlve Code of 1987, dld noL amend Lhe
A8MM Crganlc AcL of 1989 because Lhe Crganlc AcL could only be amended Lhrough Lhe raLlflcaLlon process lald
ouL ln Lhe Crganlc AcL lLself. Sec. 326 of Lhe 1991 LCC provldes
A81 lll

197

LhaL: "AppllcaLlon of Lhls Code Lo Local CovernmenL unlLs ln Lhe AuLonomous 8eglons. 1hls Code shall apply Lo all
provlnces, clLles, munlclpallLles and barangays ln Lhe auLonomous reglons unLll such Llme as Lhe reglonal
governmenL concerned shall have enacLed lLs own local governmenL code." Sec. 326, however, should apply only
Lo auLonomous reglons creaLed afLer Lhe effecLlvlLy of Lhe 1991 LCC, or ln Lhe absence of a sLaLuLe governlng a
speclflc slLuaLlon wlLhln a reglon. CLherwlse, Sec. 326 of Lhe 1991 LCC wlll colllde dlrecLly wlLh Sec. 3, ArL. xvlll of
Lhe Crganlc AcL of 1989. Congress expressly made Lhe devolved powers and funcLlons under Lhe 1991 LCC as Lhe
baslc mlnlmum for all local governmenL unlLs ln Lhe A8MM preclsely Lo puL Lhem on equal fooLlng wlLh local
governmenL unlLs ouLslde of Lhe A8MM. Congress was aware LhaL Lhe 1991 LCC Look effecL afLer Lhe Crganlc AcL
of 1989 became law, and Lherefore Lhe devolved powers and funcLlons under Lhe 1991 LCC could noL have been
lncorporaLed lnLo Lhe Crganlc AcL of 1989. Congress was also aware LhaL Lhe Supreme CourL had ruled, ln MaLalam
vs. angandaman, LhaL Lhe 1991 LCC "belng a general law, may noL be made Lo prevall over a speclal law or code"
llke Lhe A8MM Local Code. Sec. 3 of ArL. lll and Sec. 1 of ArL. lv of Lhe Crganlc AcL of 2001 correcLed Lhls lmbalance
ln Lhe devolved powers and funcLlons beLween local governmenL unlLs wlLhln and Lhose ouLslde of Lhe A8MM. ln
conLrasL, Lhe Crganlc AcL of 1989 adopLed, as a mlnlmum, Lhe devoluLlon under Lhe 1984 LCC whlch was Lhe
exlsLlng local governmenL code aL LhaL Llme. under Lhe Crganlc AcL of 1989, Lhe 8eglonal Assembly could noL
dlmlnlsh or reduce Lhe powers, funcLlons and responslblllLles LhaL Lhe local governmenL unlLs "already en[oyed" aL
Lhe Llme of Lhe effecLlvlLy of Lhe Crganlc AcL of 1989. 1hls dld noL prevenL, however, Congress from subsequenLly
lncreaslng Lhe share ln naLlonal Laxes of local governmenL unlLs wlLhln Lhe A8MM Lo Lhe same level as LhaL of local
governmenL unlLs ouLslde of Lhe A8MM. Such lncrease ln alloLmenL of naLlonal Laxes dld noL amend or revlse ln
any way Lhe Crganlc AcL of 1989 slnce Lhe formula for Lhe Lax sharlng ls found ln Lhe 1991 LCC, noL ln Lhe Crganlc
AcL of 1989. 1here was sLlll, however, Lhe lssue of wheLher Lhe 8eglonal CovernmenL could reduce Lhe share of
local governmenL unlLs ln naLlonal Laxes as provlded ln Lhe 1991 LCC. WlLh Lhe passage of Lhe Crganlc AcL of 2001,
Lhls lssue has been resolved ln favor of local governmenL unlLs ln Lhe A8MM. 1he passage of Lhe Crganlc AcL of
2001 means LhaL Lhe powers and funcLlons of a rovlnclal Covernor under Lhe 1991 LCC are now en[oyed, as a
mlnlmum, by a rovlnclal Covernor ln Lhe A8MM. 1hus, Lhe rovlnclal Covernor appolnLs Lhe provlnclal healLh
offlcer lf Lhe laLLer's salary comes from provlnclal funds. lf Lhe provlnclal healLh offlcer's salary comes malnly from
reglonal funds, Lhen Lhe A8MM Local Code applles, ln whlch case Lhe 8eglonal Covernor ls Lhe appolnLlng power
buL he musL appolnL only from among Lhe Lhree nomlnees of Lhe rovlnclal Covernor. Moreover, Lhe rovlnclal
Covernor exerclses supervlslon and conLrol over Lhe provlnclal healLh offlcer because Lhe A8MM Local Code has
classlfled hlm as a provlnclal governmenL offlclal. 1hls ls now Lhe presenL sLaLe of Lhe law on Lhe appolnLmenL of
provlnclal healLh offlcers ln Lhe A8MM. 1hls ls acLually Lhe same as Lhe law afLer Lhe effecLlvlLy of Lhe A8MM Local
Code buL prlor Lo Lhe passage of Lhe Crganlc AcL of 2001. 1he only dlfference ls LhaL Lhe 8eglonal Assembly cannoL
amend Lhe A8MM Local Code Lo reduce or dlmlnlsh Lhls power of Lhe rovlnclal Covernor because Lhls devolved
power, emanaLlng from Lhe 1991 LCC, ls now parL of Lhe Crganlc AcL of 2001.

8a| Sema vs. Come|ec (2008) (rov. Cf Shar|ff kabugsuan case) - sopto

n. Cord|||era Adm|n|strat|ve keg|on

Crd|||o v. CCMLLLC 192 SCkA 100 (1990)

lacLs:
Cn !anuary 30, 1990, Lhe people of Lhe provlnces of 8engueL, MounLaln rovlnce, lfugao, Abra and kallnga-Apayao
and Lhe clLy of 8agulo casL Lhelr voLes ln a pleblsclLe held pursuanL Lo 8epubllc AcL no. 6766 enLlLled "An AcL
rovldlng for an Crganlc AcL for Lhe Cordlllera AuLonomous 8eglon."
1he offlclal Commlsslon on LlecLlons (CCMLLLC) resulLs of Lhe pleblsclLe showed LhaL Lhe creaLlon of Lhe 8eglon
was approved by a ma[orlLy of 3,889 voLes ln only Lhe lfugao rovlnce and was overwhelmlngly re[ecLed by
148,676 voLes ln Lhe resL of Lhe provlnces and clLy above-menLloned.

A81 lll

198

ConsequenLly, Lhe CCMLLLC, on lebruary 14, 1990, lssued 8esoluLlon no. 2239 sLaLlng LhaL Lhe Crganlc AcL for Lhe
8eglon has been approved and/or raLlfled by ma[orlLy of Lhe voLes casL only ln Lhe provlnce of lfugao.
Congress enacLed 8epubllc AcL no. 6861 seLLlng Lhe elecLlons ln Lhe Cordlllera AuLonomous 8eglon of lfugao on
Lhe flrsL Monday of March 1991.

Cn March 9, 1990, Lhe peLlLloners flled a peLlLlon wlLh CCMLLLC Lo declare Lhe non-raLlflcaLlon of Lhe Crganlc AcL
for Lhe 8eglon.

1he peLlLloners malnLaln LhaL Lhere can be no valld Cordlllera AuLonomous 8eglon ln only one provlnce as Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon and 8epubllc AcL no. 6766 requlre LhaL Lhe sald 8eglon be composed of more Lhan one consLlLuenL
unlL.
lssue:
Won Lhe provlnce of lfugao, belng Lhe only provlnce whlch voLed favorably for Lhe creaLlon of Lhe Cordlllera
AuLonomous 8eglon can, alone, legally and valldly consLlLuLe such 8eglon?

Peld:
no

8aLlo:
1he sole provlnce of lfugao cannoL valldly consLlLuLe Lhe Cordlllera AuLonomous 8eglon.
lL ls expllclL ln ArLlcle x, SecLlon 13 of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon LhaL:
"SecLlon 13. 1here shall be creaLed auLonomous reglons ln Musllm Mlndanao and ln Lhe Cordlllera
conslsLlng of provlnces, clLles, munlclpallLles and geographlcal areas sharlng common and dlsLlncLlve
hlsLorlcal and culLural herlLage, economlc and soclal sLrucLures, and oLher relevanL characLerlsLlcs wlLhln
Lhe framework of Lhls ConsLlLuLlon and Lhe naLlonal soverelgnLy as well as LerrlLorlal lnLegrlLy of Lhe
8epubllc of Lhe hlllpplnes."

1he Lerm "reglon" used ln lLs ordlnary sense means Lwo or more provlnces. 1hls ls supporLed by Lhe facL LhaL Lhe
LhlrLeen (13) reglons lnLo whlch Lhe hlllpplnes ls dlvlded for admlnlsLraLlve purposes are grouplngs of conLlguous
provlnces.

lfugao ls a provlnce by lLself. 1o become parL of a reglon, lL musL [oln oLher provlnces, clLles, munlclpallLles, and
geographlcal areas. lL [olns oLher unlLs because of Lhelr common and dlsLlncLlve hlsLorlcal and culLural herlLage,
economlc and soclal sLrucLures and oLher relevanL characLerlsLlcs. 1he ConsLlLuLlonal requlremenLs are noL presenL
ln Lhls case.-

ueclslon:
eLlLlon CranLed

Cord|||era 8road Coa||t|on vs. Comm|ss|on on Aud|t (1990)

lAC1S:
(A uA 8lOk 1n 5cnuulu ll8l5cl1 ON wn1nk Ok NO1 1n lOll Ol cAk wOulu kA1ll 1n uclAkA1lON ON 1n
Au1ONOM Ol 1n cOkulllkA5)
nl51OklcAl AN1cuN15

MA8CP 1, 1986: nLW LCLL'S A8M? LuM8A?A CCMAn? unuL8 kA-AM8C (l8. CCn8AuC 8ALWLC, Svu) lC8MLu 1PL
CC8ulLLL8A LCLL'S Ll8L8A1lCn A8M? (CLA)
u8CSL:
o) uLlLnu 1PL CC8ulLLL8A PCMLLAnu Anu l1S LCLL, Anu
1C uSP lC8 CC8ulLLL8A Au1CnCM?.
ALSC 1C LS1A8LlSP 1PL CC8ulLLL8A Au1CnCMCuS SCClALlS1 S1A1L 1P8CuCP A lLuL8AL 8Lu8LlC Cl 1PL PlLllnLS
A81 lll

199

CS1 LuSA 1 8LvCLu1lCn: 8LSluLn1 ACulnC AuvCCA1Lu nA1lCnAL 8LCCnClLlA1lCn. SPL CALLLu Cn ALL 8LvCLu1lCnA8? lC8CLS
lC8 LACL ulALCCuL. CLA PLLuLu 1PL CALL lC8 LACL Anu 8LCCnClLlA1lCn.

LxCPAnCL Cl LL11L8S 8L1WLLn vlCL 8LSluLn1 LAu8LL Anu l8. CCn8AuC 8ALWLC Anu SL8lLS Cl 8LLlMlnA8? 1ALkS 8L1WLLn
8LSluLn1lAL LMlSSA8? 8u1CP ACulnC Anu MLM8L8S Anu LLAuL8S Cl 1PL CC8ulLLL8A 8CuCnC ASSCClA1lCn (C8A), CLA Anu 1PL
MCn1AnCSA nA1lCnAL SCLluA8l1? WL8L PLLu (C8A lS A CCnlLuL8A1lCn Cl 18l8LS 1PA1 PAu l1S 8CC1S ln 1PL 18l8AL
C8CAnlZA1lCnS ln 1PL CC8ulLLL8AS).

1PL nLCC1lA1lCnS 8LSuL1Lu 1C A Su8MlSSlCn Cl A CSl1lCn AL8 l8CM C8A Anu CLA Cu1LlnlnC 1PLl8 26 SLClllC uLMAnuS.
1PlS WAS Su8Ml11Lu 1C 8LSluLn1 ACulnC Cn SL1LM8L8 13, 1986. l1 CCn1AlnLu 1PL lCLLCWlnC:

uLMAnu nC. 1: 8LCCCnl1lCn 8? 1PL nA1lCnAL CCvL8nMLn1 Cl 1PL Au1CnCM? Cl 1PL vA8lCuS L1PnCLlnCulS1lC
C8CuS ln 1PL CC8ulLLL8AS.
uLMAnu nC. 4: lC8 1PL nA1lCnAL CCvL8nMLn1 1C CuA8An1LL 1PL lnuLLnuLnCL Anu l8LLuCM Cl 1PL CC8ulLLL8A
nA1lCn, ln 8LSL8vlnC, CCnSCLluA1lnC Anu uLvLLClnC 1PL SCClALlS1 WA? Cl LllL Anu MC8AL C8uL8 lnulCLnCuS 1C l1S
PCMLLAnuS.
uLMAnu nC. 6: lC8 1PL nA1lCnAL CCvL8nMLn1 1C SL1-u A lLuL8AL 8Lu8LlC Cl 1PL PlLllnLS 1PA1 ALLCWS 1PL
LxlS1LnCL Wl1Pln 1PL l8AMLWC8k Cl Au1CnCMCuS Anu CC-LCuAL S1A1LS, lnCLuulnC A CC8ulLLL8A Au1CnCMCuS SCClALlS1
S1A1L.

7 MCn1PS Cl LACL 1ALkS LnSuLu: ln 1986, 1PL CC8ulLLL8A 88CAu CCALl1lCn C8 C8C WAS lCunuLu. ALL Cl 1PCSL nC1 LlnkLu 1C
C8A/CLA CCMCSLu 1PL CCALl1lCn. uu8lnC 1PlS 1lML, 1PL CC8ulLLL8A LCLL'S ALLlAnCL WAS ALSC lC8MLu.

!unL 9, 1987: 1PL 8LSuL1 Cl 1PL LACL 1ALkS Anu nLCC1lA1lCnS lS 1PL ln1L8lM CC8ulLLL8A 8LClCnAL AuMlnl18A1lCn
C8 lC8A. l1 lS 1PL MAln 8ASlS lC8 1PL lSSuAnCL Cl LC nC. 220 8? 8LSluLn1 ACulnC.

C8C 8C1LS1Lu. l1 8CCSLu lnS1LAu 1PL C8LA1lCn Cl CC8ulLLL8A 8LClCnAL uLvLLCMLn1 CCunClL AS 1PL ln1L8lM 8LClCnAL SL1-
u LnulnC LS1A8LlSPMLn1 Cl An Au1CnCMCuS 8LClCn. 1PlS 8CCSAL MlnC8l1lZLu 1PL CLA Anu C8A C8Cu. PLnCL, C8A Anu
CLA 8L!LC1Lu 1PL 8CCSAL.

AM8ASSAuC8 LLALZ Anu l8. 8ALWLC, AS CPAl8MAn Cl 1PL CC8ulLLL8A SlCnLu 1PL !Cln1 AC8LLMLn1. 8C1P WC8kLu 1CCL1PL8 ln
u8Al1lnC An LxLCu1lvL C8uL8 1C C8LA1L A 8LA8A1C8? 8Cu? 1PA1 CCuLu L8lC8M CLlC?-MAklnC Anu AuMlnlS18A1lvL
lunC1lCnS Anu unuL81AkL CCnSuL1A1lCnS Anu S1uulLS LLAulnC 1C A u8Al1 C8CAnlC AC1 Cl 1PL CC8ulLLL8AS.

u8SuAnCL PL8L1C, LC nC. 220 WAS SlCnLu 8? 8LSluLn1 ACulnC (!uL? 13, 1987) Ln1l1LLu, C8LA1lnC A CC8ulLLL8A
AuMlnlS18A1lvL 8LClCn, A8C8lA1lnC lunuS 1PL8LCl Anu lC8 C1PL8 u8CSL." 1PlS lS ln u8SuAn1 1C SLC. 6, A81. xvlll Cl
1PL CCnS1l1u1lCn, ln WPlCP 1PL 8LSluLn1 PAS 1PL CWL8 1C CCn1lnuL 1C LxL8ClSL LLClSLA1lvL CWL8S un1lL 1PL ll8S1
CCnC8LSS lS CCnvLnLu.

1PL LxLCu1lvL C8uL8 (nC. 220) CCn1AlnLu 1PL lCLLCWlnC:

SLC. 2. 1L88l1C8lAL CCvL8ACL: A88A, 8LnCuL1, lluCAC, kALlnCA-AA?AC, M1. 8CvlnCL Anu CPA81L8Lu Cl1? Cl
8ACulC.
SLC. 8. CC8ulLLL8A 8LClCnAL ASSLM8L? (C8A): CLlC?-lC8MuLA1lnC 8Cu? CCnSlS1lnC Cl 230 8L8LSLn1A1lvLS l8CM
1PL MunlClALl1lLS Anu 1PL Cl1? Cl 8ACulC, nCCS, Anu 18l8LS. 1PL 8LSluLn1 ACln1S 1PL PLAu Cl 1PlS 8Cu?.
SLC. 9. SLSSlCnS: CnCL LvL8? ?LA8, 3 uA?S SLSSlCnS.
SLC. 10. CC8ulLLL8A LxLCu1lvL 8CA8u (CL8): CL8 SPALL lMLLMLn1 uLClSlCnS Cl C8A. 1PL 8LSluLn1 ACln1S 29
MLM8L8S.
SLC. 11. LxLCu1lvL ul8LC1C8
SLC. 12. LxLCu1lvL CCMMl11LL
SLC. 13. CC8ulLLL8A 8CuCnC AuMlnS18A1lCn
A81 lll

200

SLC. 17. L8lCu Cl LxlS1LnCL: l1 SPALL LxlS1 un1lL SuCP 1lML AS 1PL Au1CnCMCuS 8LClCnAL CCvL8nMLn1 SPALL PAvL
8LLn LS1A8LlSPLu Anu C8CAnlZLu unuL8 An C8CAnlC AC1 ASSLu 8? CCnC8LSS ln ACCC8uAnCL Wl1P SLC. 18, A81. x Cl 1PL
CCnS1l1u1lCn.

uu8lnC 1PL LnuLnC? Cl 1PlS CASL, 8Lu8LlC AC1 6766 Ln1l1LLu An AC1 8CvlulnC lC8 Anu C8CAnlC AC1 lC8 1PL CC8ulLLL8A
Au1CnCMCuS 8LClCn" WAS LnAC1Lu Anu SlCnLu ln1C LAW. l1 8LCCCnlZLu 1PL CA8 LS1A8LlSPLu 8? LC nC. 220, l1S ClllCLS, Anu
ACLnClLS.

lSSuL # 1:LC nC. 220 8L-LM1Lu CCnC8LSS l8CM l1S MAnuA1Lu 1ASk Cl LnAC1lnC An C8CAnlC AC1 Anu C8LA1Lu An
Au1CnCMCuS 8LClCn ln CC8ulLLL8A. NO.

kA1lO.

A. 8LAulnC 1PL LAW: CnL? LnvlSlCnS CCnSCLluA1lCn Anu CCC8ulnA1lCn Cl 1PL uLLlvL8? Cl SL8vlCLS Cl LlnL uLA81MLn1S Anu
ACLnClLS Cl 1PL nA1lCnAL CCvL8nMLn1, AS A S1L 8LA8A1C8? 1C 1PL C8An1 Cl Au1CnCM? 1C CC8ulLLL8AS.
8. l1 uO5 NO1 ckA1 1n Au1ONOMOu5 kClON.
(1) ONl lkOvlu5 lOk 1n 1kAN5l1Ok MA5uk5
l1 lklAk5 1n CkOuNu lOk Au1ONOM
c. 1n lkOc55 Ol ckA1lNC 1n Au1ONOMOu5 kClON wlll 1Ak 1lM ANu 1n llk51 cONCk55 nAu NO1 1 8N
cONvNu. 1n lk5luN1 5Aw l1 ll1 1O Auuk55 1n ukCN1 Nu5 Ol 1n cOkulllkA5.
u. 5c cAN'1 lNOulk lN1O 1n wl5uOM Ol 1n lk5luN1. l1l1lONk AllC5 1nA1 O NO. 220 l5 A cAll1ulA1lON 1O
cllA Ol lk. 8AlwC.
. l1 l5 NO1 AN lN1klM Au1ONOMOu5 kClON lN 1n cOkulllkA5.
(1) l1 ONl ckA1u AN AuMlNl51kA1lv kClON wl1n 1n 5Ol O8Ic1lv Ol llANNlNC ANu lMllMN1lNC
lkOCkAM5 ANu 5kvlc5 Ol 1n NA1lONAl COvkNMN1,
ONl cON51l1u1 A5 AN uM8kllA 1nA1 8klNC5 1OC1nk 1n \l51lNC lOcAl COvkNMN15, ACNcl5 Ol 1n NA1lONAl
COvkNMN1, 1nNOllNCul51lc CkOul5/1kl85, ANu NCO5, lN A cONck1u llOk1 1O 5luk uvlOlMN1, ANu
Clv AvAllA8l luNu5 lOk lklOkl1 uvlOlMN1 lkOCkAM5 ANu lkOIc15 kcOMMNuu 8 cAk.
l. 1nk l5 NOw kA NO. 6658 wnlcn ckA1u 1n cOkulllkA kClONAl cON5ul1A1lv cOMMl55lON. lN 5nOk1, 1n
Au1ONOMOu5 kClON lN 1n cOkulllkA5 l5 51lll 1O 8 ckA1u. 1nklOk, O 220 wA5 NO1 A 5nOk1-cu1 1O Au1ONOM.

lSSuL # 2: CCLLA1L8AL lSSuL - LPA1 lS 1PL nA1u8L Cl CA8 WPL1PL8 C8 nC1 l1 lS A 1L88l1C8lAL Anu CLl1lCAL Su8ulvlSlCn. ulu LC
nC. 220 C8LA1L A nLW 1L88l1C8lAL Anu CLl1lCAL Su8ulvlSlCn. NO.

kA1lO.
A. CA8 lS nC1 A u8LlC CC8C8A1lCn C8 1L88l1C8lAL Anu CLl1lCAL Su8ulvlSlCn
1. l1 PAS nC SLA8A1L !u8lulCAL Ln1l1?
l1 PAS nC CWL8 1C SuL Anu 8L SuLu, CWn Anu ulSCSL 8CL81?, C8LA1L l1S CWn 8LvLnuL (CWL8S 1PA1 A8L nC8MALL?
C8An1Lu 1C u8LlC CC8C8A1lCn)
l1 lS LlkLnLu 1C 8LSluLn1lAL uLC8LL #1 Cl 1972 C8 1PL ln1LC8A1Lu 8LC8CAnlZA1lCn LAn Cl 1972 WPlCP LS1A8LlSPLu 12
8LClCnS, Wl1P uLllnl1L 8LClCnAL CLn1L8S Anu 8LCul8Lu uLA81MLn1S Anu ACLnClLS Cl 1PL LxLCu1lvL 88AnCP Cl 1PL nA1lCnAL
CCvL8nMLn1 1C SL1-u llLLu ClllCLS 1PL8Lln
8. CA8 lS ln 1PL SAML CLn8L AS 1PL AuMlnlS18A1lvL 8LClCnS C8LA1Lu unuL8 8LC8CAnlZA1lCn LAn Cl 8LSluLn1
MA8CCS.
c. lL ls noLhlng buL a reglonal coordlnaLlng agency of Lhe naLlonal governmenL conslderlng Lhe conLrol and
supervlslon exerclsed by Lhe resldenL over Lhe CA8 and offlces creaLed under LC no. 220.
J. CA8 ls a more sophlsLlcaLed verslon of Lhe reglonal developmenL councll.

lSSuL # 3: C8LA1lCn Cl CA8 CCn18AvLnLu 1PL CCnS1l1u1lCnAL CuA8An1LL Cl LCCAL Au1CnCM? lC8 1PL 8CvlnCLS Cl A88A,
8LnCuL1, lluCAC, kALlnCA-AA?AC, Anu M1. 8CvlnCL Anu 1PL Cl1? Cl 8ACulC. NO.

kA1lO.
A81 lll

201

A. 1PL8L lS A MlSCCnCL1lCn A8Cu1 1PL CCnCL1 Cl LCCAL Au1CnCM?
b. 1he consLlLuLlonal guaranLee of local auLonomy (ArL. x, Sec. 2) refers Lo admlnlsLraLlve auLonomy of
LCus.
c. 1he cenLrallzaLlon of governmenLal auLhorlLy vs. creaLlon of AuLonomous 8eglons: auLonomous reglon
conLemplaLes Lhe granL of pollLlcal auLonomy and noL [usL admlnlsLraLlve auLonomy.
J. ollLlcal AuLonomy of auLonomous reglons: 1here ls esLabllshed an execuLlve deparLmenL, a leglslaLlve
assembly and speclal courLs wlLh personal, famlly and properLy law [urlsdlcLlon ln each of Lhe auLonomous reglons.
e. CA8 has noL dlmlnlshed Lhe local auLonomy.
f. ure speculaLlon and a resorL Lo probablllLles.

ulSCSl1lvL: L1l1lCnS A8L ulSMlSSLu lC8 LACk Cl ML8l1.

cONcukklNC OllNlON. I. Cu1lkk2 Ik.
lSSuLS PAvL 8LCCML MCC1 Anu ACAuLMlC 8LCAuSL 1PL CC8ulLLL8A 8LClCnAL CCnSuL1A1lvL CCMMlSSlCn Anu 1PL
CC8ulLLL8A Au1CnCMCuS 8LClCn PAvL 1AkLn CvL8 1PL lunC1lCnS Cl 1PL CC8ulLLL8A AuMlnlS18A1lvL 8LClCn.

I. 1he Metropo||tan Man||a Deve|opment Author|ty and LGUs

MMDA v. 8e| A|r V|||age Assoc., Inc. (2000)

lAC1S
letltlooet MMuA ls o qovetomeot oqeocy toskeJ wltb tbe Jellvety of boslc setvlces lo Metto Moollo. kespooJeot
8el-Alt vllloqe Assoclotloo, loc. (8AvA) ls o ooo-stock, ooo-ptoflt cotpototloo wbose membets ote bomeowoets lo
8el-Alt vllloqe, o ptlvote sobJlvlsloo lo Mokotl clty. lt ls tbe teqlsteteJ owoet of Neptooe 5tteet, o tooJ loslJe 8el-
Alt vllloqe.

Cn uecember 30, 1993, respondenL recelved from peLlLloner, Lhrough lLs Chalrman, a noLlce requesLlng
respondenL Lo open nepLune SL. Lo publlc vehlcular Lrafflc sLarLlng !anuary 2, 1996. 8espondenL was also apprlsed
LhaL Lhe perlmeLer wall separaLlng Lhe subdlvlslon from Lhe ad[acenL kalayaan Ave. would be demollshed.
8espondenL flled before Lhe 81C MakaLl ClLy a case for ln[uncLlon agalnsL peLlLloner, praylng for Lhe lssuance of a
Lemporary resLralnlng order and prellmlnary ln[uncLlon (1) Lo en[oln Lhe openlng of nepLune SL. and (2) Lo prohlblL
Lhe demollLlon of Lhe perlmeLer wall. 1he Lrlal courL lnlLlally lssued a Lemporary resLralnlng order buL laLer on
denled lssuance of a prellmlnary ln[uncLlon.

L1l1lCnL8'S ConLenLlon: lL has Lhe auLhorlLy Lo open nepLune SL. Lo publlc Lrafflc because lL ls an agenL of Lhe
sLaLe endowed wlLh pollce power ln Lhe dellvery of baslc servlces ln MeLro Manlla. 1here ls Lherefore no need for
Lhe ClLy of MakaLl Lo enacL an ordlnance openlng nepLune SL. Lo Lhe publlc.

lSSuL
wbetbet petltlooet MMuA bos tbe ootbotlty to otJet tbe opeoloq of Neptooe 5t., o ptlvote sobJlvlsloo tooJ, to
pobllc veblcolot ttofflc

PLLu, 8A1lC
nC. 1be MMuA bos oo powet to eooct otJloooces fot tbe welfote of tbe commoolty. lt ls tbe locol qovetomeot
oolts, octloq tbtooqb tbelt tespectlve leqlslotlve coooclls, wblcb possess leqlslotlve powet ooJ pollce powet. 1be
5ooqqoolooq loolooqsoJ of Mokotl clty JlJ oot poss ooy otJloooce ot tesolotloo otJetloq tbe opeoloq of Neptooe
5t. neoce, lts ptoposeJ opeoloq 1be MMuA ls oot o polltlcol oolt of tbe qovetomeot. 1he MMuA ls noL a local
governmenL unlL or a publlc corporaLlon endowed wlLh leglslaLlve power. lL ls noL even a "speclal meLropollLan
pollLlcal subdlvlslon" as conLemplaLed ln SecLlon 11, ArLlcle x of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. lL ls a "developmenL auLhorlLy",
an agency creaLed for Lhe purpose of laylng down pollcles and coordlnaLlng wlLh Lhe varlous naLlonal governmenL
A81 lll

202

agencles, people's organlzaLlons, non-governmenLal organlzaLlons and Lhe prlvaLe secLor for Lhe efflclenL and
expedlLlous dellvery of baslc servlces ln Lhe vasL meLropollLan area. lLs funcLlons are "wlLhouL pre[udlce Lo Lhe
auLonomy of Lhe affecLed local governmenL unlLs."

1be MMuA ls qtooteJ oeltbet pollce powet oot leqlslotlve powet. All lts fooctloos ote oJmlolsttotlve lo ootote. 1he
scope of Lhe MMuA's funcLlon ls llmlLed Lo Lhe dellvery of Lhe seven baslc servlces enumeraLed under 8A 7924, Lhe
law whlch creaLed lL. Cne of Lhese ls LransporL and Lrafflc managemenL, whlch lncludes Lhe formulaLlon and
monlLorlng of pollcles, sLandards and pro[ecLs Lo raLlonallze Lhe exlsLlng LransporL operaLlons, lnfrasLrucLure
requlremenLs, Lhe use of Lhoroughfares and Lhe promoLlon of Lhe safe movemenL of persons and goods. 8A 7924
granLs Lhe MMuA nelLher pollce power nor leglslaLlve power. 1here ls no provlslon ln Lhe sald law LhaL empowers
lL or lLs Councll Lo enacL ordlnances, approve resoluLlons, approprlaLe funds for Lhe general welfare" of Lhe
lnhablLanLs of MeLro Manlla.

1be tolloq lo 5ooqolooq v. lAc (168 5ckA 6J4, 1988) Joes oot opply.
(1) 1he 5ooqolooq case lnvolved zonlng ordlnances passed by Lhe Munlclpal Councll of MakaLl and Lhe MMC. ln Lhe
lnsLanL case, Lhe basls for Lhe proposed openlng of nepLune SL. ls conLalned ln a noLlce senL by peLlLloner Lo
respondenL, whlch does noL clLe any ordlnance or law, elLher by Lhe Sanggunlang anlungsod of MakaLl ClLy or by
Lhe MMuA, as legal basls. MMuA slmply relled on lLs auLhorlLy under lLs charLer "Lo raLlonallze Lhe use of roads
and/or Lhoroughfares for Lhe safe and convenlenL movemenL of persons." 1hls, however, cannoL be lnLerpreLed as
an express or lmplled granL of ordlnance-maklng power, much less pollce power.

(2) 1he MMuA ls noL Lhe same enLlLy as Lhe MMC ln 5ooqolooq. AlLhough Lhe MMC ls Lhe forerunner of Lhe
presenL MMuA, an examlnaLlon of . u. no. 824, Lhe charLer of Lhe MMC, shows LhaL Lhe laLLer possessed greaLer
powers, whlch were noL besLowed on Lhe presenL MMuA.

ulSCSl1lCn
1he SC JeoleJ Lhe peLlLlon and afflrmed Lhe declslon and Lhe resoluLlon of Lhe CourL of Appeals ln CA-C.8. S no.
39349.

MMDA v. Gar|n G.k. No. 1302230

lAC1S: ALLy. uanLe Carln was caughL by an MMuA enforcer for lllegally parklng ln Manlla. 1he enforcer conflscaLed
hls drlver's llcense and lssued hlm a 1rafflc vlolaLlon 8ecelpL, whlch acLed as hls Lemporary llcense unLll he pays
Lhe fees LhaL wlll allow hlm Lo redeem hls llcense. ALLy. Carln, however, declded Lo wrlLe Lhe MMuA Chalrman
requesLlng for Lhe reLurn of hls drlver's llcense and LhaL he preferred Lo course hls case [udlclally.

8ecelvlng no lmmedlaLe reply, ALLy. Carln flled a complalnL wlLh an appllcaLlon for a prellmlnary ln[uncLlon ln 81C
(aranaque). Pe consLlLuLlonally argued uue rocess, because wlLhouL Lhe lmplemenLlng rules and regulaLlons for
8epubllc AcL no. 7924 (CharLer of MMuA), Sec. 3(f) wlll have no effecL as Lo Lhe allowance of MMuA Lo conflscaLe
drlver's llcense. Pe argued LhaL lL was an undue delegaLlon of leglslaLlve auLhorlLy ln allowlng Lhe MMuA Lo flx and
lmpose flnes and oLher penalLles Lo errlng moLorlsLs.

81C - granLed Lhe ln[uncLlon and ruled ln favour of ALLy. Carln, appreclaLlng Lhe consLlLuLlonal argumenL on due
process.

MMuA vla Lhe SolCen argues LhaL Lhe lmplemenLlng rules were valldly passed and LhaL regulaLlon of drlvlng ls an
lmporLanL SLaLe funcLlon.

lSSuL: uoes MMuA have Lhe power Lo conflscaLe drlver's llcense?

A81 lll

203

8uLlnC: no. Whlle Lhe MMuA ls correcL ln polnLlng ouL LhaL regulaLlng moLorlng ls an exerclse of pollce power due
Lo Lhe lnherenL hazards ln operaLlng vehlcles, MMuA ls noL vesLed wlLh pollce power. 8.A. no. 7924 does noL granL
Lhe MMuA wlLh pollce power, leL alone leglslaLlve power, and LhaL all lLs funcLlons are admlnlsLraLlve ln naLure
(MMuA v. 8el Alr).

MMuA ls noL a local governmenL unlL or a publlc corporaLlon endowed wlLh leglslaLlve power, and, unllke lLs
predecessor (MMC), has no power Lo enacL ordlnances for Lhe welfare of Lhe communlLy.
ollce power ls excluslvely vesLed ln Lhe leglslaLure, buL could be furLher delegaLed, as ln Lhe case of LCus when
Congress passed Lhe Local CovernmenL Code of 1991.

MeLro Manlla ls a collecLlon of LCus, and ln 1993, was deslgnaLed as a speclal developmenL and admlnlsLraLlve
reglon. lL's mandaLe ls malnly Lo enforce, noL Lo enacL. 1he power Lo conflscaLe and revoke drlvers' llcenses
wlLhouL need of any oLher leglslaLlve enacLmenL ls an unauLhorlzed exerclse of pollce power.

1he Supreme CourL clarlfled Sec. 3(f) of 8.A. no. 7924 as perLalnlng Lo Lhe power Lo conflscaLe llcenses ln Lhe
enforcemenL of Lrafflc laws and regulaLlons enacLed by Lhe varlous local governmenL unlLs comprlslng MeLro
Manlla. lf Lhe ClLy of Manlla enacLed a cerLaln law, Lhe MMuA ls duLy-bound Lo conflscaLe, suspend and revoke
drlvers' llcenses ln Lhe exerclse.

Anyway, Lhls rullng was made on Lhe slde because currenL MMuA Chalrman 8ayanl lernando lssued Memorandum
Clrcular no. 04, Serles of 2004 LhaL dlsallows 1rafflc Lnforcers of Lhe MMuA Lo conflscaLe drlvers' llcenses as a
maLLer of course ln cases of Lrafflc vlolaLlons.

MunlClAL CCn18AC1S
7> .4)24)&-# <4?#)*

Ie||c|ano v. CCA (2004)
eLlLloner's conLenLlon LhaL Lhe Sanggunlang 8ayan resoluLlon creaLes Lhe LWus assumes LhaL Lhe Sanggunlang
8ayan has Lhe power Lo creaLe corporaLlons. 1hls ls a paLenLly baseless assumpLlon. 1he LCC does noL vesL ln Lhe
Sanggunlang 8ayan Lhe power Lo creaLe corporaLlons. WhaL Lhe LCC empowers Lhe Sanggunlang 8ayan Lo do ls Lo
provlde for Lhe esLabllshmenL of a waLerworks sysLem sub[ecL Lo exlsLlng laws.

1he Sanggunlang 8ayan may esLabllsh a waLerworks sysLem only ln accordance wlLh Lhe provlslons of u 198. 1he
Sanggunlang 8ayan has no power Lo creaLe a corporaLe enLlLy LhaL wlll operaLe lLs waLerworks sysLem. Powever,
Lhe Sanggunlang 8ayan may avall of exlsLlng enabllng laws, llke u 198, Lo form and lncorporaLe a local waLer
dlsLrlcL.

@> 7%-A4)0-3 -4 ,#;4-0&-# 4) *#1%)# ;)&,-* &,B 0,1%))0,; 0,B#=-#B,#**

.> @%0'BC82#)&-#CD)&,*9#)

LIA8ILI1
A. L|ab|||ty on Contracts
E> F'-)& G0)#* 71-

San D|ego v. Mun|c|pa||ty of Nau[an (1960)

lAC1S:
A81 lll

204

lollowlng a publlc blddlng conducLed by Lhe munlclpallLy of nau[an, CrlenLal Mlndoro for Lhe lease of lLs munlclpal
waLers, 8esoluLlon 46, serles of 1947 was passed by Lhe munlclpal councll Lhereof awardlng Lhe concesslon of Lhe
8uLas 8lver and Lhe nau[an Lake Lo Lhe hlghesL bldder 8arLolome San ulego. ConsequenLly,
- A conLracL was enLered lnLo beLween Lhe sald San ulego and Lhe munlclpallLy, sLlpulaLlng LhaL for a perlod
of flve (3) years, from !anuary 1, 1948 Lo uecember 31, 1932, Lhe former was Lo be Lhe lessee of "Lhe
excluslve prlvllege of erecLlng flsh corrals along Lhe 8uLas 8lver. for annual renLal of 26,300.00, or a LoLal
of 131,300.00 for flve years. upon peLlLlon by Lhe lessee, however, Lhe sald councll reduced Lhe annual
renLal by 20 by vlrLue of 8esoluLlon 39, serles of 1949.
- 1he conLracL was exLended for anoLher 3 years, beglnnlng !an 1932, by vlrLue of 8esoluLlon 229 whlch
was approved and conflrmed by Lhe MunlclpallLy Councll of nau[an whose Lerm was abouL Lo explre.
- Cn !anuary 2, 1932, Lhe munlclpal councll of nau[an, Lhls Llme composed of a new seL of members,
adopLed 8esoluLlon 3, serles of 1932, revoklng 8esoluLlon 222, serles of 1931. Cn Lhe same daLe, Lhe new
councll also passed 8esoluLlon 11, revoklng 8esoluLlon 229 of Lhe old councll whlch conflrmed Lhe
exLenslon of Lhe lease perlod.
ArgumenL of San ulego (lessee):
- 8esoluLlon 3 should be recalled, on Lhe ground, among oLhers, LhaL lL vlolaLed Lhe conLracL execuLed
beLween hlm and Lhe munlclpallLy.
ArgumenL of Lhe Munlclpal Councll:
- 1he resoluLlon auLhorlzlng L he orlglnal lease conLracL, reduclng Lhe lease renLals and renewlng Lhe lease
are null and vold for noL havlng been passed ln accordance wlLh law.
!udgmenL ln Lhe lower courL:
- upheld Lhe valldlLy of Lhe lease conLracL, as well aL ls exLenslon, and declarlng 8esoluLlon 3, serles of
1932, null and vold.

lSSuL/PLLu:
WCn noL 8esoluLlon no. 3, serles of 1932, revoklng 8esoluLlon 222, serles of 1931, of Lhe munlclpal councll of
nau[an ls valld. ?LS

8A1lC:
1he law (Sec. 2323 of Lhe 8evlsed AdmlnlsLraLlve Code) requlres LhaL when Lhe excluslve prlvllege of flshery or Lhe
rlghL Lo conducL a flsh-breedlng ground ls granLed Lo a prlvaLe parLy, Lhe same shall be leL Lo Lhe hlghesL bldder ln
Lhe same manner as ls belng done ln explolLlng a ferry, a markeL or a slaughLerhouse belonglng Lo Lhe munlclpallLy
(See MunlclpallLy of San Luls vs. venLura, eL al., 36 hll., 329). 1he requlremenL of compeLlLlve blddlng ls for Lhe
purpose of lnvlLlng compeLlLlon and Lo guard agalnsL favorlLlsm, fraud and corrupLlon ln Lhe leLLlng of flshery
prlvlleges (5ee 3 McCulllln, Munlclpal CorporaLlons, 2nd Ld., p. 1170, Parles CasllghL Co. vs. new ?ork, 33 n.?. 309,
and 2 ulllon, Munlclpal CorporaLlon, p. 1219).

1here ls no doubL LhaL Lhe orlglnal lease conLracL ln Lhls case was awarded Lo Lhe hlghesL bldder, buL Lhe reducLlon
of Lhe renLal and Lhe exLenslon of Lhe Lerm of Lhe lease appear Lo have been granLed wlLhouL prevlous publlc
blddlng. ln Lhe case of CalLex (hll.), lnc., eL al. vs. uelgado 8ros., lnc., eL al., 96 hll., 368, Lhe amendmenL Lo an
arrasLre conLracL was declared null and vold on Lhe ground LhaL lL was made wlLhouL prevlous publlc blddlng. ln so
declarlng, Lhls CourL has adopLed Lhe followlng oplnlon:
. . . lL ls Lhe oplnlon of Lhe CourL LhaL Lhe sald agreemenL .. execuLed and enLered lnLo wlLhouL prevlous
publlc blddlng, ls null and vold, and cannoL adversely affecL Lhe rlghLs of Lhlrd parLles . . . and of Lhe publlc
ln general. 1he CourL agrees wlLh Lhe conLenLlon of counsel for Lhe plalnLlffs LhaL Lhe due execuLlon of a
conLracL afLer publlc blddlng ls a llmlLaLlon upon Lhe rlghL of Lhe conLradlcLlng parLles Lo alLer or amend lL
wlLhouL anoLher publlc blddlng, for oLherwlse whaL would a publlc blddlng be good for lf afLer Lhe
execuLlon of a conLracL afLer publlc blddlng, Lhe conLracLlng parLles may alLer or amend Lhe conLracL or
even cancel lL, aL Lhelr wlll? ubllc blddlngs are held for Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe publlc, and Lo glve Lhe publlc
Lhe besL posslble advanLages by means of open compeLlLlon beLween Lhe bldders. Pe who blds or offers
Lhe besL Lerms ls awarded Lhe conLracL sub[ecL of Lhe bld, and lL ls obvlous LhaL such proLecLlon and besL
A81 lll

203

posslble advanLages Lo Lhe publlc wlll dlsappear lf Lhe parLles Lo a conLracL execuLed afLer publlc blddlng
may alLer or amend lL wlLhouL anoLher prevlous publlc blddlng.

Whlle ln LhaL case we ruled LhaL alLhough Lhe "arrasLre conLracL" Lhereln quesLloned auLhorlzed Lhe parLles Lo alLer
or amend any of Lhe Lerms Lhereof, such auLhorlLy musL be consldered as belng sub[ecL Lo Lhe requlremenL of
prevlous publlc blddlng, a formallLy observed before Lhe orlglnal conLracL was awarded, wlLh more reason should
Lhe rule requlrlng such publlc blddlng be sLrlckly applled ln Lhe lnsLanL case where no such auLhorlLy Lo alLer or
amend Lhe Lerms of Lhe conLracL was reserved.

lurLhermore, lL has been ruled LhaL sLaLuLes requlrlng publlc blddlng apply Lo amendmenLs of any conLracL already
execuLed ln compllance wlLh Lhe law where such amendmenLs alLer Lhe orlglnal conLracL ln some vlLal and
essenLlal parLlcular (5ee Morse vs. 8osLon, 148 n.L. 813233 Mass. 247.) lnasmuch as Lhe perlod ln a lease ls a vlLal
and essenLlal parLlcular Lo Lhe conLracL, we belleve LhaL Lhe exLenslon of Lhe lease perlod ln Lhls case, whlch was
granLed wlLhouL Lhe essenLlal requlslLe of publlc blddlng, ls noL ln accordance wlLh law. And lL follows Lhe
8esoluLlon 222, serles of 1931, and Lhe conLracL auLhorlzed Lhereby, exLendlng Lhe orlglnal flve-year lease Lo
anoLher flve years are null and vold as conLrary Lo law and publlc pollcy.
- 8esoluLlon 3 ls noL an lmpalrmenL of Lhe obllgaLlon of conLracL, because Lhe consLlLuLlonal provlslon on
lmpalrmenL refers only Lo conLracL legally execuLed. Whlle, apparenLly, 8esoluLlon 3 Lended Lo abrogaLe
Lhe conLracL exLendlng Lhe lease, legally speaklng, Lhere was no conLracL abrogaLed because, as we have
sald, Lhe exLenslon conLracL ls vold and lnexlsLenL.
- LsLoppel cannoL apply ln Lhls case. Lhe docLrlne of esLoppel cannoL be applled as agalnsL a munlclpal
corporaLlon Lo valldaLe a conLracL whlch lL has no power Lo make, such as ln Lhls case. 1o do so would
empower lL do lndlrecLly whaL lL cannoL do dlrecLly.
- . Also, where a conLracL ls vlolaLlve of publlc pollcy, Lhe munlclpallLy execuLlng lL cannoL be esLopped Lo
asserL Lhe lnvalldlLy. ubllc blddlngs are held for Lhe besL proLecLlon of Lhe publlc and Lo glve Lhe publlc
Lhe besL posslble advanLages by means of open compeLlLlon beLween Lhe bldders." 1hus, conLracLs
requlrlng publlc blddlng affecL publlc lnLeresL, and Lo change Lhem wlLhouL complylng wlLh LhaL
requlremenL would lndeed be agalnsL publlc pollcy.

k|vera v. Mun|c|pa||ty of Ma|o|os (19S7)

k|vera v. Mac|ang (1963)

lacLs:
1he munlclpallLy of Malolos called for blds for furnlshlng and dellverlng maLerlals Lo be used ln Lhe malnLenance
and repalr of barrlo roads. edro 8lvera won ln Lhe blddlng and was asked by Lhe Munlclpal 1reasurer Lo come Lo
hls offlce for execuLlon of Lhe correspondlng conLracL. 1he conLracL was slgned by hlm and by Carlo . Maclang ln
hls capaclLy as Munlclpal Mayor of Malolos. ursuanL Lo Lhe conLracL, 8lvera subsequenLly dellvered Lo Lhe
munlclpallLy gravel and adobe sLones valued aL 19,233.00. 1he Munlclpal Councll of Malolos passed a resoluLlon
approvlng Lhe conLracL, buL ln splLe of repeaLed demands by 8lvera Lhe prlce of Lhe maLerlals was noL pald.

ln 1934, 8lvera soughL Lhe lnLervenLlon of Lhe resldenLlal ComplalnL and AcLlon Commlsslon, whlch referred Lhe
maLLer Lo Lhe Ceneral AudlLlng Cfflce. 1haL Cfflce Lurned down Lhe clalm for paymenL, whereupon 8lvera flled ln
Lhls CourL a peLlLlon for revlew. 1he CourL susLalned Lhe acLlon of Lhe Ceneral AudlLlng Cfflce and held LhaL Lhe
conLracL ln quesLlon was vold as far as Malolos was concerned on Lhe ground LhaL no money had been
approprlaLed Lo meeL Lhe obllgaLlon prlor Lo Lhe execuLlon of Lhe conLracL, as requlred by SecLlon 607 of Lhe
8evlsed AdmlnlsLraLlve Code.

Powever, ln Lhe same declslon, Lhe Supreme CourL lndlcaLed LhaL SecLlon 608 of Lhe same Code afforded 8lvera a
remedy. ConsequenLly, he flled Lhe presenL acLlon agalnsL Maclang ln hls personal capaclLy pursuanL Lo Lhe sald
provlslon.
A81 lll

206

1he Lrlal courL dlsmlssed Lhe complalnL slnce Lhe conLracL had been declared null and vold by Lhe CourL saylng LhaL
"lL cannoL produce any legal effecL for whlch LhereafLer no recovery can be made."

lssue:
WCn Lhe dlsmlssal was proper

Peld:
no

8aLlo:
1he rullng ln Lhe prevlous case ls LhaL Lhe conLracL was null and vold vlsa-vls Malolos, by reason of non-compllance
wlLh Lhe requlremenL of SecLlon 607 of Lhe 8evlsed AdmlnlsLraLlve Code, whlch sLaLes LhaL:

"except lo tbe cose of o coottoct fot sopplles to be cottleJ lo stock, oo coottoct lovolvloq tbe
expeoJltote by ooy ptovloce, moolclpollty, cbotteteJ clty, ot moolclpol Jlsttlct of two tboosooJ
pesos ot mote sboll be eoteteJ loto ot ootbotlzeJ ootll tbe tteosotet of tbe polltlcol Jlvlsloo
coocetoeJ sboll bove cettlfleJ to tbe offlcet eotetloq loto socb coottoct tbot fooJs bove beeo Joly
opptoptloteJ fot socb potpose ooJ tbot tbe omooot oecessoty to covet tbe ptoposeJ coottoct ls
ovolloble fot expeoJltote oo occooot tbeteof."

lL should be noLed however LhaL Lhe presenL acLlon ls agalnsL Maclang ln hls personal capaclLy on Lhe sLrengLh of
SecLlon 608 of Lhe same Code, whlch provldes as follows:

5c. 608. volJ coottoct - lloblllty of Offlcet - A potpotteJ coottoct eoteteJ loto coottoty to tbe
tepoltemeots of tbe oext pteceJloq sectloo beteof sboll be wbolly volJ, ooJ tbe offlcet ossomloq
to moke socb coottoct sboll be lloble to tbe Covetomeot ot otbet coottoctloq potty fot ooy
coosepoeot Jomoqe to tbe some exteot os lf tbe ttoosoctloo boJ beeo wbolly betweeo ptlvote
pottles.

1he poslLlon of Maclang, as Lhe offlcer who slgned Lhe conLracL wlLh 8lvera ln vlolaLlon of SecLlon 607, comes
squarely under Lhe provlslon [usL quoLed. Pls llablllLy ls personal, as lf Lhe LransacLlon had been enLered lnLo by
hlm as a prlvaLe parLy. 1he lnLenLlon of Lhe law ln Lhls respecL ls Lo ensure LhaL publlc offlcers enLerlng lnLo
LransacLlons wlLh prlvaLe lndlvlduals calllng for Lhe expendlLure of publlc funds observe a hlgh degree of cauLlon so
LhaL Lhe governmenL may noL be Lhe vlcLlm of lll-advlsed or lmprovldenL acLlon by Lhose assumlng Lo represenL lL.

8. L|ab|||ty on 1orts (uas|-De||ct)

1racey 1hurman, et a|. v. C|ty of 1orr|ngton, et a|., (1984)
lAC1S
1hls landmark case on gender vlolence lnvolves 1racey 1hurman who sued Lhe ClLy and Lhe members of Lhe local
pollce deparLmenL of 1orrlngLon, ConnecLlcuL for falllng Lo provlde her wlLh equal proLecLlon agalnsL her husband,
Charles 8uck" 1hurman.
lor Lhe perlod CcLober 1982 Lo !une 1983, 1racey 1hurman repeaLedly approached, called, and asked for help
from Lhe 1orrlngLon ollce ueparLmenL for Lhe repeaLed LhreaLs made by her husband, 8uck, agalnsL her and Lhelr
son, Charles 1hurman, !r. 1he pollce repeaLedly lgnored her requesL for help and falled Lo acL on her aLLempLs Lo
flle complalnLs agalnsL her husband as demonsLraLed ln Lhe followlng lnsLances:
a. CcLober 1982, 8uck aLLacked 1racey aL Lhe home of !udy 8enLley and 8lcharde SL. Pllalre where 1racey was
sLaylng wlLh Lhelr son, Charles, !r., so Lhe couple made a formal complalnL of Lhe aLLack Lo one of Lhe pollce offlcers
and requesLed for efforLs Lo keep 8uck off Lhelr properLy buL 8uck was sLlll able Lo reLurn Lo Lhe SL. Pllalre
A81 lll

207

resldence on november 3, 1982 and used physlcal force Lo Lake Charles, !r. wlLh hlm. When 1racey and Mr. SL.
Pllalre wenL Lo Lhe 1orrlngLon ollce Lo make a formal complalnL, Lhe pollce refused Lo accepL Lhe complalnL of Mr.
SL. Pllalre, even as Lo Lrespasslng.
b. Cn november 9, 1982, 8uck screamed aL and LhreaLened 1racey who was lnslde her car whlle a pollceman
[usL sLood on Lhe sLreeL waLchlng 8uck and dld noL arresL hlm unLll afLer he broke Lhe wlndshleld of 1racey's car.
8ecause of Lhls, he was convlcLed of breach of peace and recelved a suspended senLence of slx monLhs and a Lwo-
year condlLlonal dlscharge whlch ordered hlm Lo sLay away from 1racey and Lhe SL. Pllalre resldence.
c. Cn uecember 31, 1982, 8uck reLurned agaln Lo Lhe SL. Pllalre resldence and LhreaLened 1racey buL afLer
reporLlng lL Lo Lhe 1orrlngLon ollce, no aLLempL was made Lo ascerLaln 8uck's whereabouLs or Lo arresL hlm even
afLer 1racey lnformed Lhe pollce offlcer who Look Lhe call LhaL 8uck vlolaLed Lhe condlLlonal dlscharge.
d. 8eLween !anuary 1, 1983 and May 4, 1984, many Lelephone complalnLs was Laken by Lhe 1orrlngLon ollce
reporLlng 1hurman's repeaLed LhreaLs of vlolence and requesLlng for hls arresL for vlolaLlng Lhe condlLlonal
dlscharge buL no acLlon was Laken by Lhe pollce.
e. Cn May 4 and 3, 1983, 1racey and Ms. 8enLley reporLed Lo Lhe pollce LhaL 8uck LhreaLened Lo shooL 1racey
and Charles, !r., and flled a complalnL agalnsL 8uck buL Lhe pollce refused Lo Lake Lhe complalnL of Ms. 8enLley and
Look only Lhe wrlLLen complalnL of 1racey and Lold her Lo reLurn Lhree weeks afLer when someone can seek an
arresL warranL for 8uck.
f. 1racey applled for a resLralnlng order ln courL on May 6, 1983 and Lhe courL forbade 8uck from assaulLlng,
LhreaLenlng, and harasslng her. A copy was furnlshed Lo Lhe ClLy governmenL.
g. Cn May 27, 1983 1racey requesLed for pollce proLecLlon ln order Lo go Lo Lhe 1orrlngLon ollce and when
she goL Lhere and asked for an arresL warranL for 8uck, she was Lold LhaL she had Lo walL unLll May 31 because lL
was a Memorlal uay hollday weekend.
h. When 1racey appeared agaln on May 31, 1983 Lo purse her warranL requesL, she was advlsed by one of Lhe
pollce offlcers LhaL Lhe offlcer who could help her was on vacaLlon so 1racey's broLher-ln-law, !oseph kocsls called
Lo proLesL Lhe lack of acLlon buL even afLer Mr. kocsls was lnformed LhaL 8uck wlll be arresLed on !une 8, 1983,
8uck was noL arresLed.
l. llnally, on !une 10, 1983, 8uck appeared agaln aL Lhe SL. Pllalre resldence and demanded Lo speak wlLh
1racey. 1racey called Lhe pollce asklng Lo plck up 8uck for vlolaLlng hls probaLlon buL help only arrlved afLer 23
mlnuLes and only afLer 8uck had already sLabbed 1racey repeaLedly ln Lhe chesL, neck and LhroaL. When Lhe pollce
offlcer arrlved, he dropped Lhe knlfe, klcked 1racey ln Lhe head, ran lnslde Lhe house, reLurned wlLh Charles, !r.,
dropped Lhe chlld on hls wounded moLher, and klcked 1racey on Lhe head agaln for Lhe second Llme, all ln Lhe
presence of Lhe pollce offlcer. 8uck was even allowed by Lhe oLher pollce offlcers who arrlved aL Lhe scene Lo
wander around Lhe crowd whlle conLlnulng Lo LhreaLen 1racey and was only arresLed and Laken lnLo cusLody when
he approached 1racey whlle she was already lylng on a sLreLcher.
8uck worked as a counLerman and shorL order cook aL Skle's ulner where he served many members of Lhe
1orrlngLon ollce ueparLmenL.
1racey flled a complalnL agalnsL Lhe ClLy and Lhe members of Lhe 1orrlngLon ollce ueparLmenL alleglng LhaL Lhe
acLlons of Lhe pollce offlcers deprlved 1racey of her consLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo equal proLecLlon of Lhe laws.
1he ClLy argues LhaL 1racey's complalnL should be dlsmlssed because Lhe equal proLecLlon clause of Lhe fourLeenLh
amendmenL ln Lhe uS ConsLlLuLlon does noL guaranLee equal appllcaLlon of soclal servlces and LhaL Lhe equal
proLecLlon clause "only prohlblLs lnLenLlonal dlscrlmlnaLlon LhaL ls raclally moLlvaLed".

lSSuL:
uld Lhe conducL of Lhe 1orrlngLon ollce ueparLmenL amounL Lo a cusLom or pollcy on Lhe parL of Lhe ClLy of
1orrlngLon LhaL deprlved 1racey of her rlghL Lo equal proLecLlon?

8uLlnC:
?es. 1he courL found LhaL Lhe fallure of Lhe pollce deparLmenL Lo afford 1racey and Charles, !r., proLecLlon agalnsL
Lhe LhreaLs and assaulLs of 8uck and lLs fallure Lo Lake acLlon Lo arresL hlm dlscrlmlnaLed Lhem and was pursuanL Lo
an admlnlsLraLlve classlflcaLlon LhaL manlfesLs lLself ln dlscrlmlnaLory LreaLmenL vlolaLlve of Lhe equal proLecLlon
clause. ollce proLecLlon ln 1orrlngLon ClLy ls fully provlded Lo persons abused by someone wlLh whom Lhe vlcLlm
has no domesLlc relaLlonshlp. 8uL Lhe 1orrlngLon pollce have conslsLenLly afforded lesser proLecLlon, when Lhe
A81 lll

208

vlcLlm ls (1) a woman abused or assaulLed by a spouse or boyfrlend, or (2) a chlld abused by a faLher or sLepfaLher.
1he law speclflcally mandaLes LhaL law enforcemenL offlcers can be held llable when by Lhelr lnacLlon, Lhey fall Lo
perform a sLaLuLorlly lmposed duLy Lo enforce Lhe laws equally and falrly, and Lhereby denles equal proLecLlon. 1he
fallure of clLy offlclals and pollce offlcers Lo perform Lhelr duLy of Laklng reasonable measures Lo proLecL personal
safeLy of persons whom Lhey know may be aLLacked ls a denlal of equal proLecLlon of Lhe laws. 1hls duLy applles
equally Lo women whose personal safeLy ls LhreaLened by lndlvlduals wlLh whom Lhey have or have had a domesLlc
relaLlonshlp as well as Lo all oLher persons whose personal safeLy ls LhreaLened, lncludlng women noL lnvolved ln
domesLlc relaLlonshlps. lf offlclals have noLlce of Lhe posslblllLy of aLLacks on women ln domesLlc relaLlonshlps or
oLher persons, Lhey are under an afflrmaLlve duLy Lo Lake reasonable measures Lo proLecL Lhe personal safeLy of
such persons ln Lhe communlLy. lallure Lo perform Lhls duLy would consLlLuLe a denlal of equal proLecLlon of Lhe
laws. 1racey and Charles, !r., were LhreaLened wlLh assaulL ln vlolaLlon of ConnecLlcuL law. Cver Lhe course of elghL
monLhs Lhe pollce falled Lo afford Lhem proLecLlon agalnsL such assaulLs, and falled Lo Lake acLlon Lo arresL Lhe
perpeLraLor of Lhese assaulLs. 1hls fallure Lo acL was pursuanL Lo a paLLern or pracLlce of affordlng lnadequaLe
proLecLlon, or no proLecLlon aL all, Lo women who have complalned of havlng been abused by Lhelr husbands or
oLhers wlLh whom Lhey have had close relaLlons. Such a pracLlce, paLLern, cusLom, or pollcy, ls LanLamounL Lo an
admlnlsLraLlve classlflcaLlon used Lo lmplemenL Lhe law ln a dlscrlmlnaLory fashlon. lL ls well seLLled LhaL Lhe equal
proLecLlon clause ls appllcable noL only Lo dlscrlmlnaLory leglslaLlve acLlon, buL also Lo dlscrlmlnaLory governmenLal
acLlon ln admlnlsLraLlon and enforcemenL of Lhe law. AddlLlonally, any noLlon LhaL Lhe ClLy and pollce
deparLmenL's pracLlce of affordlng lesser or no proLecLlon Lo women ls a means Lo promoLe domesLlc harmony by
refralnlng from lnLerference ln marlLal dlspuLes ls unLenable because 1racey pleaded wlLh Lhe pollce Lo offer her a
measure of proLecLlon and even soughL and recelved a resLralnlng order Lo keep 8uck aL a dlsLance.
Whlle a munlclpallLy ls noL llable for Lhe consLlLuLlonal LorLs of lLs employees on a respondenL superlor Lheory,
such munlclpallLy may be sued for damages under secLlon 1983 when "Lhe acLlon LhaL ls alleged Lo be
unconsLlLuLlonal lmplemenLs or execuLes a pollcy sLaLemenL, ordlnance, regulaLlon, or declslon offlclally adopLed
and promulgaLed by Lhe body's offlcers" or ls "vlslLed pursuanL Lo governmenLal 'cusLom' even Lhough such a
cusLom has noL recelved formal approval Lhrough Lhe body's offlclal declslon-maklng channels."
Some degree of speclflclLy ls requlred ln Lhe pleadlng of a cusLom or pollcy on Lhe parL of a munlclpallLy. Mere
conclusory allegaLlons devold of facLual conLenL wlll noL sufflce. A plalnLlff musL Lyplcally polnL Lo facLs ouLslde hls
own case Lo supporL hls allegaLlon of a pollcy on Lhe parL of a munlclpallLy. ln Lhe lnsLanL case, however, 1racey
1hurman has speclflcally alleged ln her sLaLemenL of facLs a serles of acLs and omlsslons on Lhe parL of Lhe
defendanL pollce offlcers and pollce deparLmenL LhaL Look place over Lhe course of elghL monLhs. lrom Lhls
parLlcularlzed pleadlng a paLLern emerges LhaL evldences dellberaLe lndlfference on Lhe parL of Lhe pollce
deparLmenL Lo Lhe complalnLs of 1racey and Lo lLs duLy Lo proLecL her. Such an ongolng paLLern of dellberaLe
lndlfference ralses an lnference of "cusLom" or "pollcy" on Lhe parL of Lhe munlclpallLy. 1he pollce could noL clalm
LhaL Lhey were promoLlng domesLlc harmony by refralnlng from lnLerference ln a marlLal dlspuLe because research
had concluslvely demonsLraLed LhaL pollce lnacLlon supporLs Lhe conLlnuance of vlolence. 1here could be no
quesLlon LhaL 1orrlngLon ClLy, Lhrough lLs pollce deparLmenL, had "condoned a paLLern or pracLlce of affordlng
lnadequaLe proLecLlon or no proLecLlon aL all, Lo women who complalned of havlng been abused by Lhelr husbands
or oLhers wlLh whom Lhey have had close relaLlons." 1hus, havlng esLabllshed LhaL Lhe dlscrlmlnaLory
admlnlsLraLlve classlflcaLlon of affordlng lesser or no proLecLlon Lo women amounLed Lo a vlolaLlon of Lhe equal
proLecLlon of laws, Lhe CourL held Lhe munlclpallLy llable for damages and awarded 1racey 2.3 mllllon.

a|afox et., a| v. rov|nce of I|ocos Norte (19S8)

lacLs:
Sabas 1orralba was employed as Lhe drlver of llocos norLe and deLalled Lo Lhe Cfflce of Lhe ulsLrlcL
Lnglneer
Whlle drlvlng hls Lruck, he ran over roceLo alafox and Lhe vlcLlm dled.
Sabas was prosecuLed for homlclde Lhrough reckless lmprudence Lo whlch he pleaded gullLy.
1he helrs of alafox lnsLlLuLed a clvll case agalnsL Lhe rovlnce, ulsLrlcL Lnglneer, rovlnclal 1reasurer and
Sabas 1orralba.
A81 lll

209

lssue:
WCn Lhe rovlnce of llocos norLe can be held llable? nC

8aLlo:
1hls case hlghllghLs Lhe general rule LhaL local governmenL unlLs are noL llable for negllgenL acLs of lLs employees
whlle Lhey are performlng governmenLal funcLlons or duLles. ln Lhls case, Lhe drlver 1orralba was lnvolved ln Lhe
consLrucLlon or malnLenance of roads whlch was a governmenLal duLy. 1herefore, Lhe provlnce cannoL be held
llable for hls negllgenL acL.

Mendoza v. De Leon (1916)
MunlclpallLles of Lhe hlllpplne lslands organlzed under Lhe Munlclpal Code have boLh governmenLal and
corporaLe or buslness funcLlons. Cf Lhe flrsL class are Lhe adopLlon of regulaLlon agalnsL flre and dlsease,
preservaLlon of Lhe publlc peace, malnLenance of munlclpal prlsons, esLabllshmenL of prlmary schools and posL-
offlces, eLc. Cf Lhe laLLer class are Lhe esLabllshmenL of munlclpal waLerworks for Lhe use of Lhe lnhablLanLs, Lhe
consLrucLlon and malnLenance of munlclpal slaughLerhouses, markeLs, sLables, baLhlng esLabllshmenLs, wharves,
ferrles, and flsherles. 1he Lwo fold characLer of Lhe powers of a munlclpallLy under our Munlclpal Code (AcL no. 82)
ls so apparenL and lLs prlvaLe or corporaLe powers so numerous and lmporLanL LhaL we flnd no dlfflculLy ln
reachlng Lhe concluslon LhaL Lhe general prlnclples governlng Lhe llablllLy of such enLlLles Lo appllcable Lo lL. 1he
dlsLlncLlon beLween governmenLal powers on Lhe one hand, and corporaLe or proprleLary or buslness powers on
Lhe oLher, as Lhe laLLer class ls varlously descrlbed ln Lhe reporLed cases, has been long recognlzed ln Lhe unlLed
SLaLes and Lhere ls no dlssenL from Lhe docLrlne. 1he munlclpallLy ls noL llable for Lhe acLs of lLs offlcers or agenLs ln
Lhe performance of lLs governmenLal funcLlons. CovernmenLal affalrs do noL lose Lhelr governmenLal characLer by
belng delegaLed Lo Lhe munlclpal governmenLs. nor of Lhe munlclpallLy whlch, for convenlence Lhe sLaLe allows Lhe
munlclpallLy Lo selecL, change Lhelr characLer. 1o preserve Lhe peace, proLecL Lhe morals and healLh of Lhe
communlLy and so on Lo admlnlsLer governmenL, wheLher lL be done by Lhe cenLral governmenL lLself or ls shlfLed
Lo a local organlzaLlon. And Lhe sLaLe belng lmmune for ln[urles suffered by prlvaLe lndlvlduals ln Lhe
admlnlsLraLlon of sLrlcLly governmenLal funcLlons, llke lmmunlLy ls en[oyed by Lhe munlclpallLy ln Lhe performance
of Lhe same duLles, unless lL ls expressly made llable by sLaLuLe. nor are offlcers or agenLs of Lhe CovernmenL
charged wlLh Lhe performance of governmenLal duLles whlch are ln Lhelr naLure leglslaLlve, or quasl [udlclal, llable
for Lhe consequences of Lhelr offlclal acLs, unless lL be shown LhaL Lhey acL wlllfully and mallclously, and wlLh Lhe
express purpose of lnfllcLlng ln[ury upon Lhe plalnLlff. lf Lhey exerclse Lhelr honesL [udgmenL ln Lhe performance of
Lhelr duLles, Lhelr errors cannoL be charged agalnsL Lhem. So lL may be sald LhaL ln so far as lLs governmenLal
funcLlons are concerned, a munlclpallLy ls noL llable aL all, unless expressly made so by sLaLuLe, nor are lLs offlcers,
so long as Lhey perform Lhelr duLles honesLly and ln good falLh. 1he mosL common lllusLraLlon of boLh phrases of
Lhls rule ls Lhe acLlon for false lmprlsonmenL so ofLen broughL elLher agalnsL a munlclpallLy or a munlclpal pollce
offlcer. lrom whaL has already been sald, lL should be clear LhaL a munlclpallLy ls noL exempL from llablllLy for Lhe
negllgenL performance of lLs corporaLe or proprleLary or buslness funcLlons. ln Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of lLs
paLrlmonlal properLy, lL ls Lo be regarded as a prlvaLe corporaLlon or lndlvldual so far as lLs llablllLy Lo Lhlrd persons
on conLracL or ln LorL ls concerned. lLs conLracLs, valldly enLered lnLo, may be enforced and damages may be
collecLed from lL for Lhe LorLs of lLs offlcers or agenLs wlLhln Lhe scope of Lhelr employmenL ln preclsely Lhe same
manner and Lo Lhe same exLenL as Lhose of prlvaLe corporaLlons or lndlvlduals. As Lo such maLLers Lhe prlnclples of
respondeaL superlor applles. lL ls for Lhese purposes LhaL Lhe munlclpallLy ls made llable Lo sulLs ln Lhe courLs. lL
ofLen happens LhaL Lhe same agenL or agency has boLh a governmenLal and a corporaLe characLer. Such, for
lnsLance, are a munlclpal waLer sysLem deslgned boLh for proLecLlon agalnsL flre (a governmenLal funcLlon) and Lo
supply waLer Lo Lhe lnhablLanLs for proflL (a corporaLe funcLlon), a munlclpal llghL planL boLh for llghLlng Lhe sLreeLs
(a governmenLal funcLlon) and for furnlshlng llghL Lo Lhe lnhablLanLs aL a proflL (a corporaLe funcLlon), an agenL
who ls aL Lhe same Llme a pollce offlcer and a careLaker of a munlclpal Loll brldge. lL ls, also, someLlmes Lhe case
LhaL conslderable dlfflculLy ls experlenced ln deLermlnlng wheLher a parLlcular munlclpal duLy ls governmenLal or
corporaLe.

A81 lll

210

Mun|c|pa||ty of San Iernando, La Un|on v. I|rme (1991)

lAC1S:
Cn 16-uec 1963 aL 7am, a Lhree-vehlcle colllslon occurred lnvolvlng a dump Lruck of Lhe MunlclpallLy of San
lernando La unlon, a gravel and sand Lruck, and a passenger [eepney. AL Lhe Llme of Lhe accldenL, Lhe dump Lruck
of Lhe munlclpallLy drlven by lLs regular employee, A. 8lsllg, was on lLs way Lo nagulllan 8lver Lo geL a load of sand
and gravel for Lhe repalr of Lhe munlclpallLy's sLreeLs. Laureano 8anlna Sr, a passenger of Lhe [eepney, dled as a
resulL of Lhe ln[urles he susLalned ln Lhe colllslon. 8anlna's relaLlves lnsLlLuLed a complalnL for damages agalnsL Lhe
drlver and owner of Lhe passenger [eepney and Lhe dump Lruck. ln Lhelr answer, Lhe munlclpallLy ralsed four (4)
grounds for dlsmlssal: lack of cause of acLlon, Lhe non-suablllLy of Lhe SLaLe w/o lLs consenL, prescrlpLlon and
negllgence of Lhe [eepney drlver. !udge llrme seL a hearlng on Lhe sole ground of lack of [urlsdlcLlon buL deferred
resoluLlon on Lhe oLher grounds unLll Lrlal. 1he munlclpallLy flled a moLlon for reconslderaLlon agalnsL Lhe order of
Lhe [udge buL denled. Soon afLer, Lhe case was deemed submlLLed due Lo boLh parLles' fallure Lo flle Lhelr
respecLlve memoranda. 1he case was dlsmlssed agalnsL Lhe !eepney owner and lLs drlver buL Lhe courL held Lhe
MunlclpallLy and lLs drlver llable for acLual damages, moral damages and ALLy.'s fees.

lSSuLS:
(1) WCn Lhe munlclpallLy can be sued.
(2) lf ln Lhe afflrmaLlve, WCn lL can be held llable for LorLs commlLLed by lLs regular employee who was Lhen
engaged ln Lhe dlscharge of governmenLal powers.

PLLu:
(1) ?es. MunlclpallLy can sue and be sued.
Cenerally, Lhe SLaLe may noL be sued wlLhouL lLs consenL (ArL. xvl Sec. 3). When Lhe sLaLe does walve lLs soverelgn
lmmunlLy, wheLher express or lmplled, lL ls only glvlng Lhe plalnLlff Lhe chance Lo prove LhaL Lhe defendanL ls llable.
Lxpress consenL may be embodled ln a general law or a speclal law. ConsenL ls lmplled when Lhe governmenL
enLers lnLo buslness conLracLs, Lhereby descendlng Lo Lhe level of Lhe oLher conLracLlng parLy, and also when Lhe
SLaLe flles a complalnL, Lhus openlng lLself Lo a counLerclalm. Munlclpal corporaLlons are suable because Lhelr
charLers granL Lhem Lhe compeLence Lo sue and be sued (express consenL).

(2) no. 1he munlclpallLy cannoL be held llable for Lhe LorLs commlLLed by lLs regular employee, who was Lhen
engaged ln Lhe dlscharge of governmenLal funcLlons.

Munlclpal corporaLlons exlsL ln a dual capaclLy: CovernmenLal and roprleLary. ln lLs governmenLal funcLlon, Lhey
exerclse Lhe rlghL sprlnglng from soverelgnLy and en[oy Lhe soverelgn lmmunlLy from sulL. ln lLs proprleLary
funcLlon, lL exerclses a prlvaLe, proprleLary or corporaLe rlghL, arlslng from lLs exlsLence as legal persons and noL as
publlc agencles. 1he LesL of llablllLy of Lhe munlclpallLy depends on wheLher or noL Lhe munlclpallLy, was
performlng governmenLal or proprleLary funcLlons.

lL has already been remarked LhaL munlclpal corporaLlons are suable because Lhelr charLers granL Lhem Lhe
compeLence Lo sue and be sued. neverLheless, Lhey are generally noL llable for LorLs commlLLed by Lhem ln Lhe
dlscharge of governmenLal funcLlons and can only be held answerable only lf lL can be shown LhaL Lhey were acLlng
ln proprleLary capaclLy. ln permlLLlng such enLlLles Lo be sued, Lhe SLaLe merely glves Lhe clalmanL Lhe rlghL Lo show
LhaL Lhe defendanL was noL acLlng ln governmenLal capaclLy when Lhe ln[ury was commlLLed or LhaL Lhe case
comes under Lhe excepLlons recognlzed by law. lalllng Lhls, Lhe clalmanL cannoL recover.

ln Lhe absence of any evldence Lo Lhe conLrary, Lhe regularlLy of Lhe performance of offlclal duLy ls presumed.
Pence, We rule LhaL Lhe drlver of Lhe dump Lruck was performlng duLles or Lasks perLalnlng Lo hls offlce.

ueclslon of Lhe respondenL courL modlfled. eLlLloner munlclpallLy absolved of any llablllLy ln favor of prlvaLe
respondenLs.

A81 lll

211

Iernando et., a| v. CA and C|ty of Davao (1992)
lacLs:
- Cn november 7, 1973 markeL masLer 8lblano MorLa flled a requlslLlon requesL for Lhe re-empLylng of Lhe
sepLlc Lank ln Agdao ubllc MarkeL.
- An lnvlLaLlon Lo bld was lssued, and 8ascon won.
- Powever, before slgnlng of Lhe conLracL, several oLher bldders were found dead lnslde Lhe sepLlc Lank.
- ur. Abear, ClLy PealLh Cfflcer, auLopsled Lhe vlcLlms and found Lhem Lo have dled by asphyxla"
(dlmlnuLlon of oxygen supply ln Lhe body worklng below normal condlLlons).
- Pelrs of Lhe vlcLlms now flled a case before Lhe 1C seeklng damages.
- 1C: ulsmlssed Lhe complalnL.
- CA: 8eversed and awarded damages. upon M8, agaln reversed and absolved Lhe ClLy CovernmenL.

lssues/Peld:

1. WCn Lhe ClLy CovernmenL of uavao ls gullLy of negllgence and lf so, lf such negllgence Lhe lmmedlaLe and
proxlmaLe cause of Lhe deaLhs of Lhe vlcLlms? nC.

negllgence, deflned:
- negllgence has been deflned as Lhe fallure Lo observe for Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe lnLeresLs of anoLher
person LhaL degree of care, precauLlon, and vlgllance whlch Lhe clrcumsLances [usLly demand, whereby such oLher
person suffers ln[ury. under Lhe law, a person who by hls omlsslon causes damage Lo anoLher, Lhere belng
negllgence, ls obllged Lo pay for Lhe damage done (ArLlcle 2176, new Clvll Code).
- As Lo whaL would consLlLuLe a negllgenL acL ln a glven slLuaLlon, Lhe LesL ls: ConducL ls sald Lo be negllgenL
when a prudenL man ln Lhe poslLlon of Lhe LorLfeasor would have foreseen LhaL an effecL harmful Lo anoLher was
sufflclenLly probable warranL hls foregolng Lhe conducL or guardlng agalnsL lLs consequences (lcarL v. SmlLh).

lmmedlaLe and roxlmaLe Cause, deflned:

- 1o be enLlLled Lo damages for an ln[ury resulLlng from Lhe negllgence of anoLher, a clalmanL musL
esLabllsh Lhe relaLlon beLween Lhe omlsslon and Lhe damage. Pe musL prove under ArLlcle 2179 of Lhe new Clvll
Code LhaL Lhe defendanL's negllgence was Lhe lmmedlaLe and proxlmaLe cause of hls ln[ury.
- roxlmaLe cause has been deflned as LhaL cause, whlch, ln naLural and conLlnuous sequence unbroken by
any efflclenL lnLervenlng cause, produces Lhe ln[ury, and wlLhouL whlch Lhe resulL would noL have occurred (vda.
de 8aLaclan, eL al. v. Medlna). roof of such relaLlon of cause and effecL ls noL an arduous one lf Lhe clalmanL dld
noL ln any way conLrlbuLe Lo Lhe negllgence of Lhe defendanL. lor a [udlclous assessmenL of Lhe slLuaLlon, Lhe
followlng guldellne ls lnsLrucLlve:
1he LesL ls slmple. ulsLlncLlon musL be made beLween Lhe accldenL and Lhe ln[ury, beLween Lhe evenL lLself,
wlLhouL whlch Lhere could have been no accldenL, and Lhose acLs of Lhe vlcLlm noL enLerlng lnLo lL, lndependenL of
lL, buL conLrlbuLlng Lo hls own proper hurL.

As applled:

- AfLer a careful scruLlny of Lhe records, Lhere ls no compelllng reason Lo granL Lhe peLlLlon.
- Whlle lL may be Lrue LhaL Lhe publlc respondenL has been remlss ln lLs duLy Lo re-empLy Lhe sepLlc Lank
annually, such negllgence was noL a conLlnulng one. upon learnlng from Lhe reporL of Lhe markeL masLer abouL Lhe
need Lo clean Lhe sepLlc Lank, publlc respondenL lmmedlaLely responded by lssulng lnvlLaLlons Lo bld for such
servlce. lL Lherefore, losL no Llme ln Laklng up remedlal measures Lo meeL Lhe slLuaLlon.
- lL ls llkewlse an undlspuLed facL LhaL desplLe Lhe publlc respondenL's fallure Lo re-empLy Lhe sepLlc Lank
slnce 1936, people ln Lhe markeL have been uslng Lhe publlc LolleL for Lhelr personal necesslLles buL have remalned
unscaLhed.
- Moreover, Lhe Loxlc gas from Lhe wasLe maLLer could noL have leaked ouL because Lhe sepLlc Lank was alr-
LlghL. 1he only lndlcaLlon LhaL Lhe sepLlc Lank ln Lhe case aL bar was full and needed empLylng was when waLer
A81 lll

212

came ouL from lL. ?eL, even when Lhe sepLlc Lank was full, Lhere was no reporL of any casualLy of gas polsonlng
desplLe Lhe presence of people llvlng near lL or passlng on Lop of lL or uslng Lhe publlc LolleL for Lhelr personal
necesslLles.

- noLe LhaL Lhe vlcLlms are professlonals. When a person holds hlmself ouL as belng compeLenL Lo do Lhlngs
requlrlng professlonal sklll, he wlll be held llable for negllgence lf he falls Lo exhlblL Lhe care and sklll of one
ordlnarlly skllled ln Lhe parLlcular work whlch he aLLempLs Lo do.

1uzon and Mapagu v. CA and Iurado (1992)

lacLs:
March 1977-- Sanggunlang 8ayan of Camalanlugan, Cagayan, unanlmously adopLed 8esoluLlon no. 9--munlclpallLy
embarked ln consLrucLlon of SporLs and nuLrlLlon CenLer. Slnce funds for consLrucLlon are noL enough Lo flnance lLs
compleLlon, Lhe S8 resolved Lo have a fund ralsng by by sollcltloq 1X Joootloo ftom tbe tbtesbet opetotots wbo wlll
opply fot o petmlt to tbtesb wlLhln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhls munlclpallLy, of all Lhe palay Lhreshed by Lhem Lo help
flnance Lhe conLlnuaLlon of Lhe consLrucLlon of Lhe SporLs and nuLrlLlon CenLer 8ulldlng. S8 auLhorlzed Lhe
munlclpal Lreasurer Lo enLer lnLo an agreemenL Lo all Lhresher operaLors, LhaL wlll come Lo apply for a permlL Lo
Lhresh palay wlLhln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhls munlclpallLy Lo donaLe 1 of all Lhe palay Lhreshed by Lhem.

ursuanL Lo above, Mapagu, Lhen lncumbenL munlclpal Lreasurer, prepared a documenL for slgnaLure of all
Lhresher/owner/operaLors applylng for a mayor's permlL whlch sLaLes LhaL such Lhresher voloototlly oqtees Lo
donaLe Lo Lhe munlclpallLy 1 of all palay Lhreshed wlLhln lLs [urlsdlcLlon Lo help flnance Lhe consLrucLlon of Lhe
sporLs and nuLrlLlon cenLer bulldlng. uoc also sLaLes LhaL Lhresher agrees Lo reporL weekly Lhe LoLal number of
palay Lhreshed Lo munlclpal Lreasurer Lurn over Lhe 1 share.

When Lrled Lo pay Lhe llcense fee of 283.00 for Lhresher operaLors aL munl Lreasurer's offlce, Mapagu
refused Lo accepL paymenL. LaLLer requlred hlm Lo flrsL secure a mayor's permlL. lgnored Lhe requlremenL.
lnsLead, he senL Lhe 283 by posLal money order Lo Lhe offlce of Lhe munlclpal Lreasurer who, however, reLurned
Lhe amounL for fallure Lo comply wlLh 8esoluLlon no. 9.

So flled Cll Cagayan for mandamus: Lo compel Lhe lssuance of Lhe mayor's permlL and llcense. also flled
declaraLory [udgmenL:resoluLlon (and lmplemenLlng agreemenL) lllegal elLher as a donaLlon or as a Lax measure.

Cll: upheld Lhe challenged measure. 8uL lL dlsmlssed Lhe clalms for damages of boLh parLles for lack of evldence.

CA: a)8esoluLlon no. 9 and lmplemenLlng agreemenL valld.
under ArLlcle 4, SecLlon 29 of u 231 (LnacLlng a Local 1ax Code for rovlnces, ClLles, MunlclpallLles and 8arrlos), lL
ls provlded LhaL:
"SecLlon 29. ConLrlbuLlons. - ln addlLlon Lo Lhe above speclfled Laxlng and oLher revenue-ralslng powers, Lhe
bottlo cooocll moy sollclt mooles, motetlols, ooJ otbet coottlbotloos ftom tbe followloq sootces.
xxx xxx xxx
"(c) Mooles ftom ptlvote oqeocles ooJ loJlvlJools."

b) 8uL lL found s Lo have acLed mallclously and ln 8l when Lhey denled !urado's appllcaLlon for Lhe mayor's
permlL and llcense. 1hey were held llable for damages.

s: acLlng ln Lhelr offlclal capaclLy when Lhey enforced Lhe resoluLlon so cannoL be held personally llable ln
damages, because Lhelr acL was noL LalnLed wlLh 8l or mallce.

: Lhe slgnlng of Lhe lmplemenLlng agreemenL was noL a condlLlon slne qua non Lo lssuance of a permlL and
llcense. So 's unwarranLed refusal Lo lssue such desplLe hls offer Lo pay requlred fee consLlLuLed 8l. b) 8esoluLlon
no. 9 and Lhe lmplemenLlng agreemenL lnvalld for compelllng Lhe Lhresher Lo donaLe someLhlng whlch he does noL
A81 lll

213

yeL own. lL conLravenes Lhe llmlLaLlons on Lhe Laxlng powers of LCus under SecLlon 3, of Lhe Local 1ax Code. c) he
ls Lhus enLlLled Lo moral and acLual damages.

lssue:
WCn s llable ln damages for havlng wlLhheld Lhe mayor's permlL and llcense because of hls refusal Lo comply
wlLh 8esoluLlon no. 9? nC

Peld:
a. lssue of valldlLy of 8esoluLlon no. 9 and Lhe lmplemenLlng agreemenL has noL been ralsed ln Lhls peLlLlon as
an asslgned error so we need noL rule on Lhls.
1he measures have been susLalned ln Lhe declslon, from whlch has noL appealed. 1he declslon ls flnal and
blndlng as Lo hlm. lL ls Lrue LhaL he dld quesLlon Lhe measures ln hls CommenL, buL only half-hearLedly and
obllquely, Lo supporL hls clalm for damages.

b. CA falled Lo glve any explanaLlon for lLs concluslon LhaL Lhe challenged measures are valld.
8esoluLlon no. 9 was passed by Lhe Sanggunlang 8ayan of Camalanlugan ln Lhe lawful exerclse of lLs leglslaLlve
power. -as per ArLlcle xl, SecLlon 3 of 1973 ConsLlLuLlon whlch provlded LhaL: "Lach local governmenL unlL shall
have Lhe powet to cteote (slc) lts owo sootce of teveooe and Lo levy Laxes, sub[ecL Lo such llmlLaLlon as may be
provlded by law."

Whlle from Lhe wordlng of Lhe resoluLlon lL appears LhaL munlclpal governmenL merely lnLends Lo "sollclL", Lhe
lmplemenLlng agreemenL seems Lo make Lhe Joootloo obllqototy ooJ o cooJltloo pteceJeot Lo Lhe lssuance of Lhe
mayor's permlL. 1hls goes agalnsL Lhe naLure of a donaLlon, whlch ls an acL of llberallLy and ls never obllgaLory.

lf lL ls Lo be consldered a Lax ordlnance, Lhen lL musL be shown Lo have been enacLed ln accordance wlLh Lhe
requlremenLs of Lhe Local 1ax Code. --lnclude Lhe holdlng of a publlc hearlng subsequenL approval by Lhe
SecreLary of llnance ln addlLlon Lo Lhe usual requlslLes for publlcaLlon of ordlnances ln general.

c. noL enLlLled Lo damages under arL. 27 of nCC because s were noL ln bad falLh buL merely acLlng w/ln Lhe
scope of Lhelr auLhorlLy.
: clalm anchored on arL. 27 nCC:
ArL. 27. Any person sufferlng maLerlal or moral loss becoose o pobllc setvoot ot employee tefoses ot oeqlects,
wltboot jost coose, to petfotm bls offlclol Joty may flle an acLlon for damages and oLher rellef agalnsL Lhe laLLer,
wlLhouL pre[udlce Lo any dlsclpllnary admlnlsLraLlve acLlon LhaL may be Laken.

Cne purpose of Lhls arLlcle ls Lo end Lhe "brlbery sysLem, where Lhe publlc offlclal, for some fllmsy excuse, delays
or refuses Lhe performance of hls duLy unLll he geLs some klnd of pabagsak." 1hls provlslon presupposes LhaL Lhe
refusal or omlsslon of a publlc offlclal Lo perform hls offlclal duLy ls aLLrlbuLable Lo mallce or lnexcusable
negllgence.

PL8L, doesnL even allege LhaL Mayor 1uzon's refusal Lo acL on hls appllcaLlon was an aLLempL Lo compel hlm
Lo resorL Lo brlbery. lL cannoL be sald elLher LhaL Lhe mayor and Lhe munlclpal Lreasurer were moLlvaLed by
personal splLe or were grossly negllgenL ln refuslng Lo lssue Lhe permlL and llcense Lo !urado.

no evldence been offered Lo show LhaL s slngled ouL for persecuLlon. nor dld Lhey sLand Lo galn personally
from refuslng Lo lssue Lhe mayor's permlL and llcense. s were noL !urado's buslness compeLlLors nor dld Lhey
lnLend Lo favor hls compeLlLors. 8ecord shows LhaL resoluLlon was unlformly applled Lo all Lhe Lhreshers ln Lhe
munlclpallLy wlLhouL dlscrlmlnaLlon or preference.

s acLed w/ln scope of Lhelr auLhorlLy and ln consonance wlLh Lhelr honesL lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe resoluLlon. lL was
noL for Lhem Lo rule on lLs valldlLy. ln Lhe absence of a [udlclal declslon declarlng lL lnvalld, lLs legallLy would have Lo
A81 lll

214

be presumed. As execuLlve offlclals of Lhe munlclpallLy, Lhey had Lhe duLy Lo enforce lL as long as lL had noL been
repealed by Lhe Sanggunlang 8ayan or annulled by Lhe courLs.

. . . As a rule, a publlc offlcer, wheLher [udlclal, quasl-[udlclal or execuLlve, ls noL personally llable Lo one ln[ured ln
consequence of an acL performed wlLhln Lhe scope of hls offlclal auLhorlLy, and ln llne of hls offlclal duLy.

. . . lL has been held LhaL an erroneous lnLerpreLaLlon of an ordlnance does noL consLlLuLe nor does lL amounL Lo
bad falLh LhaL would enLlLle an aggrleved parLy Lo an award for damages. (hlllpplne MaLch Co. LLd. v. ClLy of Cebu,
81 SC8A 99).

d. couldve Laken Lhe prudenL course of slgnlng Lhe agreemenL under proLesL and laLer challenglng lL ln courL
Lo relleve hlm of Lhe obllgaLlon Lo "donaLe."
-so LhaL he couldve commenced buslness and earned hls proflL Lherefrom.

endenLe llLe, he could have conLlnued Lo operaLe hls Lhreshlng buslness.
!udgmenL: s noL llable ln damages and aLLorney's fees

1or|o v. Iontan|||a (1978)

lacLs:
- 1he munlclpal councll of Malaslqul, angaslnan passed 2 resoluLlons. 1he flrsL was for managemenL of Lhe Lown
flesLa celebraLlon, and Lhe second was for Lhe creaLlon of Lhe Malaslqul 1own llesLa LxecuLlve CommlLLee.
- 1he SubcommlLLee on enLerLalnmenL and sLage was formed, wlLh Macaraeg as Chalrperson.
- 2 sLages were consLrucLed - one for Lhe zarzuela and anoLher for canclonan. Macaraeg supervlsed Lhe
consLrucLlon of Lhe sLages.
- Whlle Lhe zarzuela was belng held, Lhe sLage collapsed. vlcenLe lonLanllla was plnned underneaLh and dled ln
Lhe afLernoon of Lhe followlng day.
- vlcenLe's helrs flled a complalnL for damages wlLh Lhe Cll of Manlla. 1he defendanLs were Lhe munlclpallLy, Lhe
munlclpal councll and Lhe munlclpal councll members.
- Cll held LhaL Lhe munlclpal councll exerclsed due dlllgence ln selecLlng Lhe person Lo consLrucL Lhe sLage and
dlsmlssed Lhe complalnL. CA reversed Lhe Cll and held all defendanLs solldarlly llable for damages.

lssue: WheLher or noL Lhe munlclpallLy can be held llable for Lhe collapse of Lhe sLage whlch caused Lhe deaLh of
lonLanllla.

Peld:
- owers exerclsed by munlclpal corporaLlons: 1) publlc, governmenLal or pollLlcal -> admlnlsLerlng powers of Lhe
sLaLe, 2) corporaLe, prlvaLe, proprleLary -> for speclal beneflL and advanLage of a communlLy.
- lf ln[ury ls caused ln Lhe course of performance of a governmenLal funcLlon, Lhere could be no recovery unless
allowed by sLaLuLe. Llkewlse, Lhere can be no recovery from offlcers lf acLs were done ln good falLh.
- lolofox cose -> provlnce ls noL llable. MalnLenance and consLrucLlon of roads was performance of a
governmenLal funcLlon.
- 1he 8evlsed AdmlnlsLraLlve Code glves auLhorlLy Lo Lhe munlclpallLy Lo celebraLe Lhe yearly flesLa. Cbservance
Lhereof ls noL lmposed as a duLy. lL ls consldered as a speclal beneflL of Lhe communlLy and noL done Lo promoLe
general welfare.
- uocLrlne of repondeaL superlor -> munlclpallLy ls llable for damages for Lhe deaLh of lonLanllla lf due Lo
negllgence of lLs own offlcers, employees or agenLs.
- 1he sLage was noL sLrong enough Lo supporL Lhe onlookers who mounLed lL. 1he munlclpallLy should have Laken
sLeps Lo malnLaln Lhe safeLy of Lhe sLage. lL should have prevenLed parLlclpanLs from mounLlng Lhe sLage.
A81 lll

213

- arLlclpanLs had Lhe rlghL Lo expecL LhaL Lhe munlclpallLy, Lhrough Lhe commlLLee, would bulld a sLage or plaLform
sLrong enough Lo susLaln Lhe welghL or burden of performance and Lake necessary measures Lo lnsure Lhe safeLy
of Lhe parLlclpanLs.
- 5ooJets v clty of looq 8eocb - know your ClLy Week" was a proprleLary acLlvlLy. 1he clLy was expecLed Lo
exerclse ordlnary care, and noL Lo expose people Lo danger.
- 1he munlclpallLy ls llable for acLs of lLs servanLs. lL was acLlng Lhrough Lhe munlclpal councll whlch appolnLed
Macaraeg as chalrperson of subcommlLLee ln charge of Lhe consLrucLlon of Lhe sLage.
- lL appolnLed Macaraeg. lL can conLrol Lhe dlscharge of duLles and hold Macaraeg responslble for Lhe manner ln
whlch duLles are dlscharged.
- Munlclpal councllors are noL llable. 1he munlclpallLy has a personallLy separaLe from Lhose of offlcers, dlrecLors
and Lhe persons composlng lL. 1he councllors had no dlrecL parLlclpaLlon ln Lhe lncldenL.

Afflrmed.

C. L|ab|||ty by Lxpress rov|s|on of Law and contracts

C|ty of Man||a vs. 1eot|co (1968) - sopto

Abe||a v. Mun|c|pa||ty of Naga (19S2)

lacLs:
1he appellanL Lhrough a resoluLlon closed a road whlch ran Lhrough Lhe publlc markeL and Abella's properLy.

orLlon of Lhe road was closed for Lhe expanslon of Lhe publlc markeL. As a resulL of Lhe closure and subsequenL
expanslon permanenL sLrucLures were bullL.

1hese lmprovemenLs chomped off Lhe sldewalk and abuLLed Lo Lhe peLlLloner's properLy, Lhey exLended Lo Lhe
mlddle of a sLreeL deprlvlng Abella of Lhe use Lhereof.

Abella soughL damages from Lhe Cll of Camarlnes Sur, whlch ruled ln her favor by orderlng Lhe munlclpallLy Lo pay
300 pesos for damages.

Aggrleved, Lhe munlclpallLy appealed Lo Lhe SC.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe munlclpallLy ls llable for damages conslderlng LhaL lL merely exerclsed lLs pollce power Lo
preserve peace and good order of Lhe communlLy and promoLe general welfare.

8ullng:
5.

1be moolclpollty wos oot cbotqeJ wltb ooy oolowfol oct, ot wltb lovoJloq Abellos ptopetty tlqbts, lt wos oot foooJ
qollty of ooy socb octs.

wbot ls lo lssoe lo tbls cose ls tbe lloblllty fot Jomoqes.

5ec. 2246 of tbe kevlseJ AJmlolsttotlve coJe ptovlJes.
No moolclpol tooJ, stteet, etc. ot ooy pott tbeteof sboll be closeJ wltboot loJemolfyloq ooy petsoo
ptejoJlceJ tbeteby.

A81 lll

216

1be cll Jeclsloo wos metely boseJ oo tbls ptovlsloo.

ulsposlLlon:
Appeal found Lo be wlLhouL merlL.
Cll declslon ls afflrmed.

D. Sat|sfy|ng]Lxecut|ng Iudgment Aga|nst Mun|c|pa| Corporat|ons

1an 1oco v. Mun|c|pa| Counc|| of I|o||o (1927) - sopto

Mun|c|pa||ty of Makat| vs. CA (1990)

lacLs:
eLlLloner MunlclpallLy of MakaLl exproprlaLed a porLlon of land owned by prlvaLe respondenLs, Admlral
llnance CredlLors ConsorLlum, lnc. ln 1986, ln lleu of an exproprlaLlon proceedlng flled ln courL, peLlLloner
MunlclpallLy of MakaLl opened a bank accounL wlLh Lhe n8 8uendla 8ranch under peLlLloner's name conLalnlng
Lhe sum of 417,310.00, pursuanL Lo Lhe provlslons of res. uecree no. 42. 81C MakaLl deLermlned Lhe cosL of Lhe
sald land Lo be 3,291,666.00 mlnus Lhe advanced paymenL of 338,160.00. lL lssued Lhe correspondlng wrlL of
execuLlon accompanled wlLh a wrlL of garnlshmenL of funds of Lhe peLlLloner whlch was deposlLed ln n8. AfLer
Lhls declslon became flnal and execuLory, a wrlL of execuLlon was lssued and a noLlce of CarnlshmenL was served
by respondenL sherlff upon Lhe manager of Lhe n8 8uendla 8ranch. Powever, respondenL sherlff was lnformed
LhaL a "hold code" was placed on Lhe accounL of peLlLloner. rlvaLe respondenL Lhen flled a moLlon praylng for Lhe
courL Lo order Lhe bank Lo dellver Lo Lhe sherlff Lhe unpald balance, whlle peLlLloner also flled a moLlon Lo llfL Lhe
garnlshmenL.

Whlle Lhese moLlons are pendlng, however, a ManlfesLaLlon" was flled, lnformlng Lhe courL LhaL prlvaLe
respondenL was no longer Lhe owner of Lhe sub[ecL properLy and LhaL ownershlp Lo Lhls has been Lransferred Lo
hlllpplne Savlngs 8ank, lnc. A compromlse agreemenL was made beLween prlvaLe respondenL and hlllpplne
Savlngs 8ank, lnc., whlch was Lhen approved by Lhe courL.

1he courL furLher ordered n8 8uendla 8ranch Lo lmmedlaLely release Lo S8 Lhe sum of 4,933,306.43
whlch corresponds Lo Lhe balance of Lhe appralsed value of Lhe sub[ecL properLy, from Lhe garnlshed accounL of
peLlLloner buL Lhe bank falled Lo comply as lL was sLlll walLlng for proper auLhorlzaLlon from Lhe n8 head offlce
enabllng lL Lo make a dlsbursemenL for Lhe amounL so ordered.

As Lhe case was ln Lhe Supreme CourL, peLlLloner ralsed for Lhe flrsL Llme LhaL lL had Lwo accounLs wlLh
n8 8uendla 8ranch: one was made excluslvely for Lhe exproprlaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy, and Lhe oLher ls for
sLaLuLory obllgaLlons and oLher purposes of Lhe munlclpal governmenL

lssue:
WCn Lhe balance of Lhe appralsed value of Lhe sub[ecL properLy may be levled upon Lhe second accounL
of peLlLloner munlclpallLy?

Peld:
lL ls well-seLLled ls Lhe rule LhaL publlc funds are noL sub[ecL Lo levy and execuLlon, unless oLherwlse
provlded for by sLaLuLe.
More parLlcularly, Lhe properLles of a munlclpallLy, wheLher real or personal, whlch are necessary for
publlc use cannoL be aLLached and sold aL execuLlon sale Lo saLlsfy a money [udgmenL agalnsL Lhe
munlclpallLy.
A81 lll

217

Munlclpal revenues are derlved from Laxes, llcenses and markeL fees, and whlch are lnLended prlmarlly
and excluslvely for Lhe purpose of flnanclng Lhe governmenLal acLlvlLles and funcLlons of Lhe munlclpallLy,
are exempL from execuLlon.
AbsenL a showlng LhaL Lhe munlclpal councll of MakaLl has passed an ordlnance approprlaLlng from lLs
publlc funds an amounL correspondlng Lo Lhe balance due under Lhe 81C declslon daLed !une 4, 1987, less
Lhe sum of 99,743.94 deposlLed ln AccounL no. S/A 263-337134-3, no levy under execuLlon may be
valldly effecLed on Lhe publlc funds of peLlLloner deposlLed ln AccounL no. S/A 263-330830-7.

1he courL hereby orders peLlLloner MunlclpallLy of MakaLl Lo lmmedlaLely pay hlllpplne Savlngs 8ank, lnc. and
prlvaLe respondenL Lhe amounL of 4,933,306.43. eLlLloner ls hereby requlred Lo submlL Lo Lhls CourL a reporL of
lLs compllance wlLh Lhe foregolng order wlLhln a non-exLendlble perlod of Slx1? (60) uA?S from Lhe daLe of recelpL
of Lhls resoluLlon.

asay C|ty Government v. CII of Man||a (1984)
lacLs: ln 1964, v.u. lslp, Sons & AssoclaLes represenLed by lslp enLered lnLo a conLracL wlLh Lhe ClLy of asay
represenLed by Lhen Mayor ablo CuneLa. 1he conLracL enLlLled "ConLracL and AgreemenL" was for consLrucLlon of
a new asay ClLy Pall aL l8 Parrlson SL., asay clLy. ursuanL Lo Lhe conLracL, proceeded wlLh Lhe consLrucLlon of
Lhe new asay ClLy Pall bulldlng. accompllshed varlous sLages of consLrucLlon Lhe amounL of work equlvalenL Lo
1.7mllllon of Lhe LoLal conLracL prlce of 4.9mllllon.

pald only Lhe LoLal amounL of 1.1mllllon leavlng an amounL of 613,000. falled Lo remlL Lhe amounL Lo so
laLLer flled for speclflc performance wlLh damages. 1he parLles arrlved aL a drafL amlcable agreemenL whlch was
submlLLed Lo Lhe Munlclpal 8oard of asay ClLy for lLs conslderaLlon.

ln 1969, Munlclpal 8oard enacLed Crdlnance no. 1012 wc approved Lhe Compromlse AgreemenL . Cll approved
Lhe compromlse agreemenL. Cll lssued wrlL of execuLlon. An appllcaLlon for and noLlce of garnlshmenL were
effecLed upon Lhe 's funds wlLh Lhe hlllpplne naLl 8ank (n8).

flled moLlon Lo quash Lhe wrlL of execuLlon: a) Sherlff has no power Lo levy or garnlsh on execuLlon Lhe general
funds, speclally Lhe LrusL funds of asay ClLy.

Cll: denled and ordered enforcemenL of garnlshmenL.
So Lhls sulL.

lssue: WCn asay clLy funds deposlLed wlLh n8 are exempL from execuLlon or garnlshmenL? nC slnce ordlnance
already approprlaLed Lhe amounL.

Peld:
a. A compromlse agreemenL noL conLrary Lo law, publlc order, publlc pollcy, morals or good cusLoms ls a
valld conLracL wc ls Lhe law beLween Lhe parLles Lhemselves.
A [udgmenL on a compromlse ls flnal and execuLory. PL8L, execuLlon has already been lssued. lL ls obvlous LhaL
dld noL only succeed ln enforclng Lhe compromlse buL wanLs Lo resclnd Lhe compromlse. arLles Lo compromlse
may elLher 1) enforce Lhe compromlse 2 Lo resclnd and lnslsL upon hls orlglnal demand. PL8L we canL allow Lo
avall of boLh. lL canL ask for resclsslon of compromlse agreemenL afLer lL has already en[oyed Lhe flrsL opLlon of
enforclng Lhe compromlse by asklng for wrlL of execuLlon resulLlng ln garnlshmenL of funds of deposlLed w/ n8
wc evenLually was dellvered Lo .

b. asay clLy's funds deposlLed wlLh n8 noL exempL from execuLlon.
C8: All governmenL funds deposlLed w/ n8 by any agency or lnsLrumenLallLy of Lhe govL, WCn by way of general
or speclal deposlL, remaln governmenL funds and may noL be sub[ecL Lo garnlshmenL or levy. 8u1 lnasmuch as an
ordlnance has already been enacLed expressly approprlaLlng amounL of 613k of paymenL Lo Lhe , funds may be
garnlshed.
A81 lll

218

8epubllc v. alaclo: !udgmenLs agalnsL a SLaLe ln cases where lL has consenL Lo be used, generally operaLe Lo
merely llquldaLe and esLabllsh 's clalm ln absence of express provlson, oLherwlse, Lhey cannoL be enforced by
processes of Lhe law, and lL ls for leglslaLure Lo provlde for Lhe paymenL ln such manner as lL sees flL.

Cll correcL ln refuslng 's moLlon Lo quash Lhe wrlL of execuLlon.

c. Submlsslon of performance bond by noL a condlLlon precedenL Lo paymenL of 613k by .
arLles envlsloned a sLage by sLage consLrucLlon on parL of and paymenL on Lhe parL of as shown by Lhe
conLracL and agreemenL. 1he parLles Lo Lhe compromlse Lhus conLemplaLed a dlvlslble obllgaLlon necesslLaLlng a
performance bond "ln proporLlon" Lo Lhe uncompleLed work.

1herefore, submlsslon of Lhe bond was noL a condlLlon precedenL Lo Lhe paymenL of Lhe 613k Lo . nowhere ln
Lhe ConLracL nor ln Lhe Compromlse AgreemenL could be found Lhe facL LhaL paymenL by s of such amounL was
dependenL upon Lhe submlsslon by of Lhe performance bond. lL cannoL be argued LhaL reclprocal obllgaLlon was
creaLed ln Lhe Compromlse, for Lhe obllgaLlon Lo pay on Lhe parL of was esLabllshed several years ago when
flnlshed some of Lhe sLages of consLrucLlon. And Lhls argumenL ls already mooL and academlc, for Lhe amounL
613k has already been collecLed Lhrough execuLlon and garnlshmenL upon Lhe funds of asay ClLy w/ Lhe n8.

Mun|c|pa||ty of aoay, I|ocos Norte v. Manao|s (19SS)

lacLs:
1he munlclpallLy of aoay has for many years been leaslng flshery loLs on munlclpal waLers. 1hese waLers have
been parceled ouL ln loLs and renLed afLer publlc blddlng Lo Lhe hlghesL bldders. 1he munlclpallLy leased 6 flshery
loLs Lo lranclsco v. uuque for a perlod of four years. Powever, uuque was noL able Lo comply wlLh Lhe Lerms of Lhe
lease conLracL, Lherefore, Lhe munlclpallLy approved a resoluLlon conflscaLlng sald flshery loLs from uuque and
adverLlsed Lhe lease of lLs flshery loLs for publlc blddlng. 1eodoro Manaols belng Lhe hlghesL bldder for sald loLs,
was awarded Lhe lease. Powever, Manaols was noL able Lo exerclse hls rlghL Lo possesslon because uuque
conLlnued Lo clalm possesslon over Lhe properLles and desplLe Lhe appeal of Manaols Lo Lhe MunlclpallLy of aoay
Lo puL hlm ln possesslon and Lhe efforLs of Lhe munlclpallLy Lo ousL uuque, uuque succeeded ln conLlnulng ln hls
possesslon and keeplng Manaols and hls men ouL.

Manaols broughL an acLlon agalnsL Lhe MunlclpallLy of aoay Lo recover Lhe sum pald by hlm for Lhe lease of Lhe
flshery loLs plus damages. Pe obLalned [udgmenL ln hls favor ln Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of angaslnan, whlch
declslon has long become flnal. 1he wrlL of execuLlon and Lhe aLLachmenL and were lssued and effecLed Lo enforce
Lhe [udgmenL. 1he munlclpallLy flled a peLlLlon for cettlototl wlLh Lhe wrlL of prellmlnary ln[uncLlon, asklng LhaL Lhe
order of Lhe Cll be reversed and LhaL Lhe aLLachmenL of Lhe properLles of Lhe munlclpallLy be dlssolved.

lssue:
WCn flshery or munlclpal waLers of Lhe Lown of aoay or lLs usufrucL may be levled upon and sub[ecL Lo
execuLlon?

Peld:
no. roperLles for publlc use held by munlclpal corporaLlons are noL sub[ecL Lo levy and execuLlon. Lven publlc
revenues of munlclpal corporaLlons desLlned for Lhe expenses of Lhe munlclpallLy are also exempL from Lhe
execuLlon. 1he reason behlnd Lhls ls LhaL Lhey are held ln LrusL for Lhe people, lnLended and used for Lhe
accompllshmenL of Lhe purposes for whlch munlclpal corporaLlons are creaLed, and LhaL Lo sub[ecL sald properLles
and publlc funds Lo execuLlon would maLerlally lmpede, even defeaL and ln some lnsLances desLroy sald purpose.
roperLy however, whlch ls paLrlmonlal and whlch ls held by munlclpallLy ln lLs proprleLary capaclLy ls LreaLed as
Lhe prlvaLe asseL of Lhe Lown and may be levled upon and sold under an ordlnary execuLlon. 1he same rule applles
Lo munlclpal funds derlved from paLrlmonlal properLles, for lnsLance, lL has been held LhaL shares of sLocks held by
munlclpal corporaLlons are sub[ecL Lo execuLlon.
A81 lll

219

1he flshery or munlclpal waLers of Lhe Lown of aoay, llocos norLe, whlch had been parceled ouL or dlvlded lnLo
loLs and laLer leL ouL Lo prlvaLe persons for flshlng purposes aL an annual renLal are noL sub[ecL Lo execuLlon. ln Lhe
flrsL place, Lhey do noL belong Lo Lhe munlclpallLy. 1hey may well be regarded as properLy of Lhe SLaLe. WhaL Lhe
munlclpallLy of aoay hold ls merely whaL may be consldered Lhe usufrucL or Lhe rlghL Lo use sald munlclpal
waLers.

ls Lhls parLlcular usufrucL of Lhe munlclpallLy of aoay over lLs munlclpal waLers, sub[ecL Lo execuLlon Lo enforce a
[udgmenL agalnsL Lhe Lown? no. llrsL, lL ls noL a usufrucL based on or derlved from an lnherenL rlghL of Lhe Lown. lL
ls based merely on a granL made by Lhe LeglslaLure. 1hese marlne waLers are ordlnarlly for publlc use, open Lo
navlgaLlon and flshlng by Lhe people. 1he munlclpallLy of aoay ls noL holdlng Lhls usufrucL or rlghL of flshery ln a
permanenL or absoluLe manner so as Lo enable lL Lo dlspose of lL or Lo allow lL Lo be Laken away from lL as lLs
properLy Lhrough execuLlon.

Second, lf Lhls were Lo be allowed and Lhls rlghL sold on execuLlon, Lhe buyer would lmmedlaLely sLep lnLo Lhe
shoes of Lhe [udgmenL-debLor munlclpallLy. Such buyer presumably buys only Lhe rlghL of Lhe munlclpallLy. Pe does
noL buy Lhe flshery lLself nor Lhe munlclpal waLers because LhaL belongs Lo Lhe SLaLe. All LhaL Lhe buyer mlghL do
would be Lo leL ouL or renL Lo prlvaLe lndlvlduals Lhe flshery rlghLs over Lhe loLs lnLo whlch Lhe munlclpal waLers
had been parceled ouL or dlvlded, and LhaL ls, afLer publlc blddlng. 1he lmproprleLy, lf noL lllegallLy, of such a
conLlngency ls readlly apparenL. 1he slLuaLlon lmaglned lmplles Lhe deprlvaLlon of Lhe munlclpal corporaLlon of a
source of a subsLanLlal lncome, expressly provlde by law. 8ecause of all Lhls, we hold LhaL Lhe rlghL or usufrucL of
Lhe Lown of aoay over lLs munlclpal waLers ls noL sub[ecL Lo execuLlon.

8uL we hold LhaL Lhe revenue or lncome comlng from Lhe renLlng of Lhese flshery loLs ls cerLalnly sub[ecL Lo
execuLlon. unllke Lhe revenue derlved from Laxes, munlclpal llcenses and markeL fees, whlch are provlded for and
lmposed by Lhe law, Lhey (lncome from lease of flshery loLs) are lnLended prlmarlly and excluslvely for Lhe purpose
of flnanclng governmenLal acLlvlLles and funcLlons of munlclpal corporaLlons.We call Lhls acLlvlLy of munlclpallLles
ln renLlng munlclpal waLers for flshlng purposes as a bosloess for Lhe reasons LhaL Lhe law lLself allowed sald
munlclpallLles Lo engage ln lL for ptoflt. And lL ls buL [usL LhaL a Lown so engaged should pay and llquldaLe
obllgaLlons conLracLed ln connecLlon wlLh sald flshlng buslness, wlLh Lhe lncome derlved Lherefrom.

ln concluslon, we hold LhaL Lhe flshery loLs are noL sub[ecL Lo execuLlon. 1he levy and aLLachmenL made by Lhe
rovlnclal Sherlff of llocos norLe of Lheses flshery loLs ls vold and Lhe order of Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of
angaslnan lnsofar as lL falled Lo dlssolve Lhe aLLachmenL made on Lhese loLs ls reversed.

Powever, Lhe amounL of 1,712.01 ln Lhe munlclpal Lreasury of aoay represenLlng Lhe renLal pald by uemeLrlo
1abl[e on flshery loLs ls a proper sub[ecL of levy, and Lhe aLLachmenL made Lhereon by Lhe Sherlff ls valld. Also,
oLher amounLs comlng or due from lessees of Lhe forLy odd flshery loLs leased by Lhe munlclpallLy Lo dlfferenL
persons may also be aLLached or garnlshed Lo saLlsfy Lhe [udgemenL agalnsL Lhe munlclpallLy of aoay.

LNAL kCVISICNS AND kLLALING CLAUSL
A. ena| rov|s|ons

8. kepea||ng C|ause

IMLLMLN1ING kULLS AND kLGULA1ICNS (Ikk) CI kA 7160

Locgov

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Locgov

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LLLC1IVL CIIICIALS, VACANCILS, SUCCLSSICN, DISCILINAk AC1ICNS

You might also like