Law on Public Corporation: Cases and Notes

Ganzon v CA
200 SCRA 271 (1991)
Facts: Furthermore, we may already take judicial notice of the recently-approved Local Government Code of 1991
(recently signed into law by the President) 18 which provides (as to imposition of preventive suspensions) as follows:
Sec. 63. Preventive Suspension
xxx xxx xxx
b) . . . that, any single preventive suspension of local elective official shall not extend beyond sixty (60) days: Provided,
further that in the event that several administrative cases are filed against an elective official, he cannot be preventively
suspended for more than ninety (90) days within a single year on the same ground or grounds existing and known at the
time of the first suspension.(emphasis supplied)
The main decision refers to the three (3) suspension orders the first, the second and the third. As shown earlier, the
first and the third orders have already been served. It is only the second order which seems to have been unserved. If we
follow the decision which states that the three (3) suspensions are affirmed, there appears to be no reason why the
second order should not be served for another 60-day period. However, there is no cogent reason why, under the bizarre
circumstances of this case where the respondent Secretary has chosen to impose preventive suspensions piecemeal,
instead of consolidating the several administrative cases of similar nature and close vintage we cannot allow the
concept of simultaneous service to apply to the second order (as we did in the third order). It would follow then that the
second order is also fully served to this date for the service of said second order would have started on 5 August 1991
(when the main decision was rendered as this was the time when this Court found and affirmed the validity of the three (3)
suspension orders, including the second order). The 60-day period from 5 August 1991 expired on 4 October 1991.
It appears that as to the second preventive suspension, petitioner manifested that there is still an existing preliminary
injunction issued by the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 33 in Special Civil Action No. 18312, entitled Ganzon vs. Santos, et
al. 20
One may ask as to the status of the case pending with the RTC, Iloilo City, Branch 33 insofar as the said case involves the
issue on the validity of the second preventive suspension order. Under the main decision of this Court, dated 5 August
1991, second preventive suspension has been affirmed; under the present resolution, said second preventive suspension
has been served. Consequently, Special Civil Action No. 18312 before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City has been
rendered moot and academic, insofar as the second preventive suspension order is concerned.
Issue: When will petitioner Ganzon may be allowed to re-assume his position and duties as mayor of Iloilo City. Is it only
after 19 October 1991 as claimed by respondents, or at some earlier date? The answer to this question would depend on
how petitioner has served the preventive suspension orders issued against him.
Decision: As to the petition (docketed CA-G. R. SP No. 25840) filed with the Court of Appeals, which involves the
question of the validity of the fourth order, and which has clearly been served, petitioner admitted that he filed it, on the
belief that it was the proper remedy for his reinstatement to office; thinking that his suspensions have been served and
ended. 21 As we have ruled that petitioner has served the suspension orders decreed in the main decision and in the light
of the finding of this Court that the fourth preventive suspension order has been served, the issues raised in CA-G.R. SP
No. 25840; have also become moot and academic, warranting dismissal thereof.
WHEREFORE, the urgent motion of petitioner, dated 7 September 1991 is hereby GRANTED. The temporary restraining
order dated 5 September 1991 is hereby LIFTED. Respondents are ordered to allow petitioner to re-assume his office as
elected Mayor of Iloilo City effective immediately.
The Court of Appeal is directed to dismiss CA-G.R. SP No. 25840 for having become moot and academic. The Region
Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 33 before which petitioner's action for prohibition (Special Civil Action No. 18312) is
pending is also ordered to dismiss the said case for having become moot and academic insofar as petitioner prays therein
to enjoin his (second) preventive suspension.
This resolution is without prejudice to the administrative cases (where the first, second, third and fourth preventive
suspension orders were issued) proceeding on the merits thereof. Also, as decreed in the main decision of 5 August 1991.

. . . petitioner, Mayor Rodolfo Ganzon, may not be made to serve future suspensions on account of any of the remaining
administrative charges pending against him for acts committed prior to August 11, 1988. . . .

Garcia v COMELEC
227 SCRA 100
Facts: The Local Government Code of 1991 was enacted providing for two (2) modes of initiating the recall from office of
local elective officials who appear to have lost the confidence of the electorate. One of these modes is recall through the
initiative of a preparatory recall assembly. In the case at bench, petitioners assail this mode of initiatory recall as
unconstitutional. The challenge cannot succeed.
Petitioner Enrique T. Garcia was elected governor of the province of Bataan in the May 11, 1992 elections. In the early
evening of July 1993, some mayors, vice-mayors and members of the Sangguniang Bayan of the twelve (12)
municipalities of the province met at the National Power Corporation compound in Bagac, Bataan. At about 12:30 A.M of
the following day, July 2, 1993, they proceeded to the Bagac town plaza where they constituted themselves into a
Preparatory Recall Assembly to initiate the recall election of petitioner Garcia. The mayor of Mariveles, Honorable Oscar,
de los Reyes, and the mayor of Dinalupihan, the Honorable Lucila Payumo, were chosen as Presiding Officer and
Secretary of the Assembly, respectively. Thereafter, the Vice-Mayor of Limay, the Honorable Ruben Roque, was
recognized and he moved that a resolution be passed for the recall of the petitioner on the ground of "loss of
confidence." 1 The motion was "unanimously seconded." 2