-1-

CHAPTER 1
DEFINITION, DISTINCTIONS, & CLASSIFICATIONS
SEGOVIA VS. NOEL
A subsequent law changes the tenure of offices of justices &
auxiliary justices of the peace. The law should be given
prospective effect only.
Though there is no vested right in an office, which may not be
disturbed by legislation, yet the incumbent has, in a sense, a
right to his office. If the right is to be taken away by statute,
the terms should be clear in w/c the purpose is stated.
CHAPTER 2
ELIGIBILITY & QUALIFICATIONS
IGNACIO VS. BANATE
An unqualified person was appointed in an acting capacity.
The appointment was invalid because an unqualified person
cannot be appointed as member even in an acting capacity.
The incumbent continues in office in hold-over capacity until
the appointment and qualification of his successor.
VARGAS VS. RILLORAZA
Act adds grounds of disqualification of a SC Justice & provides
that the President may designate judges having no such
disqualifications to serve temporarily as SC Justices. The
provision is unconstitutional.
The temporary composition of the Supreme Court is not
authorized by the Constitution since the Supreme Court is one
of the permanent institutions of the government.
Even if the substitute justice would be temporary, he would be
participating in the deliberations & acts of the Supreme Court;
his vote will be counted as any regular Justice. The method of
appointment of a Supreme Court Justice provided by the
Constitution is mandatory and binding upon all the
departments of government. Hence, those not falling under
the definition and those not duly appointed may not act as a
Supreme Court Justice, even if only temporary.
CASTANEDA VS. YAP
Elected mayor was less than the minimum age requirement of
23 when proclaimed elected.
Notwithstanding petitioners knowledge of the respondents
ineligibility & failure to question such, petitioner is not
estopped from questioning such ineligibility. A candidates
ineligibility is always subject to question.
The right to an elective municipal office can be contested,
under existing legislation, only after proclamation. There is no
authorized proceeding by w/c an ineligible candidate could be
stopped from running for office. Good faith does not cure a
candidates ineligibility although it might be a good defense in
a criminal prosecution.
YEE VS. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS
A public school teacher who, by a voluntary change of
citizenship or a change thereof by operation of law, ceases to
be Filipino citizen, becomes disqualified from holding any
position in the teaching service.
Teaching in a public school is a public function w/c may be
performed by citizens only.
CHAPTER 3
ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OR TITLE TO OFFICE
CONCEPCION VS. PAREDES

SIENNA A. FLORES
DOCTRINES

Law provides for drawing of lots by district of judges as a

means of determining the districts to w/c they may be
assigned. The act is unconstitutional.
The appointment to an office is intrinsically an executive act
involving the exercise of discretion.
The Philippine Legislature has no power to enact laws w/c
expressly or impliedly diminish the authority conferred by
the Act of Congress on the Chief Executive and a branch of
the Legislature.
REYES VS. ABELEDA
Sec. of Education appointed respondent instead of petitioner
who was recommended by the Dir. Of Public Schools.
A person next-in-rank, competent & qualified to hold the
position & possessing an appropriate civil service eligibility,
is entitled to a vacancy occurring in any competitive or
classified position in the government. There is the proviso,
however, that should there be 2 or more persons under
equal circumstances, seniority must be given preference.
The appointing power enjoys sufficient discretion to select &
appoint employees on the basis of their fitness to perform
the duties & assume the responsibilities of the positions to
be filled. The power to appoint is essentially discretionary.
There is no rigid formula imposed for exercise of power. The
criterion should be what public welfare demands, what
satisfies public interest.
There should be full recognition of the wide scope of such
discretionary authority.
VENECIA VS. PERALTA
Petitioner claims title to public office from his oath &
confirmation as against a subsequent ad interim appointee
to the same office.
The designation of the petitioner as Acting Chairman of the
NAWASA Board of Directors, being revocable & temporary in
character, could not ripen into a permanent appointment,
even if it was subsequently confirmed by the CA, because
confirmation presupposes a valid nomination or recess
appointment, of w/c there is no trace in the case at bar.
It was incumbent upon petitioner to clearly prove what kind
of appointment was made.
ROSALES VS. YENKO
Ad interim appointment was not released to and accepted by
appointee before confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments.
The appointment of petitioner is not valid. He does not
allege that the original of the last ad interim appointment
was transmitted to, and was received by him, obviously
because the original was never released by the Office of the
President. His ad interim appointment being incomplete,
there was in fact & in law no ad interim appointment that
could be validly transmitted to & acted upon by the
Commission on Appointments.
RAFAEL VS. EACIB
The statute provides that the chairman & members of the
board need only be designated by the respective department
heads to sit ex officio w/o the necessity of new
appointments.
For the chairman & members to qualify, they need only be
designated by the representative department heads. With
the exception of the representatives from the private sector,
they sit ex-officio. In order to be designated, they must
already be holding positions in the offices mentioned in the
law. No new appointments are necessary.

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

-2-

It cannot be doubted that Congress may increase the powers

& duties of an existing office w/o thereby rendering it
necessary that the incumbent should again be nominated &
appointed. For purposes of their tenure on the Board, they
can be considered as merely on detail, subject to recall by
their respective chiefs.
BARTE VS. DICHOSO
The appointment of petitioner as Acting Vice Mayor was bypassed by the National Assembly.
The petitioner does not have the right to continue in office &
receive salary because his ad interim appointment ceased or
expired upon the adjournment of the session of the National
Assembly.
CHAPTER 4
POWERS, DUTIES, & NORMS OF CONDUCT OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS
LO CHAM VS. OCAMPO
A lawyer in the DOJ was temporarily detailed to assist the City
Fiscal of Manila w/ the same powers & functions of an Asst.
Fiscal.
The duties of a public office includes all those w/c truly are
w/in its scope those w/c are essential to the
accomplishment of the main purpose for w/c the office was
created, or w/c, although incidental or collateral, are germane
to and serve to promote the accomplishment of the principal
purpose.
Powers & functions of the Assistant Fiscal may be entrusted.
Signing of complaints, making investigations, & conducting
prosecutions are not sacrosanct that only Presidential
appointees or one expressly empowered by law may be
permitted to assume such functions. A lawyer invested w/ the
same authority as an Attorney General or Solicitor General is
presumed to be competent to be entrusted w/ any of the
duties devolving on a prosecuting attorney, due to the higher
standard of training & experience required.
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHIL VS. SANTIAGO
The Public Service Commission imposed a fine on a radio
company for failure to render service expected of a radio
operator. Such power is neither expressly no impliedly
granted.
Except for constitutional officials who can trace their
competence to act to the fundamental law itself, a public
official must locate in the statute relied upon a grant of power
before he can exercise it. It need not be express. It may be
implied from the wording of the law. Absent such requisite, no
warrant exists for the assumption of authority.
LAMB VS. PHIPPS
Auditor failed and/or refused to issue clearance to a public
officer who has resigned.
The right to allow or disallow a claim against the Government
of any of its branches, is, by law w/in the discretion of the
Auditor. Hence, mandamus will not lie.
APRUEBA VS. GANZON
City refused to allow the opening of a cafeteria in the city
market.
Mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of
discretion by the public officer where the law imposes on him
the right of duty to exercise judgment in reference to any
matter in w/c he is required to act.
The privilege to obtain a renewal of the permit rested on the
sound discretion of the Mayor & refusal on his part to grant

SIENNA A. FLORES
DOCTRINES

continuance of the privilege cannot be the subject of

mandamus.
MIGUEL VS. ZULUETA
The name of the Provincial Building was substituted w/ the
name President Garcia Hall.
The respondents are duty bound not only to observe, but
even to enforce the law. They may, thus, properly be
compelled by mandamus to remove or rectify an unlawful
act if to do so is w/in their official competence.
Where the question is one of public right and the object of
the mandamus is to procure the observance of the law, the
relator need not show that he has any legal or special
interest in the result of the proceeding. It is sufficient that
he is interested as a citizen in having the laws executed and
the duty in question enforced, even though he may not have
exclusive right or interest to be protected.
TORRES VS. RIBO
The assistant district engineer & chief clerk represented the
district engineer & the division superintendent of schools,
respectively, in the provincial Board of Canvassers.
An officer to whom discretion is entrusted cannot delegate it
to another. The powers of the board are purely ministerial. It
exercises quasi-judicial functions, such as the function &
duty to determine whether the papers transmitted to them
are genuine election returns signed by the proper officers.
The members of provincial board of canvassers are
designated by law. The express enumeration excludes other
officers. Not even the Comelec may lawfully appoint any
person or officer outside of those mentioned. Appointment of
a substitute member is not allowed.
MORFE VS. MUTUC
The constitutionality of the legal requirement on government
officials/employees to submit sworn declaration of financial
conditions, assets & liabilities is questioned.
The constitutionality of the legal requirement on government
officials & employees to submit sworn declaration of financial
conditions, assets & liabilities is questioned. The law is valid.
The aim of the statute is to curtain or minimize the
opportunities of corruption & to maintain the standard of
honesty in the public service, and to promote morality in
public administration. Thus, its aim is the public good. Thus,
there is no invasion of liberty protected by the due process
clause. This exercise of police power must be valid.
A public office is a public trust, and not property, but one
can invoke due process from the standpoint of security of
tenure. Before one may be removed, procedural due process
must be complied with, and that cause of removal be a
cause specified by law. Security of tenure, in that limited
sense, is analogous to property.
CHAPTER 5
RIGHTS & PRIVILEGES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
RODRIGUEZ VS. TAN
Duly elected Senator seeks reimbursement of salaries paid
to de facto officer.
A de facto officer ousted as a result of an election protest is
entitled to compensation for services rendered. The
emoluments must go to the person who rendered the service
unless the contrary is provided. (This case involved a duly
proclaimed elective official who was later ousted.)
The de facto doctrine was formulated, not for the protection
of the de facto officer principally, but rather for the
protection of the public & individuals who get involved in the

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

-3-

official acts of persons discharging the duties of an office w/o

being lawful officers.

or employee appointed cannot receive additional or double

compensation unless specifically authorized by law.

MONROY VS. CA
Vice Mayor who became Mayor seeks reimbursement of
salaries paid to former Mayor who has ceased as rightful
occupant.
Where a mayor withdrew his certificate of candidacy for
Congressman and then reassumed the position of mayor, thus
preventing the vice-mayor from discharging the duties of the
position of mayor, the mayor should reimburse to the vicemayor, as the rightful occupant of the position of the mayor
the salaries w/c he had received.
GR: The rightful incumbent of a public office may recover
from a de facto officer the salary received by the latter during
the time of his wrongful tenure, even though he entered into
the office in good faith & under color of title.
Possession of the title of office, not of the office itself, is
decisive. A de facto officer, not having good title, takes the
salaries at his risk and must, therefore, account to the de jure
officer for whatever amount of salary he received during the
period of his wrongful retention of public office.

SANTIAGO VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

The recomputation of petitioners retirement benefits was
denied on the ground that the additional compensation he
received was merely an honorarium & that he was not
appointed but merely designated.
The additional compensation received by petitioner was a
salary, not merely honorarium. An honorarium is something
give, not as a matter of obligation but in appreciation of
services rendered, a voluntary donation in consideration of
services w/c admit of no compensation in money. The
additional compensation given to the petitioner was in the
nature of a salary because it was received by him as a
matter of right in recompense for services rendered by him
as Acting Assistant General Manger for Finance &
Administration.
Appointment is the selection by the proper authority of a
given office. It is essentially executive.
Designation connotes merely the imposition of additional
duties, usually by law, upon a person already in the public
service by virtue of an earlier appointment/election. A
person may also be designated in an acting capacity, as
when he is called upon to fill a vacancy pending the selection
of a permanent appointee thereto or, more usually, the
return of the regular incumbent. It is legislative in nature.
Nevertheless, in the law in question, the term appointment
was used in a general sense to include the term
designation.

PEOPLE VS. JALOSJOS

Accused asks that he be allowed to fully discharge his duties
as Congressman despite having been convicted of a nonbailable offense.
All top officials of the Government are subject to law. In fact,
the higher the rank, the greater is the requirement of
obedience rather than exemption.
The immunity from arrest or detention of Congressmen arises
from a provision of the Constitution. The history of the
provision shows that the privilege has always been granted in
a restrictive sense. The provision granting an exemption as a
special privilege cannot be extended beyond the ordinary
meaning of its terms.
The confinement of a Congressman charged w/ a crime
punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 months is not
merely authorized by law, it has constitutional foundations.
One rationale behind confinement, whether pending appeal or
after final conviction, is public self defense. Society must
protect itself. It also serves as a warning to others. A person
charged w/ a crime is taken into custody for purposes of the
administration of justice.
The performance of legitimate & even essential duties by
public officers has never been an excuse to free a person
validly in prison. Election to the position of Congressman is
not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement.
The functions & duties of the office are not substantial
distinctions w/c lift from the class of prisoners interrupted in
their freedom & restricted in liberty of movement.
MERAM VS. EDRALIN
The appointee is 9 or 10 salary ranges below the next-in-rank
personnel.
Appointments under the civil service law should be based on
merit & fitness & should never depend on how initiate a friend
or how closely related an appointee is to the powers that be.
And granting that the respondent possesses that qualifications
required for the contested position, it cannot be denied that
the petitioner equally possessed the same qualifications, if not
in greater degree, and more important, she is next-in-rank to
the vacated position. Therefore, she deserves to be appointed
to the disputed item.
QUIZON VS. OZAETA
Double appointments are not prohibited as long as the
positions involved are not incompatible, except that the officer

SIENNA A. FLORES
DOCTRINES

ALLARDE VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

Petitioners request for inclusion of the monthly allowance he
had been receiving form the municipality where he was
assigned as MeTC Judge in the computation of retirement
benefits was denied.
The allowances received by petitioner in the nature of
reimbursement of expenses are excluded in computing his
retirement benefits.
If said allowance were to be included in the computation of
retirement benefits of judges, the result would be inequality
& disparity in their retirement benefits. For there are rich
municipalities that can give generous allowances to the
judges & there are poorer municipalities that can give less
substantial amounts or none at all.
GSIS VS. CSC
No deductions were made from the salaries of a Vice
Governor availing of retirement benefits during the period
that she served as such.
Retirement benefits given to government employees in effect
reward them for the best years of their lives to the service of
their country. In exchange for their selfless dedication to
government service, they enjoy security of tenure & are
ensured of a reasonable amount of support after they leave
the government. The basis for the provision of retirement
benefits is, therefore, service to government.
A government employee may avail of retirement benefits
notwithstanding his failure to make contributions to the
GSIS for the duration he was receiving per diem as
compensation.
CONTE VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
COA disallowed in audit petitioners claim for benefits under
SSS Res. 56 granting financial assistance to retiring
employees in addition to retirement benefits.
Retirement benefits are a form of reward for an employees
loyalty and service to the employer, and are intended to help

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

-4-

the employee enjoy the remaining years of his life, lessening

the burden of worrying about his financial support or upkeep.
A pension partakes of the nature of retained wages of the
retiree for a dual purpose: to entice competent people to
enter the government service, and to permit them to retire
from service w/ relative security, not only for those who have
retained their vigor, but more so for those who have been
incapacitated by illness or accident.
SSS Resolution 56 constitutes a supplementary retirement
plan. However, SSS has no authority to implement such
retirement plan as RA 4968 bars the creation of any insurance
or retirement plan other than GSIS for government
officers & employees, in order to prevent the undue &
iniquitous proliferation of such plans.
BRION VS. SOUTH PHIL. UNION MISSION OF THE 7 TH DAY
ADVENTIST CHURCH
Respondent
church
discontinued
petitioners
monthly
retirement benefit for establishing a rival religious group after
his retirement.
Retirement is the withdrawal from office, public station,
business, occupation, or public duty. It is the result of a
bilateral act of parties, a voluntary agreement between the
employer and the employee whereby the latter, after reaching
a certain age, agrees and/or consents to severe his
employment w/ the former.
Pension schemes serve to secure loyalty & efficiency on the
part of employees, and to increase continuity of service &
decrease the labor turnover, by giving to the employees some
assurance of security as they approach and reach the age at
w/c earning ability & earnings are materially impaired or at an
end.
Before a right to retirement benefits or pension vests in an
employee, he must have met the stated conditions of
eligibility w/ respect to the nature of employment, age &
length of service.
The conditions of eligibility for retirement must be met at the
time of retirement at w/c juncture the right to retirement
benefits or pension, if the employee is eligible, vests in him.
Pension & retirement plans must be liberally construed in
favour of the employee, it being the general rule that pension
plans formulated by an employer are to be construed most
strongly against the employer.
Petitioner has already retired. Hence, he already had a vested
right to receive retirement benefits, a right w/c could not be
taken away from him by expulsion or excommunication, this
not being a ground for termination of retirement benefits.
UST FACULTY UNION VS. NLRC
Upon the retirement of an employee or official in the public or
private service, his employment is deemed terminated. With
the termination of employment, the right of the employer to
control the employees conduct, the so-called control test
also terminates.
CHAPTER 6
DISABILITIES & INHIBITIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
PEOPLE VS. DE VENECIA
Defendant was charged w/ electioneering by distributing
leaflets supporting a mayoralty candidate.
Although a classified (competitive) civil service employee is
prohibited from aiding any candidate, such classified
employee is allowed to express his views on current political
problems or issues, or to mention the name of his candidate
for public office, even if such expression of views or mention
of names may result in aiding one particular candidate.

SIENNA A. FLORES
DOCTRINES

Contributing money for election purposes to a candidate &

distributing leaflets openly supporting a candidate is
undoubtedly aiding such candidate. It was a solicitation of
the electors vote in favour of a candidate w/c is a violation
of Sec. 54 of the Revised Election Code.
CHAPTER 7
LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
PHIL. RACING CLUB VS. BONIFACIO
Commission on Races cancelled a race horse allowed by the
board of judges. They cannot be held liable for damages.
Considering that the respondents have acted in their official
capacity in the honest belief that they had such power as in
fact they acted on the matter only after an on the spot
investigation, they cannot be held liable for damages.
A public officer is not personally liable to one injured in
consequence of an act performed w/in the scope of his
official authority, and in line w/ his official duty.
In order that acts may be done w/in the scope of his official
authority, it is not necessary that they be prescribed by
statute, or that they be specifically directed or requested by
a superior officer, but it is sufficient if they are done by an
officer in relation to matters committed by law to his control
or supervision, or that they have connection to the
department under whose authority the officer is acting.
A quasi-judicial officer who is invested w/ discretion is
usually given immunity from liability to persons who may be
injured as a result of an erroneous or mistaken decision,
however erroneous the judgment may be, provided the acts
complained of are done w/in the scope of the officers
authority, and w/o wilfulness, malice or corruption.
DUMLAO VS. CA
City Engineer is charged w/ negligence for not repairing
street where accident took place. Petitioner is not liable.
A public official may be liable in his personal private capacity
for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done
w/ malice and bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority
or jurisdiction.
RAMA VS. CA
Respondent officials abolished several positions, easing out
200 employees, and later hired 1000 new employees. The
respondents are personally liable.
A public officer by virtue of his office alone, is not immune
from damages in his personal capacity arising from illegal
acts done in bad faith. A different rule would sanction the
use of public office as a tool of oppression.
A public officer who commits tort or other wrongful act, done
in excess or beyond the scope of his duty, is not protected
by his office & is personally liable therefore, like any private
individual.
MOON VS. HARRISON
Cavans of rice were seized for distribution to the public
under an allegedly unconstitutional law & owner was paid
less than their market value. The Governor General is not
personally liable for damages.
At the time of the alleged acts, he was exercising the
discretionary power w/c was vested in him as Governor
General. No court has ever held and no final decision will
ever be found holding an Executive personally liable in
damages for the exercise of discretionary power under a law
before it has been held unconstitutional. The law is
presumed to be constitutional.

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

-5-

The defendants are not personally liable in an action for

damages. Their acts were official & discretionary and they had
a legal right to assume that the law was valid. In the
commission of the alleged acts, they were acting for, and
representing, the Government of the Philippine Islands under
a law enacted by its Legislature and it is elementary that w/o
its consent, no suit or action lies against the Government
itself.
MERCADO VS. MEDINA
Respondent commissioner committed an error of judgment in
not proceeding w/ the hearing of an overcharging case
despite the pendency in the SC of a petition for certiorari.
Respondent is guilty neither of nonfeasance nor dereliction of
duty. This offense implies a wilful or fraudulent omission or
neglect of officially duty, and not mere failure to do a
particular thing.

QUIMSING VS. LACHICA

Peace officers arrested persons attending authorized cockpit.
Respondents are not personally liable for the damages.
Respondents were in good faith. They were unaware of the
city ordinances relied upon by the petitioner. The facts of
record sufficiently warrant the conclusion that they were
faithfully discharging their duty as law enforcing agents.
MABUTOL VS. PASCUAL
Public officials ordered demolition of an apartment building.
They are not personally liable for damages.
A public official is not liable for damages for performing a duty
require by law & absent bad faith.
The defendants are not personally liable for damages. The
plaintiffs themselves stated in their complaint that the
defendants are all public officials and that they ordered the
demolition of the apartment building in the discharge of their
functions. There remains only the question as to w/n they
acted in bad faith & the answer is in the negative.
FESTEJO VS. FERNANDO
Dir. Of Public Works allegedly took possession of sugar lands
to the damage & prejudice of owner. He is personally liable
for tort.
The present suit is a personal action against the Dir. Of Public
Works. Ordinarily, the officer or employee committing the tort
is personally liable therefore, and may be sued as any other
citizen & held answerable for whatever injury or damage
results from his tortuous act.
An officer who acts outside the scope of his jurisdiction & w/o
authorization of law may thereby render himself amenable to
personal liability in a civil suit. If he exceeds the power
conferred on him by law, he cannot shelter himself by the plea
that he is public agent acting under color of his office, and
not personally. In the eye of the law, his acts are then wholly
w/o authority.
PALMA VS. GRACIANO
Governor instituted 2 criminal cases against plaintiff, allegedly
due to personal hatred & vengeance against the latter. There
is no cause of action against the city & province.
As against the city & province, the prosecution of crimes is not
a corporate function, but governmental or political in
character. In the exercise of such function, municipal
corporations are not responsible for the acts of their officers,
except if and when, and only to the extent that they have
acted by authority of the law, and in conformity w/ the
requisites thereof.

SIENNA A. FLORES
DOCTRINES

When a public officer goes outside the scope of his duty,

particularly when acting tortuously, he is not entitled to
protection on account of his office, but is liable for his acts
like any private individual.
BELIZAR VS. BRAZAS
The fact that the duties & positions of the defendants are
indicated does not mean that they are being sued in their
official capacities.
GENSON VS. ADARLE
Highway District Engineer tolerated a subordinate to
moonlight on a non-working day in the office premises. The
suit against the Highway District Engineer was in his private
capacity, hence it was not a suit against the Government.
The accident happened on a non-working day and there was
no showing that the work performed on that day was
authorized by the government. While the equipment used
belongs to the government, the work was private in nature,
for the benefit of a purchaser of junk.
CARREON VS. PROVINCE OF PAMPANGA
Members of the Provincial Board stopped work on a bridge
w/o any valid reason after contractor contributed a specified
sum to build it. The defendants are personally liable for
damages.
They acted w/o any valid reason, illegally & maliciously.
When a public officer goes outside the scope of his duty,
particularly when acting tortuously, he is not protected by
his office but liable like any private individual. This liability is
even clearer when the act performed involves corporate or
proprietary functions rather than those strictly governmental
or political in nature.
ZULUETA VS. NICOLAS
Finding no sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case
after an investigation, the Provincial Fiscal refrained from
filing an information for libel.
Refusal of the fiscal to prosecute when after an investigation
he finds no sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case
is not a refusal, w/o just cause, to perform an official duty.
The fiscal has for sure the legal duty to prosecute crimes
where there is enough evidence to justify such action. But it
is equally his duty not to prosecute when after an
investigation he has become convinced that the evidence
available is not enough to establish a prima facie case.
The fiscal has the authority and discretion to determine
existence of a prima facie case. He is not bound to accept
the opinion of the complainant in a criminal case as to
whether or not a prima facie case exists.
AMARO VS. SUMAGUIT
Chief of Police refused to give assistance to a victim of a
crime.
It is the duty of the Chief of Police to give assistance to a
victim of a crime, and his refusal to do so constitutes an
actionable dereliction.
VITAL-GOZON VS. CA
Petitioner was sued in both her official & personal capacity
for her continued refusal to restore private respondent to his
position in spite of the final & executory decision of the CSC
declaring that his transfer/demotion was null & void, hence
illegal.
Petitioner then had the duty to see to it that the decision be
obeyed and implemented. The petitioner committed an

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

-6-

actionable wrong for unjustifiably refusing or neglecting to

perform an official duty.
RIVERA VS. MUNICIPALITY OF MALOLOS
Contract was entered into by the municipal mayor in violation
of the requirement of law. Petitioner has no valid against the
Municipality of Malolos.
Before a contract may be entered into validly by a
municipality, the law requires that there should be an
appropriation of municipal funds to meet the obligation validly
passed by the municipal council & approved by the municipal
mayor.
RIVERA VS. MACLANG
Contractor brought personal action against the municipal
mayor for entering into a contract w/o following the
requirement of law. The public officer is personally liable for
contracts contrary to requirements of law.
The present action is against defendant-appellee in his
personal capacity. His liability is personal
The intention of the law is to ensure that public officers
entering into transactions w/ private individuals calling for the
expenditure of public funds observe a high degree of caution
so that government may not be the victim of illadvised/imprudent action by those assuming to represent it.
ALMEDA VS. PEREZ
Petition for forfeiture was amended to include new items of
alleged unlawful acquisitions.
The proceeding for forfeiture is civil in nature and not
criminal. A proceeding under the RA 1379 (Anti-Graft Law)
does not terminate in the imposition of a penalty but merely
in the forfeiture of properties illegally acquired in favour of the
State. The procedure outlined in the law leading to forfeiture
is that provided for in a civil action.
As the proceeding for forfeiture is not a penal proceeding but
a civil one, it follows that amendments setting forth newly
discovered acquisitions may be inserted in the petition w/o
obtaining the consent of the respondent.
CABAL VS. KAPUNAN
Petitioner refused to be sworn as a witness & to take the
witness stand before a presidential committee investigating
charges of alleged unexplained wealth against him.
Forfeiture, being a divestiture of property w/o compensation
due to default or an offense, partakes of the nature of a
penalty or punishment since it is aimed to restrain the
commission of an offense & aid in the prevention of such.
Thus, the proceedings for forfeiture of property are deemed
criminal or penal (although generally, a civil proceeding in
rem).
A proceeding to declare forfeiture due to evasion of certain
revenue laws or for removal of an officer, is in substance
criminal since it is not to establish, recover or redress private
or civil rights, but to try to punish persons charged w/ the
commission of a public offense.
Since the person here is the owner or the rightful possessor,
the forfeiture is a punishment. Hence the proceedings are
quasi-criminal in nature, and thus one may invoke the right
against self-incrimination.
The doctrine laid down in Almeda vs. Perez refers only to the
procedural aspect of said proceeding, and has no bearing on
the substantial rights of the respondents therein, particularly
their constitutionally rights against self-incrimination.
ALBERT VS. GANGAN
COA found petitioner liable for the amount of P36M covering
the payment of the loon proceeds for the lot acquired, w/c
was disallowed in audit.

SIENNA A. FLORES
DOCTRINES

Petitioner, as head of the agency, cannot be held personally

liable for the disallowance simply because he was the final
approving authority of the transaction in question and that
he officers/employees who processed the same were directly
under his supervision.
The mere fact that a public officer is the head of an agency
does not necessarily mean that he is the party ultimately
liable in case of disallowance of expenses for questionable
transactions of his agency.
Requisites to be personally liable for unauthorized
expenditures:
1. there must be an expenditure of government funds
or use of government property
2. the expenditure is in violation of law or regulation
3. the official is found directly responsible therefore
MACADANGDANG VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
Budget officer signed falsified vouchers for repair of
government vehicles & made a request for the allotment of
funds w/o ascertaining w/n the repairs were needed.
Simply because a person in a chain of processing officers
happens to sign or initial a voucher as it is going the
grounds, it does not necessarily follow that he becomes part
of a conspiracy in an illegal scheme. The guilt beyond
reasonable doubt of each supposed conspirator must be
established. Accuseds lack of care may be a ground for
administrative action but does not give rise to culpability
absent more evidence against him.
ARIAS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
Land w/c was assessed at P5/m2 in 1973 was acquired by
the government in 1978 for P80/m2 through negotiated
purchase. Petitioners, one who headed & supervised the
acquisition of private lands and the other who approved in
audit the acquisition & payment of the lands were acquitted.
All heads of offices have the right to rely to a reasonable
extent on their subordinates and on the good faith of those
who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into
negotiations. A mere signature or approval is insufficient to
prove conspiracy. Proof is necessary to establish overpricing
for purposes of a criminal conviction.
CHAPTER 8
TERMINATION OF OFFICIAL RELATIONS
NUENO VS. ANGELES
Petitioner claims right to office for being unable to serve for
the full term due to the Japanese occupation.
The term of office is fixed by law & cannot be extended by
reason of war.
ALBA VS. ALBA
Under the law, the appointee shall hold office at the
pleasure of the President. The President may legally replace
such appointee w/ or w/o cause.
Congress can legally & constitutionally make the tenure of
certain officials dependent upon the pleasure of the
President.
It is only in those cases in w/c the office is held at the
pleasure of the appointing power & where the power of
removal is exercisable at its mere discretion, that the officer
may be removed w/o notice or hearing.
CADIENTE VS. SANTOS
Mayor dispensed w/ the services of the City of Legal Officer
on the ground that the position was primarily confidential in
nature.

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

-7-

The position of City Legal Officer is a position primarily

confidential in nature. The phrase primarily confidential
denotes not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee
for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy w/c
insures freedom of intercourse, w/o embarrassment &
freedom from misgivings of betrayal of persona trust on
confidential matters of state.
The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions
ends upon loss of confidence, because their term of office
lasts only as long as confidence in them endures; and thus
their cessation involves no removal. When such confidence is
lost & the officer holding such position is separated from the
service, such cessation entails no removal but an expiration of
his term. There being no removal or dismissal it could not,
therefore, be said that there was a violation of the
constitutional provision that no officer or employee in the civil
service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as
provided by law.
CRISTOBAL VS. MELCHOR
The services of a private secretary in the Office of the
President were terminated. However, there was no evidence
to indicate that the respective position of the dismissed
employee was primarily confidential in nature.
On the contrary the compensation attached & the designation
given thereto suggests the purely or at least mainly clerical
nature of their work. Considering that they were civil service
eligibles w/ several years of service in the Government, their
removal from office was illegal & contrary to law.
DULDULAO VS. RAMOS
With the conversion of the municipality into a province, the
CFI Judge & Register of Deeds continued to be the officials of
both provinces.
The principle of holdover is to preserve the continuity in the
transaction of official business & the operation of the
machinery of justice.
GONZALES VS. HERNANDEZ
Resignation was subject to result of appeal contesting
employees dismissal.
The petitioner has a right to reinstatement. There was no
resignation due to lack of intention to relinquish his position.
To constitute a complete & operative act of resignation, the
officer/employee must show clear intention to relinquish or
surrender his position and there must be an acceptance by a
competent & lawful authority.
His position was temporary in nature, hence there was no
abandonment. He had a right to live during the pendency of
his appeal & naturally the right to accept any form of
employment.
ORTIZ VS. COMELEC
Application for retirement benefits of a Commissioner of the
Comelec whose courtesy resignation was accepted by the
President was denied by the Commission.
A courtesy resignation cannot properly be interpreted as
resignation in the legal sense for it is not necessarily a
reflection of a public officials intention to surrender his
position. Rather, it manifests his submission to the will of the
political authority & the appointing power.
Petitioners separate from government service as a result of
the reorganization ordained by the Aquino government may
not be considered a resignation w/in the contemplation of the
law. His resignation lacks the element of clear intention to
surrender his position. We cannot presume such intention
from his statement that he was placing his position at the

SIENNA A. FLORES
DOCTRINES

disposal of the President. He did not categorically state

therein that he was unconditionally giving up his position.
The curtailment of his term not being attributable to an
voluntary act on the part of the petitioner, he should be
deemed to have completed his term albeit much ahead of
the date stated in his appointment power. As he is deemed
to have completed his term of office, petitioner should be
considered retired from the service.
ESTRADA VS. DESIERTO
Petitioner claims that he did not resign as President of the
Philippines or he should not be considered as resigned as of
Jan. 20, 2001 when respondent took her oath as the 14th
President of the Republic.
Elements of resignation
1. there must be an intent to resign
2. the intent must be coupled by acts of
relinquishment
The validity of a resignation is not governed by any formal
requirement as to form. It can be oral or written. It can be
express or implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it
must be given legal effect.
Whether or not petitioner has resigned has to be determined
form his acts & omissions before, during and after Jan. 20,
2001 or by the totality of prior, contemporaneous and
posterior facts & circumstantial evidence bearing a material
relevance on the issue. Using this totality test, we hold that
petitioner resigned as President.
No person can be compelled to render service for that would
be a violation of his constitutional right. A public official has
the right not to serve if he really wants to retire or resign.
Nevertheless, if at the time he resigns or retires, a public
official is facing administrative or criminal investigation or
prosecution, such resignation or retirement will not cause
the dismissal of the criminal or administrative proceedings
against him. He cannot use his resignation or retirement to
avoid prosecution.
PUNSALAN VS. MENDOZA
Implied acceptance by the President of resignation was
shelved in the political partys caucus.
The respondent may validly reassume the governorship after
having tendered his resignation because there was no
acceptance by the President of resignation.
There was a tender of resignation effective at the pleasures
of the President. Obviously, it was not meant to be effective
immediately; acceptance was still necessary. Abandonment
by the incumbent of his office before acceptance of his
resignation is punishable under the RPC.
CANNONIZADO VS. AGUIRRE
Petitioner, after accepting another position, sought
reinstatement to his former position from w/c he was
removed under a provision of law w/c was subsequently
declared violative of his constitutional right to security of
tenure.
He who, while occupying one office, accepts another
incompatible with the 1st, ipso facto vacates the 1st office and
his title thereby terminated w/o any other act or proceeding.
Public policy dictates against allowing the same individual to
perform
inconsistent
&
incompatible
duties.
The
incompatibility contemplated is not the mere physical
impossibility of one persons performing the duties of the 1
offices due to a lack of time or the inability to be in 2 places
at the same moment, but that w/c proceeds from the nature
& relations of the 2 positions to each other as to give rise to
contrariety & antagonism should 1 person attempt to

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

-8-

faithfully & impartially discharge the duties of 1 toward the

incumbent of the other.
The rule on incompatibility of duties will not apply to the case
at bar because at no point did petitioner discharge the
functions of the 2 offices simultaneously. The incompatibility
of duties never had a chance to come into play for petitioner
never occupied the 2 positions, nor discharged their
respective functions, concurrently.
FESTEJO VS. CRISOLOGO
Grounds for suspension of municipal officers may be classified
under 2 categories:
1. those related to the discharge of the functions of the
officers concerned (neglect of duty, oppression,
corruption, and other forms of mal-administration
2. those not so connected with said functions
Those under the 2nd category, when the crime involving moral
turpitude is not linked w/ the performance of official duties,
conviction by final judgment is required as a condition
precedent to administrative action.
PALMA VS. FORTICH
Mayor was administratively charged & preventively suspended
based solely on the filing of 3 separate criminal cases for acts
of lasciviousness.
As a rule, dismissal of an administrative case does not
necessarily follow the dismissal of a criminal case, the former
requiring only preponderance of evidence, while the latter
requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Misconduct has been defined as such as affects his
performance of his duties as an officer & not only as affects
his character as a private individual. In such cases, it is
necessary to separate the character of the man from the
character of the officer.
It is true that the charges may involve moral turpitude of w/c
a municipal official may be proceeded against, but before the
provincial governor & board may act & proceed against the
municipal official, a conviction by final judgment must precede
the filing by the provincial board.
SARIGUMBA VS. PASOK
The deputy sheriff enforced a writ outside the region of the
RTC w/c issued it & went out of his way to unduly favour a
party to a case.
He is guilty of misconduct to warrant removal from office.
NERA VS. GARCIN
Petitioner a clerk (appointive officer) was charged w/
malversation of funds belonging to the employees
cooperative association, a private entity. The preventive
suspension of petitioner was valid.
The suspension here is merely a preventive measure & not a
punishment or penalty. There is, therefore, nothing improper
in suspending an officer pending his investigation & before
charges against him are heard & he be given an opportunity
to prove his innocence.
Under the Civil Service Law, when the person charged is
merely guilty of neglect, the same must be in performance of
his duty; but when he is charged w/ dishonesty, oppression or
grave misconduct, these need not have relation to the
performance of duty.
An elective official stands on ground different from that of an
appointive officer or employee. An elective officer, being
elected by popular vote, is directly responsible only to the
community that elected him. Ordinarily, he is not amenable to
the rules of official conduct governing appointive officials, and
so, he may not be summarily suspended, unless his conduct &
acts of irregularity have some connection w/ his office. He has

SIENNA A. FLORES
DOCTRINES

a definite term of office, relatively of short duration, and

since suspension form his office definitely affects & shortens
his term of office, said suspension should not be ordered &
done unless necessary to prevent further damage or injury
to the office and to the people dealing w/ said officer.
OCHATE VS. DELING
Mayor (elective officer) was convicted of slight physical
injuries & charged w/ illegal cockfighting w/c took place in
another municipality & resisting arrest.
The acts charged cannot be considered to be related to the
performance of his official duties; he need not be a mayor to
commit the offenses charged. The charges do not constitute
misconduct or maladministration of office.
Misconduct in office is misconduct such as affects the
performance of his duties as an officer and not such as only
affects his character as a private individual.
The misconduct, misfeasance or malfeasance warranting
removal from office of an officer must have direct relation to
and be connected w/ the performance of his official duties
amounting to either mal-administration or wilful, intentional
neglect & failure to discharge the duties of the office.
JOSON VS. TORRES
Acting on behalf of the President, Executive Secretary
imposed preventive suspension on Provincial Governor w/o
formal investigation on the basis of position papers.
Preventive suspension may be imposed by the Disciplining
Authority at any time:
1. after the issues are joined
2. when evidence of guilt is strong
3. given the gravity of the offense there is great
probability that the respondent, who continues to
hold office, could influence the witness or pose a
threat to the safety & integrity of the records &
other evidence
The appointive official/employee may be removed or
dismissed summarily if:
1. the charge is serious & the evidence of guilt is
strong
2. when the respondent is a recidivist
3. when the respondent is notoriously undesirable
The rules on removal & suspension of elective local officials
are more stringent. The procedure of requiring position
papers in lieu of a hearing in administrative cases is
expressly allowed w/ respect to appointive officials but not
to those elected.
When an elective official is suspended/removed, the people
are deprived of the services of the man they had elected.
Implicit in the right of suffrage is that the people are entitled
to the services of the elective official of their choice.
Suspension & removal are thus imposed only after the
elective official is accorded his rights & the evidence against
him strongly dictates their imposition.
MANALANG VS. QUITORIANO
Director of a Bureau w/c was abolished claims that he was
illegally removed by virtue of failure to appoint him head of
the new office w/c replaced the abolished Bureau. This is not
a case of removal w/o just cause.
To remove an officer is to oust him from office before the
expiration of his term. A removal implies that the office
exists after the ouster. Such is not the case of petitioner for
RA 761 expressly abolished the Placement Bureau, and by
implication, the office of the director thereof, w/c obviously
cannot exist w/o said Bureau.
By the abolition of the said office, the right thereto of its
incumbent was necessarily extinguished thereby. The

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

-9-

constitutional mandate to the effect that no officer or

employee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended
except for cause as provided by law is in no point for there
has been neither a removal nor suspension of petitioner, but
an abolition of his former office w/c is admittedly w/in the
power of Congress to undertake by legislation.
A transfer connotes that the new office is different & distinct
from the old office, for a thing may be transferred only from
one place to another, not to the same place. Had Congress
intended the new office to be a mere amplification or
enlargement of the old office, it would have directed the
retention of the qualified personnel of the latter, not their
transfer to the former.
Personnel is used generally to refer to the subordinate
officials or clerical employees of an office or enterprise, not to
the managers, directors or heads thereof.
BRIONES VS. OSMENA
Abolition of municipal positions was made as a mere
subterfuge for removal.
The evidence on record show that the reasons given for the
abolition of the positions of the petitioners are untrue, &
constitute a mere subterfuge for their removal w/o cause in
violation of the security of the Civil Service tenure as provided
by the Constitution.
Civil service eligibles who have rendered long & honourable
service should not be sacrificed in favour of non-eligibles
given positions of recent creation, nor should they be left at
the mercy of political changes. While abolition of the office
does not imply removal of the incumbent, the rule is true only
where the abolition is made in good faith; that the right to
abolish cannot be used to discharge employees in violation of
the civil service law nor can it be exercised for personal or
political reasons.

wherein he is acquitted, but in the proper administrative or

civil action prescribed by law.
CLAUDIO VS. COMELEC
Recall refers to the election itself by means of w/c voters
decide whether they should retain their local official or elect
his replacement.
2 limitations on the holding of recalls:
1. that no recall shall take place w/in 1 year from the
date of assumption of office of the official
concerned
2. that no recall shall take place w/in 1 year
immediately preceding a regular local election

For my batchmates who stood beside me

when my world came tumbling down:
Sam - Kara - Rois
Batch Sophia, The Women of Aleitheia

PEOPLE VS. CONSIGNA

Court ordered reinstatement, after acquittal of criminal charge
of employee, but Civil Service Commissioners decision found
him guilty, ordering his removal.
The decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service is not
binding upon the courts.
Conviction necessarily results in dismissal from the public
office occupied at the time he committed the offense.
If conviction necessarily results in a denial of such right to
reinstatement in view of the penalty of disqualification
provided by law, then reinstatement should also follow
acquittal.
Although this administrative investigation was started after
filing of the criminal case, the accuseds administrative
superiors went ahead said investigation w/c ended w/ an
order for his dismissal instead of waiting for the result of the
criminal case. The administrative investigation should have
waited for the result of the criminal case.
PEOPLE VS. DALEON
Upon acquitting one charged w/ malversation of public funds,
the court has no authority to order payment of his salaries
corresponding to the period of his suspension because his
right to the same was not involved in the case. The reason is
that the only issue joined by the plea of not guilty is whether
or not the accused committed the crime charged in the
information.
While an accused acquitted of malversation may claim
payment of back salaries during the period of his suspension
& reinstatement, his relief lies not in the same criminal case,

SIENNA A. FLORES
DOCTRINES

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS