11/20/2015

G.R.No.159794

TodayisFriday,November20,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.159794December19,2006
MACLARINGM.LUCMAN,inhiscapacityastheManageroftheLANDBANKOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
MarawiCity,petitioner,
vs.
ALIMATARMALAWI,ABDULKHAYERPANGCOGA,SALIMATARSARIP,LOMALACADAR,ALIRIBAS.
MACARAMBONandABDULUSMAN,respondents.

DECISION

TINGA,J.:
Thisisapetitionforreviewchallengingthedecisionofthetrialcourt,affirmedbytheCourtofAppeals,granting
the petition for mandamus filed by herein respondents, Barangay Chairmen (or Punong Barangay) of several
barangaysintheprovinceofLanaodelSur.
The petition for mandamus filed by respondents before the trial court is rooted in their claim that they were
deprived of their Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 1997. Respondents further
allegedthatthesesamefundswerereleasedbypetitionerasManagerofLandBankofthePhilippines(LBP),the
depositarybank,tothirdpersons.
There were originally six (6) petitioners when the Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction was filed by now respondents before the court of origin. They were Alimatar Malawi,
Abdulkhayr Pangcoga, Salimatar Sarip, Lomala Cadar, Aliriba S. Macarambon and Abdul Usman who were the
incumbentbarangaychairmenofBubongNgingir(Kabasaran),Ilian,Linindingan,MapantaoIngod,Paigoayand
Rangiran,respectively,allfromtheMunicipalityofPagayawan,LanaodelSur.1 All of them were the incumbent
barangaychairmenoftheirrespectivebarangayspriortothe12May1997barangayelections.Theelectionson
12May1997intheaforesaidbarangaysresultedinafailureofelections.Thereafter,thespecialelectionsheldin
these barangays likewise resulted in a failure of elections.2 Consequently, respondents remained in office in a
holdovercapacitypursuanttotheprovisionsofSec.1of
R.A.No.66793andComelecResolutionNo.2888datedFebruary5,1997.4
Beginningwiththesecondquarterof1997,LBPwasselectedasthegovernmentdepositorybankfortheIRAsof
the abovementioned barangays.5 Being a new government depositary bank for the IRA funds, the authorized
public officials had to open new accounts in behalf of their government units with the proper LBP branch from
whichtheycouldwithdrawtheIRAs.6
After the failed 12 May 1997 elections, respondents attempted to open their respective barangays' IRA bank
accounts but were refused by petitioner because respondents needed to show their individual certifications
showing their right to continue serving as Barangay Chairmen and the requisite Municipal Accountant's Advice
giving respondents the authority to withdraw IRA deposits.7 The requirement for the Accountant's Advice
stemmedfromCommissiononAuditCircularNo.94004.8
RespondentswereeventuallyallowedtoopenaccountsfortheirbarangaysexceptforLomalaCadarandAbdul
Usman of barangays MapantaoIngud and Rangiran, respectively, because the accounts for these barangays
werepreviouslyopenedbytwopersonswhopresentedthemselvesasthedulyproclaimedBarangayChairmen
forthesesamebarangays.9
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_159794_2006.html

1/8

11/20/2015

G.R.No.159794

Inanyevent,allrespondentswerenotallowedtowithdrawtheIRAfundsfromtheopenedaccounts,owingtothe
absenceoftherequisiteAccountant'sAdvice.10
Thenon4August1997,five(5)otherpersonspresentedthemselvesbeforepetitionerasthenewlyproclaimed
PunongBarangaysofthefivebarangaysconcerned,11eachofthempresentingacertificationofhiselectionas
Punong Barangay issued by the provincial director of the DILGARMM and another Certification issued by the
Local Government Operations Officer attesting, among others, to the revocation of the certification previously
issuedtorespondents.12Withoutverifyingtheauthenticityofthecertificationspresentedbythesethirdpersons,
petitionerproceededtoreleasetheIRAfundsforthe2ndand3rdquartersof1997tothem.13
Respondents thus filed on 11 August 1997 a special civil action for Mandamus with Application for Preliminary
MandatoryInjunctiondocketedasCivilCaseNo.11106,tocompelpetitionertoallowthemtoopenandmaintain
deposit accounts covering the IRAs of their respective barangays and to withdraw therefrom.14 The case was
raffledtotheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofLanaodelSur,Branch11.15
AtthetrialrespondentsSarip,Cadar,PangcogaandUsmantestifiedthattheyweredulyelectedchairpersonsof
theirrespectivebarangaysandcontinuedassuchinaholdovercapacityuntiltheirreelectionon30August1997.
They testified further that despite presenting the corresponding documents, petitioner refused to allow the
withdrawalofthefunds.16
Respondent Macarambon testified that he was the incumbent chairperson of Barangay Paigoay prior to the 12
May 1997 elections and that due to the failure of elections, he continued to occupy his position in a holdover
capacityuntilhewassucceededbyhiswifeuponthelatter'selectiontothesamepost.Hetestifiedonpetitioner's
refusaltoreleasethemoneytohimdespitehissubmissionoftheAccountant'sAdvice.17
Forfailuretoappearatthescheduledhearingon20April1999,petitionerwasheldasindefaultandrespondents
wereallowedtopresentevidenceexparte.Petitioner'sMotionforReconsiderationoftheOrderdeclaringhimas
indefaultwasgranted.18
After failing again to appear on the given time for him to adduce evidence, another Orderwas issued wherein
petitionerwasdeemedtohavewaivedhisrighttopresentevidence.TheOrderwasliftedonpetitioner'sMotion
forReconsideration.Insteadofpresentingevidence,petitionerfiledon10November1999aMotiontoDispense
or Waive Presentation of Evidencewherein he represented that the prayers in the complaint had already been
compliedwith.19TheRTCgrantedpetitioner'smotionthroughanOrderdated24September1999.20
Thereafter, the RTC rendered a Decision21dated 8 October 1999 commanding petitioner to pay respondents,
exceptrespondentAlimatarMalawiwhofailedtotestify,theIRAsoftheirrespectivebarangays"evenwithoutthe
Accountant'sAdvice."22ThedispositiveportionoftheDecisionreads,towit:
WHEREFORE, premises all considered, the instant petition is hereby granted. Accordingly, Mr. Maclaring
M.Lucman,ManageroftheLandBankofthePhilippines,MarawiCitybranch,isherebyorderedtopaythe
following:23
1.AliribaMacarambon,the2ndQuarterIRAofPaigoay,PagayawaninthesumofP48,200.00
2.SalimatarSaripofLinindinganthe
2ndQuarterIRAP54,220.00
3rdQuarterIRAP54,220.00
3.LomalaS.CadarofMapantaothe
2ndQuarterIRAP54,320.00
3rdQuarterIRAP54,320.00
4.AbdulkhayPangcogaofIlianthe
2ndQuarterIRAP53,361.00
3rdQuarterIRAP53,361.00
5.AbdulUsmanofRangiranthe
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_159794_2006.html

2/8

11/20/2015

G.R.No.159794

2ndQuarterIRAP51,185.00
3rdQuarterIRAP51,185.00
evenwithouttheAccountant'sAdviceandthesubsequentIRAsuntiltheirtermofofficeshallhaveexpired.
SOORDERED.24
The RTC gave no credence to petitioner's assertion of payment to the rightful barangay officers, there having
been no testimonial or documentary evidence proferred in substantiation thereof.25 It considered petitioner's
refusal to present evidence as a "silence" that equates to an admission of respondents' allegations.26
Furthermore, the RTC relied on the testimonies and certifications adduced by respondents in holding that they
were occupying their positions in a holdover capacity27and that by virtue thereof, they had "the perfect right to
continueperformingthedutiesandfunctionsoftheirpositionsincludingthewithdrawaloffundsoftheirrespective
barangays."28
TheCourtofAppeals29affirmedtheRTC'sDecisionintoto.Hence,thispetition.
Petitioner argues that respondents have no cause of action against him since they failed to present valid
certifications showing their respective right to continue serving as Punong Barangay as well as the requisite
Municipal Accountant's Advice. Petitioner also asserts that the LBP Marawi Branch had already released the
contested IRAs to the Barangay Treasurers who were acting in conjunction with the duly recognized Punong
Barangays,therebymakingthepetitionformandamusmootandacademic.30Thesearefactualissuesthatare
generallybeyondthereviewofthisCourt.
Petitioner adds that respondents have no legal personality to institute the petition for mandamus in their own
names since the IRAs rightfully belong to the respective barangays and not to them and that their respective
barangaysalreadyreceivedtheclaimedIRAsinthisinstantcase.31
Fortheproperadjudicationofthepresentpetition,tworelatedcoreissueshavetoberesolved.First,whatisthe
cause of action alleged in the initiatory pleading filed by respondents before the trial court? Second, are there
indispensablepartieswhichwerenotimpleaded?
AlthoughthepleadingfiledbeforethelowercourtwasdenominatedasaPetitionforMandamusWithPrayerFor
Writ of Preliminary Injunction, the allegations thereof indicate that it is an action for specific performance,
particularly to compel petitioner to allow withdrawal of funds from the accounts of the barangays headed by
respondentswiththeLBP,MarawiBranch.Thus,thePetitionalleged:
"12. Despite the opening of deposit accounts for the barangays mentioned in the preceding paragraph,
respondent, without any valid or lawful cause, failed and refused, and still fails and refuses, to allow the
withdrawal of the funds or IRA of the said barangays as evidenced by the WITHDRAWAL CHECKS
(attachedasAnnexes"D"to"D3"hereof)ofsaidbarangayswhichwererefusedpaymentwhenpresented
totheLandBankonAugust4,1997."32
Fromtherecordsofthecase,itappearsthatthesharesofthebarangaysintheIRAhadalreadybeenremitted
by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to the LBP Marawi Branch where they were kept in the
accountsopenedinthenamesofthebarangays.
By virtue of the deposits, there exists between the barangays as depositors and LBP a creditordebtor
relationship.Fixed,savings,andcurrentdepositsofmoneyinbanksandsimilarinstitutionsaregovernedbythe
provisions concerning simple loan.33 In other words, the barangays are the lenders while the bank is the
borrower.
ThisCourtelucidatedonthematterinGuingona,Jr.,etal.v.TheCityFiscalofManila,etal.,34citingSerranov.
CentralBankofthePhilippines,35thus:
Bankdepositsareinthenatureofirregulardeposits.Theyarereallyloansbecausetheyearninterest.All
kindsofbankdeposits,whetherfixed,savings,orcurrentaretobetreatedasloansandaretobe
coveredbythelawonloans(Art.1980,CivilCodeGullasv.Phil.NationalBank,62Phil.519).Current
andsavingsdepositsareloanstoabankbecauseitcanusethesame.Thepetitionerhereinmakingtime
deposits that earn interest with respondent Overseas Bank of Manila was in reality a creditor of the
respondentBankandnotadepositor.TherespondentBankwasinturnadebtorofpetitioner. Failure of
therespondentBanktohonorthetimedepositisfailuretopayitsobligationasadebtorandnota
breach of trust arising from a depository's failure to return the subject matter of the deposit. (Emphasis
supplied.)36
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_159794_2006.html

3/8

11/20/2015

G.R.No.159794

The relationship being contractual in nature, mandamus is therefore not an available remedy since mandamus
doesnotlietoenforcetheperformanceofcontractualobligations.37
Thisbringsustothesecondcoreissue.
TheIRAfundsforwhichthebankaccountswerecreatedbelongtothebarangaysheadedbyrespondents.The
barangays are the only lawful recipients of these funds. Consequently, any transaction or claim involving these
fundscanbedoneonlythroughtheproperauthorizationfromthebarangaysasjuridicalentities.
Thedetermination,therefore,ofwhetherornottheIRAfundswereunlawfullywithheldorimproperlyreleasedto
third persons can only be determined if the barangays participated as parties to this action. These questions
cannot be resolved with finality without the involvement of the barangays. After all, these controversies involve
fundsrightfullybelongingtothebarangays.Hence,thebarangaysareindispensablepartiesinthiscase.
An indispensable party is defined as partiesininterest without whom there can be no final determination of an
action.38 The nature of an indispensable party was thoroughly discussed in Arcelona v. Court of Appeals,39 to
quote:
Anindispensablepartyisapartywhohassuchaninterestinthecontroversyorsubjectmatterthatafinal
adjudicationcannotbemade,inhisabsence,withoutinjuringoraffectingthatinterest,apartywhohasnot
onlyaninterestinthesubjectmatterofthecontroversy,butalsohasaninterestofsuchnaturethatafinal
decreecannotbemadewithoutaffectinghisinterestorleavingthecontroversyinsuchaconditionthatits
final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. It has also been
considered that an indispensable party is a person in whose absence there cannot be a determination
between the parties already before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable. Further, an
indispensablepartyisonewhomustbeincludedinanactionbeforeitmayproperlygoforward.
A person is not an indispensable party, however, if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is
separable from the interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily be directly or injuriously
affected by a decree which does complete justice between them. Also, a person is not an indispensable
party if his presence would merely permit complete relief between him and those already parties to the
action,orifhehasnointerestinthesubjectmatteroftheaction.Itisnotasufficientreasontodeclarea
persontobeanindispensablepartythathispresencewillavoidmultiplelitigation.40
In Arcelona, the Court also dwelt on the consequences of failure to include indispensable parties in a case,
categoricallystatingthatthepresenceofindispensablepartiesisaconditionfortheexerciseofjuridicalpower41
andwhenanindispensablepartyisnotbeforethecourt,theactionshouldbedismissed.42 The absence of an
indispensablepartyrendersallsubsequentactionsofthecourtnullandvoidforwantofauthoritytoact,notonly
astotheabsentpartiesbutevenastothosepresent.43
Thejoinderofindispensablepartiesismandatory.Withoutthepresenceofindispensablepartiestothesuit,the
judgmentofthecourtcannotattainrealfinality.Strangerstoacasearenotboundbythejudgmentrenderedby
thecourt.44
Clearly,thiscasewasnotinitiatedbythebarangaysthemselves.Neitherdidthebarangaychairmenfilethesuitin
representationoftheirrespectivebarangays.Nothingfromtherecordsshowsotherwise.Onthisscorealone,the
caseinthelowercourtshouldhavebeendismissed.
Even if the barangays themselves had filed the case, still it would not prosper. The case involves government
funds and as such, any release therefrom can only be done in accordance with the prevailing rules and
procedures.
The Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM) provides that the local treasurers shall maintain the
depositary accounts in the name of their respective local government units with banks.45 Under the Local
GovernmentCode,thetreasurerisgiventhepower,amongothers,to:(1)keepcustodyofbarangayfundsand
propertiesand(2)disbursefundsinaccordancewiththefinancialproceduresprovidedbytheLocalGovernment
Code.46Thesamemanualdefinesdisbursementsasconstitutingallcashpaidoutduringagivenperiodeitherin
currencyorbycheck.47
Sec. 344 of the Local Government Code further provides for the following requirements in cases of
disbursements,towit:
Sec. 344. No money shall be disbursed unless the local budget officer certifies to the existence of
appropriation that has been legally made for the purpose, the local accountant has obligated said
appropriation, and the local treasurer certifies to the availability of funds for the purpose. Vouchers and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_159794_2006.html

4/8

11/20/2015

G.R.No.159794

payrollsshallbecertifiedtoandapprovedbytheheadofthedepartmentorofficewhohasadministrative
controlofthefundconcerned,astothevalidity,propriety,andlegalityoftheclaiminvolved.Exceptincases
of disbursements involving regularly recurring administrative expenses xxx approval of the disbursement
voucherbythelocalchiefexecutivehimselfshallberequiredwheneverlocalfundsaredisbursed.
Thus, as a safeguard against unwarranted disbursements, certifications are required from: (a) the local budget
officer as to the existence and validity of the appropriation (b) the local accountant as to the legal obligation
incurredbytheappropriation(c)thelocaltreasurerastotheavailabilityoffundsand(d)thelocaldepartment
headastothevalidity,proprietyandlegalityoftheclaimagainsttheappropriation.48
Further, the GAAM provides for the basic requirements applicable to all classes of disbursements that shall be
compliedwith,towit:
a) Certificate of Availability of Fund.Existence of lawful appropriation, the unexpended balance of
which, free from other obligations, is sufficient to cover the expenditure, certified as available by an
accountingofficeroranyotherofficialrequiredtoaccomplishthecertificate.
Useofmoneysappropriatedsolelyforthespecificpurposeforwhichappropriated,andfornoother,except
whenauthorizedbylaworbyacorrespondingappropriatingbody.
b)Approvalofclaimorexpenditurebyheadofofficeorhisdulyauthorizedrepresentative.
c) Documents to establish validity of claim. Submission of documents and other evidences to
establishthevalidityandcorrectnessoftheclaimforpayment.
d)Conformityoftheexpendituretoexistinglawsandregulations.
e)Properaccountingtreatment.49
This prescribed legal framework governing the release and disbursement of IRA funds to the respective
barangays disabuses from the notion that a barangay chairman, relying solely on his authority as a local
executive,hastherighttodemandphysicalpossessionoftheIRAfundsallocatedbythenationalgovernmentto
thebarangay.Therighttodemandforthefundsbelongstothelocalgovernmentitselfthroughtheauthorization
oftheirSanggunian.50
One final note. There is no conclusive proof from the records showing that the IRA funds for the 2nd and 3rd
quartersofthebarangaysconcernedremittedbytheDBMhadalreadybeen
withdrawnfromtheLBPMarawiBranch.Consideringtheimplicationsofthisactionofpossiblydeprivingseveral
localgovernmentunitsoftheirIRAs,theCourttooktheinitiativetorequesttheCOMELECtoissuecertifications
onwhowerethedulyelectedchairmenofthebarangaysconcerned.TheCOMELECissuedtothisCourtalistof
the elected barangay chairmen which confirmed the reelection of respondents as barangay chairmen of their
respective barangays.51 If withdrawals were indeed made, whether by the respondents or by impostors, the
matter deserves to be investigated since public funds are involved. Accordingly, we refer the matter to the
DepartmentofInteriorandLocalGovernment(DILG)forinvestigationandappropriateaction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decisionsof the Court of Appeals
and the Regional Trial Court are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Petition for Mandamus filed before the
RegionalTrialCourtisorderedDISMISSED.
TheallegedwithdrawalsofdepositsrepresentingtheInternalRevenueAllotmentsforthe2ndand3rdQuartersof
1997ofthebarangaysconcernedfromtheLandBankofthePhilippines,MarawiBranch,arereferredtotheDILG
forinvestigationandappropriateaction.TheDILGisherebyDIRECTEDtoINFORMtheCourtoftheresultofits
investigationwithinthirty(30)daysfromthecompletionthereof.
Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Quisumbing,J.,Chairperson,Carpio,CarpioMorales,andVelasco,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1RTCDecision,rollo,pp.126130.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_159794_2006.html

5/8

11/20/2015

G.R.No.159794

2CADecision,id.at24.
3Id.at126.

Section1.TheelectionsofbarangayofficialssetonthesecondMondayofNovember1998by
RepublicAct6653areherebypostponedandresettoMarch28,1989.Theyshallserveatermwhich
shallbeginonthefirstdayofMay1989andendingonthethirtyfirstdayofMay1994.
ThereshallbeheldaregularelectionofbarangayofficialonthesecondMondayofMay1994andon
thesamedayeveryfive(5)yearsthereafter.Theirtermshallbeforfive(5)yearswhichshallbegin
onthefirstdayofJunefollowingtheelectionanduntiltheirsuccessorsshallhavebeenelectedand
qualified:Provided,Thatnobarangayofficialshallserveformorethanthree(3)successiveterms.
xxxx
4Id.

Sec.42.CandidatesHoldingElectiveorAppointiveOffice.xxxx
Incumbentelectivebarangayofficialsrunningforthesameofficeshallnotbeconsideredresigneduponthe
filingoftheircertificateofcandidacy.Theyshallcontinuetoholdofficeuntiltheirsuccessorsshallhave
beenelectedandqualified.
5Id.at108.
6Id.
7Id.at63.
8COACircularNo.94004states:

IthascometotheattentionoftheCommissionthatnotallbarangaycheckspaidbybarangay
depositorybanksarecoveredbydulyapproveddisbursementvouchers/payrolls.Saidpracticehas
resultedinthedoubtfulvalidityandthenonrecordingoftransactionsinthebarangaybooksof
accounts.
Topreventsuchoccurrenceandtoensurethatchecksencashedbybarangaydepositorybanksare
forlegitimatebarangayexpenditures,theuseofAccountant'sAdviceofBarangayCheck
Disbursementsisherebyprescribed.xxxxBarangayDepositorybanksareenjoinedtopaychecks
issuedbybarangaysonlyifaccompaniedbytheAdvice.xxxx.CArollo,p.69.
9Rollop.25.
10Id.at29.
11Thepersonswhorepresentedthemselvesasthebarangaychairmenofthefivebarangaysconcerned

arethefollowing:AlimamaManalaoforBarangayNgingirBubongPitiIlanAdiongforBarangayIlian
SolaimanManalaoforBarangayLinindinganAbayaragaMaruhomforBarangayMapantaoandSittie
SandabforBarangayRangiran.Id.at26.
12Id.at26and29.
13Id.at2930.
14RTCRecords,pp.713.
15PresidedbyJudgeMoslemenT.Macarambon,whohasnorelationshipwithrespondentAliribaS.

Macarambon.SeeTSN,20April1999,p.3.
16Rollo,pp.3032.
17Id.at31.
18Id.at127.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_159794_2006.html

6/8

11/20/2015

G.R.No.159794

19Id.SeealsoRTCRecords,pp.237238.
20Rollo,p.127.
21Supranote1.
22Id.at130.
23Thetrialcourtconcentratedonthefiverespondents,andexcludedtheevidencepresentedbyAlimatar

MalawibecausethetruenameofthispartyisAlinaderMalawi.Thecourtadvisedthecounseltoamendthe
petitionwithrespecttoAlinaderMalawi.Recordsdonotshowanyactionofamendmentbycounselof
AlinaderMalawi.SeeTSN,20April1999,p.59.
24Rollo,p.130.
25Id.at123.
26Id.
27Id.at24.
28Id.
29InadecisionpennedbyAssociateJusticeBienvenidoL.ReyesandconcurredinbyAssociateJustices

RobertoA.BarriosandEdgardoF.SundiamoftheSeventeenthDivision.
30Rollo,pp.6263.
31Id.at67.
32RTCRecords,p.10.
33CivilCode,Art.1980.
34213Phil.516,523524(1984).
35No.L30511,14February1980,96SCRA96.
36Emphasissupplied.
37Manalov.PAICSavingsBank,G.R.No.146531,18March2005,453SCRA747.
38RulesofCourt,Rule3,Sec.7.
39345Phil.250,269270(1997).
40Citing67AC.J.S.646649.
41MarcelinoArcelona,etal.v.CourtofAppeals,etal.,supranote39,at267citingBorlasav.Polistico,47

Phil.345,347,28January1925.
42Id.
43Id.at268.
44Moldes.v.Villanueva,G.R.No.161955,31August2005,468SCRA697,708citingCommissioner

AndreaD.Domingov.HerbertMarkusEmilScheer,G.R.No.154745,29January2004,421SCRA468.
45BookII,Chapter4,Art.4,Sec.129.
46Sec.395par.(e)subpars.(1)and(3).
47GovernmentAccountingandAuditingManual(GAAM),Sec.167.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_159794_2006.html

7/8

11/20/2015

G.R.No.159794

48AquilinoQ.Pimentel,Jr.,TheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991,TheKeytoNationalDevelopment,1993,

p.393.
49GovernmentAccountingandAuditingManual,Sec.168.
50Itisgenerallywithinthelegislativeprovincetodirectinwhatway,throughwhatboardofmunicipal

officersoragents,orbywhatmunicipalofficersthepowersgivenshallbeexercised.CitingAngeles,
RestatementoftheLawonLocalGovernmentsciting2AMcQuillin,TheLawofMunicipalCorporations,
Sec.10.27(3rded.)Ravettinov.SanDiego,70CalApp2d37,160P2d1035.
51Rollo,p.153.ExceptforAliribaS.Macarambonwhowasreplacedbyhiswife,FatimaMacarambonfor

theofficeofBarangayChairmen,allrespondentswerereelected,thus:
NameofBarangay
Paigoay
Linindangan
Mapantao
Ilian
Rangiran

ElectedPunongBarangay
FatimaMacarambon
SalimatarSarip
CadarLomalaSarip
PangcogaAbulkhayerSharief
AbdulUsman

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_159794_2006.html

8/8