Law On Public Officers and Administrative Law Selfless Notes

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTIONS LAW
PRE-FINALSTRANSCRIPTAtty. Ferdinand Gujilde EH 403 2015-2016

D. CabahugCaneMontecilloOmarOsorioQuianolaRudasSalasTatadUy
What is a public office?
1987 Constitution, Article XI, Accountability of Public Officers
Section 1. Public Office is a public trust. Public officers and employees
must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with
patriotism and justice and lead modest lives.
LAWS ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

PART I
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
SOURCES & AUTHORITIES
Ruperto G. Martin
Melvyn S. Martin
Hector S. De Leon
Hector M. De Leon
Joaquin G. Bernas
F.R. Mechem
Antonio B. Nachura
Special thanks to Dean Joan S. Largo
C: highlighted at all times be accountable to the people - what were saying is

this: even if you step out of the office, after office hours, you are still a public
officer and still accountable to the people. If there is an administrative case
against you involving personal acts, it is not available as a defense that you say
it does not relate to my functions as a public officer since its a purely personal
act. Then serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency. The acronym there is RILE. You do that in govt. Service?lead modest
lives - within the context of the definition, lead a simple life.
After the course, you are expected to know:
Public office is a public trust.

It is created in the interest and for the benefit of the public.
The officers are public servants.
They are mere agents and not rulers of the people.
As such, they have no contractual or proprietary right to an office.
They merely hold it in trust for the people. (Cornejo v Gabriel)
C:Meaning you do not own the office you occupy. You are a
mere transient there
What is a public office

Who is a public officer
What are the kinds of public officer
How does one become a public officer
How does one cease to be a public officer
What are the powers, duties, privileges and prohibitions of a public
officer
What are the liabilities of a public officer
How are public officers disciplined
Which has jurisdiction to discipline public officers
all times be accountable to the people

Social Justice Society v DDB
Facts: Random drug test on private and public employees was challenged as
unconstitutional because it violates the right of privacy.
Held: For private employees, their right to privacy is inferior to the right of the
employer to maintain discipline and efficiency in the work place.
If so, with more reason that civil servants cannot invoke the right to
privacy because by constitutional command, they are required to be
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Public Office and public officers

Kinds of public officers
Who may be public officers
Formation of relations
Assumption and term of office
Code of conduct

accountable at all times to the people and serve them with utmost
responsibility and efficiency.
Purpose of Discipline
C: this case was jointly resolved with Pimentel v Comelec. Random drug test but
in Pimentel, the SC said you cannot require random drug test results from those
who seek public office because it infringes the constitutional qualifications for
one to become senator/elective public officer. However, If you are appointive
and already in the govt., you cannot invoke the right to privacy.
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency (RILE)
Thus, an employee may be dismissed for being notoriously undesirable

even if it involves private and personal acts.
C: Take note, even if its mere perception or notoriety, you can
be dismissed from public service.
As a public servant, a court employee must exhibit the highest sense of
honesty and integrity not only in the performance of his official duties
but also in his private dealing with other people to preserve the courts
name and standing. (Concerned Citizens of Laoag City v Arzag)
What happened here was that he tried to peddle influence. He
tried to make an impression that he can fix things for people,
even court cases. SC then said it affects the integrity of the
judiciary even if there is no conviction yet, you can be
dismissed out of notoriety.
However, there is a two-fold test there notoriety and habit.
Dishonesty as ground for dismissal need not be committed in the

performance of duty.
If a public officer or employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or
grave misconduct, he or she may be dismissed.
Even if said defects of character are not connected with his or her
office, they affect his or her right to continue in office. C: take note.
The right to continue in office
The purpose of discipline is not to punish, but to improve public service
and preserve public confidence in government. (Remolona v CSC)
If thats the premise, if you are already separated from public
service, there can be no administrative case against you to
discipline you because it defeats the purpose.
However, if the after filing of the case you resigned or retired,
the case will continue otherwise you can escape liability by
mere resignation.
But a resigned public officer cannot be subject to discipline because it does not
serve its purpose
Conviction of criminal offenses is not even necessary for removal
Whether he had contracted the habit for any of the

enumerated misdemeanours. (San Luis v CA)
Notoriety and habit are sufficient ground for removal pursuant to the
2-fold test:
Notoriety - Whether it is generally known as universally
believed to be true or manifest to the world that the public
officer committed the acts imputed against him.
- Bisaggituohanlang.
It is error to interpret CSC MC No. 38 that administrative case may be

filed against a resigned public officer for as long as the act complained
of was committed in service.
Otherwise, public officers who have long been separated from service
may still be subject of administrative cases.
Another reason is to give the person peace of mind.
Walanamansiyasagovernment. So no need to discipline.
This defeats the purpose of discipline, which is not to punish, but to
improve public service and preserve public trust in government.
(Ombudsman v Andutan)

lead modest lives
enduring at the pleasure of the creating power
The point of the command is that, even if the public officer is

independently wealthy, he should not live in a manner that flaunts his
wealth. (Bernas)
What is in excess of what you need is not yours.
C: So what if he says why do u blame me if I drive my Ferrari? What if prior to

my service, I was already rich? - It depends on the perspective. For us its a big
deal, but for the elite, its just one of their many toys. However, Bernas had this
to say the point of the command is that even if the public officer is
independently wealthy, it shouldnt be in a manner that flaunts his wealth.
Along that line, let me share with you my favorite saying what is in excess of
what you need is not yours. so dont be greedy because anything you have in
excess does not belong to you.
C: were talking about this case because when the appointing authority loses
trust and confidence in you and terminates you, that is not termination but end
of term of office. Applies even to cabinet members.
Public office as defined by Mechem
If the term of office for which the chief of police was appointed is not
fixed pursuant to the city charter, it is dependent upon the discretion
or pleasure of the appointing power.
Thus, the chief of police may be replaced and such replacement does
not amount to removal but expiration of his tenure.
But do not be confused anang chief of police
kaykaraannaninakaso. Ang chief of police before served at the
pleasure of the appointing authority. But today, naanacla
security of tenure.
It is one of the ordinary modes of terminating official relations.
(Fernandez v Ledesma)
sovereign functions to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public

A public office is the right, authority and duty created and conferred by
law which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the
pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with
sovereign functions to be exercised by him for the benefit of the
public.
C: it says there, at the pleasure of the creating power. It talks about those who
are political appointees and who are coterminous employees with the
appointing authority. The moment the appointing authority says i dont like
you anymore, I lost trust and confidence in you thats not about termination,
but end of term of office. Its just like relationships. If you breakup, its not
termination, but end of term because you are together at the pleasure of each
other.
Chairmanship of the National Centennial Commission to take charge of

the centennial celebrations. (Laurel v Desierto)
What happened there was every Monday for the whole year
of 1998, we were required to wearFilipiniana for work and flag
ceremony. So there they argued that if I were only the
chairman, it is only temporary in character. But the SC said
that is not even essential. What controls is the function you
are tasked to perform. And that is sovereign function because
it redounds to the benefit of the people.
Appointment as private sector representative to the National Book
Development Board which is aimed to promote continuing
development of the book publishing industry. (Javier v Sandiganbayan)

Take note that private sector representative. SC said purpose

is to develop the book publishing industry which the
government has a stake. You are still a public officer.
Appointment as student regent at the University of the Philippines
performing general administrative supervision & exercising corporate
powers. (Serana v Sandiganbayan)
What happened here was if you are university student council
president, you sit on the board of regents as student regent.
That is the highest policymaking body in the school. A
malversation case was filed against her and she said she is not
a public officer because: 1. She was a mere student; 2. Did not
receive a single centavo. I paid my tuition. SC said that is not
essential. What matters is you were tasked to perform
sovereign functions. Administrative supervision and exercise
of corporate powers is a sovereign function. Take note of this
case.
2) No one has a vested right to a public office.

A public officer cannot claim injury if placed under preventive
suspension because he has no vested or absolute right to a
public office. (Carabeoo v CA)
Suspension of a public officer without prior notice and hearing
does not violate due process because he has no proprietary or
contractual right to do it. (Cornejo v Gabriel)
More so if the appointment does not specify the station, the
employee may be reassigned if exigency requires, provided it
does not reduce rank, status or salary. (Fernandez v Sto.
Tomas)
-Example: Election officers. Even if specifically
appointed to Mandaue city, they can still be
transferred. More so if it is not specified.
Elements of a public office

1)
2)
It must be created by law or an ordinance authorized by law;

It must be invested with some sovereign functions of government to be
exercised for public interest; C: take note, to determine sovereign
function, is it is intended for public benefit.
3) The functions must be defined, expressly or impliedly by law;
4) The function must be exercised directly by an officer directly under the
control of law;
5) It must have some permanency or continuity, not temporary or
occasional. (State v Hawkins, cited by Martin)
Take note, permanency or continuity does not control.
Sovereign function.
Characteristics of a public office

1)
It is created in the interest and for the benefit of the public.

The officers are public servants.
They are mere agents and not rulers of the people.
As such, they have no contractual or proprietary right to an
office.
They merely hold it in trust for the people. (Cornejo v Gabriel)
Public office is public trust.
Except: if the terms of the law that takes it away is unclear.

Segovia v Noel
Facts: Segovia is appointed Justice of the Peace.
But later, a law was passed that justices shall be appointed
to serve until they reach 65 only.
When he reached 65, Noel replaced him.
Held:The law must be applied prospectively only. Even if he
has no vested right to the office, he has some right that
cannot be taken away by law which terms are unclear.
- If you read between the lines, it only accommodates
the retiree.

3)
Facts:During pendency of an election protest, the protestee died. He

was substituted by his widow to pursue his counterclaim for
damages.
Held:Substitution is not proper. Public office in personal to the holder
and is not a property that can be inherited by his heirs.
Public office is not a property.

Abeja v Taada
Facts: During pendency of an election protest, the protestee died. He
was substituted by his widow to pursue his counterclaim for
damages.
Held: The substitution is not proper. Public office is personal to the
incumbent and is not property which passes to his heirs.
Do not be confused because we said substitution is proper for
candidacy. Thats only insofar as candidates are considered.
Not yet public officers. Here, it talks about public officers and
counterclaim for damages. If your election protest is dismissed
because you died, it also dies a natural death because no more
aggrieved party. It cannot be passed to the widow.
Definition of a public officer.

Sec. 2(b), Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act
Cornejovs Gabriel
Facts: A municipal president was suspended by the governor while his
administrative case for misconduct was pending without opportunity
to be heard.
Held:Prior notice and hearing is not a requisite to suspension because
the holder has no proprietary and contractual interest on a public
office.
Except:when the issue is which of the two persons is entitled to public
office.
In which case, a public office may be considered property
within the protection of the due process clause.
That if one is deprived of title to the office, it should be
properly litigated before the courts. (Segovia v Noel)
Public Officer includes elective and appointive officials and

employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or
unclassified or exemption service receiving compensation, even
nominal from the government.
Take note that in this definition, it seems that as long as you
receive compensation from the govt you are public officer.
That seems like the controlling factor. But if you go back to the
Serana case, compensation is not the essential factor but a
mere incidence. What is essential is that you are performing
sovereign function.
Serana v Sandiganbayan
Facts:A student regent charged with estafa argues she is not a public officer
because she is a mere student who paid her tuition and did not receive
salary as such.
Held:Compensation is not essential to a public office, but a mere incident to
it.
Laurel v Desierto
Facts: Laurel chaired NCC to take charge of the National Centennial
Celebrations. He was charged with graft and corruption due to
contractual anomalies.
He argued he is not a public officer because he did not receive salary as
such which is a characteristic of a public officer.
4) Public office cannot be inherited.

Abeja v Taada

Held: While salary is a usual criterion to determine the nature of the
position, it is not necessary because it is a mere incident and forms no
part of the office.
C: Do you remember your Revised Penal Code? It says there regardless of rank,
you are a public officer. Even if utility raka.
Elements of a public officer
An individual with a public office.(Mechem)
To be a public officer, one must be-
Section 2, Administrative Code of 1987
1) Taking part in the performance of public functions in the government,

or performing in said government any of its branches public duties as
an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or class, AND
2) That his authority to take part in the performance of public functions or
to perform public duties must be by:
(a) Direct provision of law
(b) Popular election and
(c) Appointment by competent authority. (Reyes)
(14) Officer as distinguished from clerk or employee, refers to a

person whose duties, not being of a clerical or manual nature, involves
the exercise of discretion in the performance of the functions of the
government. When used with reference to a person having authority
to do a particular act or perform a particular function in the exercise of
governmental power, officer includes any government employee,
agent or body having authority to do the act or exercise that function.
(15) Employee when used with reference to a person in the public
service, includes any person in the service of the government or any of
its agencies, divisions, subdivisions or instrumentalities.
C: the first part here says that you are an officer in relation to
an employee or a clerk meaning naakasataas. You exercise
discretionary acts. How did we define discretion? You can
decide either way and still be right.
nd
C: The 2 part there says that if you are a public officer you
are assigned with duty to perform sovereign functions.
Delegation of sovereign functions is the most important characteristic of

public office
Laurel v Desierto
Facts: Laurel chaired NCC. He was charged with graft and corruption due to
contractual anomalies he entered into as such.
He argues he is not a public officer because the NCC is a private and
temporary office, he was not paid salary or it, and did not take his oath of
office.
Held:Even if the other characteristics are missing, he is still considered public
officer because he was delegated with sovereign functions, the controlling
characteristic of a public office.
Article 203, Revised Penal Code
any person who, by direct provision of law, popular election or

appointment by competent authority, takes part in the performance of
public functions in the Government of the Philippines, or performs in
said Government or any of its branches, public duties as an employee,
agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class.
Except: when in the first place, there is no authority to appoint a private person
as public officer.
Azarcon v Sandiganbayan
Facts:Azarcon was designated by the BIR as custodian of distrained property,
one of which was a truck that suddenly disappeared.
He was charged before the Sandiganbayan which jurisdiction he now
assails for being a private person.

Held:Azarcon is a private person. While the NIRC authorizes designation of a
custodian, it does not include the power to appoint him as a public officer.
C: remember, our premise was for as long as you are
delegated sovereign function, you are a public officer. This is
an exception because the appointment was invalid because
the BIR had no authority to appoint him. Only designate a
custodian. Gicontrataraka. Not really a public officer.
you are charged in conspiracy with another public

officer in whatever capacity either as co-principal,
accomplice or accessory for as long as there is
conspiracy, you are considered a public officer for the
purpose of the sandiganbayanacquiring jurisdiction
over your person.
Classification of public officers
Exception to the exception:

When a private person is charged as co-principal, accomplice or
accessory of a public officer charged with a crime under the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan.
Go vsSandiganbayan
Facts: Go is Chairman of PIATCO. He was charged in conspiracy with a public
officer in violating Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.
Go says Section 3(g) does not apply to him because he is not a public
officer but a private person who could not enter into a contract in behalf
of the government.
Further said that the elements of Section 3(g) are that accused is a
public officer, that he entered into a contract or transaction in behalf of
the government, and that it is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to
it.
Held:When a private person is charged with conspiracy with a public officer,
either as co-principal, accomplice or accessory, he is also considered a
public officer for purposes of acquiring jurisdiction over his person by the
Sandiganbayan.
C: so lets summarize, you are a public officer as long as you
are delegated sovereign functions except if:
1. Invalid appointment because no authority to appoint in the
first place.
o Exception to the exception: is you can be public
officer even if you are purely private person provided
Executive officers- those whose duties are mainly to cause the laws to
be executed.
Legislative officers- those whose duties relate mainly to the enactment
of laws.
Judicial officers- those whose duties are to decide controversies
between individuals and accusations made in the name of the public
against persons charged with a violation of a law.
Ministerial officers- those whose duty is to execute the mandate,
lawfully issued, of their superiors.
Military officers- those who are in command in the army.
Naval officers- those who are in command in the navy.
Civil officers- one who holds his appointment under the government,
whether his duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest
departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the
army and the navy.
Special agent- one who receives a definite and fixed order or
commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office.
Officer De Jure- one who has the lawful right to the office in all
respects, but who has either been ousted from it, or who has never
actually taken possession of it.
Officer De Facto- one who has the reputation of being the officer he
assumes to be, and yet is not the officer in point of law.

-
The one who is really entitled to the office is the officer de

jure. However the one who is in actual possession of the office
is officer de facto.
National officers- those who render service for the national
government.
Provincial officers- those who render service for the provincial
government.
City and Municipal officers- those who render service for the city and
municipal governments, respectively. (Mechem)
Facts:Sampayan and other residents sought to disqualify Daza as Congressman

because he is a green card holder. But his term of office already expired prior
to his disqualification.
C: very common. He was disqualified after his term of office.
What happens there, the de jure officer was waiting for 3
years without receiving anything. Question: so what if later on,
the de facto officer is declared to be not the rightful possessor
of the office, is he required to reimburse the salary?
Held: A de facto officer cannot be made to reimburse funds and salaries
because his acts are valid as those of a de jure officer. He is also entitled to
emoluments for actual services rendered.
Fair enough, because the de jure officer did not do anything in
the first place. He was only waiting. The de facto officer was
actually working so he should be given the compensation. And
he is not required to reimburse. But you are not prohibited to
reimburse. If you want to reimburse, by all means you can
reimburse.
Requisites to be considered a de facto officer:

Necessity of office
There must be a created office. No de jure or de facto officer
without the office to fill.
Color of title or general recognition and reputation
May consist in election or appointment
Holding office after expiration of the term
Acquiescence by the public in the acts of officer for such
length of time as to raise presumption of colorable right
Physical Possession
Except: where there is a sitting de jure officer. (TN: this is a special case and the
de jure officer normally does not occupy any position.)
The general rule is where there is a de jure officer, the de facto officer is not
entitled to emoluments attached to the office during his wrongful incumbency
even if he occupied it in good faith.
But where the de jure officer assumed the lower position in protest, she is
entitled to salary but limited to back pay differentials to avoid double
compensation. (General Manager of PPA v Monserate)
C: acquiescence there is because pananglit, dba you were proclaimed the

winner of election. You assumed office and served during incumbency so the
public transacts business through you. What if later on, it was found that you
are not the rightful owner of the office and must be unseated. What happens to
the transactions you entered into in behalf of the public? They remain valid.
Because you have color of title and you were in actual possession.
C: what happened here was duhacla nag ilogsa position. But because the de jure
officer somehow gave way to the de facto officer, she said ok,
imohalangsanaakoning lower position. What happened later was she was
declared the rightful possessor of the higher position. Nahitabokay since she
was a sitting de jure officer, SC said she was entitled to differential because she
was receiving a lower salary. The SC said you cannot be given the entire salary of
The de facto officer is entitled to compensation

Sampayan v Daza

the higher position because that amounts to double compensation. So ang
differential lang. However, the differential does not come from the de facto
officer. But somewhere else.
Because the first premise was the de facto
officer was not required to reimburse the salary. Kay duna man siyay color of
right or title to office.
C: Remember kadtongnaghisgot ta about presidential vacancy at the start of

term of office, if the president fails to qualify or if the vice president fails to
qualify it creates a temporary vacancy. Kana moyatongpasabot.If the president
fails to assume office or fails to take hold of office that's failure to qualify.Or fails
to take of office, thats failure to qualify.
QUESTION:
Who prescribes qualification?
Q: about sa acquiring jurisdiction over a private person, what if its the other
way around and the public employee is merely an accessory?
A: Still under the sandiganbayan. But take note that were talking about
jurisdiction, not liability. Just because the sandiganbayan does not have
jurisdiction does not mean you are off the hook.
Congress prescribes eligibility, qualifications, disqualifications and provide for

methods of filling offices, subject to constitutional limitations.
C:But more often it is not really the congress but the administrative agencies by
virtue of what we call Doctrine of Subordinate legislation. If there is a law it
cannot be enforced yet without the specifics of IRR and sothe administrative
agencies will formulate the IRR and probably in the IRR there is there the
qualifications of the law and the methods of filling offices.
ELIGIBILITY AND QUALIFICATIONS
Who may prescribe qualifications

Time of possession of qualifications
Usual qualifications
Disqualifications
-Under the Constitution
-Under the Local Government Code
-Other laws
Effect of pardon
GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS:
CITIZENSHIP
Only citizens can apply or take civil service examinations

C: those who graduated with honors are already eligible, cum
laude above but if you pass the bar that is already equivalent
to first grade eligible.
Aliens cannot hold office, either appointive or elective
What is qualification?
RESIDENCE
QUALIFICATION
Endowment that fits one for office
Act which a person is required by law to do before assuming
office like oath taking
There must be a rational connection between requirements
and duties
synonymous with domicile

Imports intention to reside in one place
Personal presence in that place
Conduct indicative of such intention
RESIDENCE

President and Vice- President-resident of the Philippines for at

least 10 years immediately preceding the elections
Senator-resident of the Philippines for at least 2 years immediately
preceding the elections
Congressman-resident of the district for at least 1 year
immediately preceding the elections except the party-list
representatives
DISQUALIFICATIONS
-Under the Constitution
-Under the Local Government Code
-Other laws
Disqualifications
AGE
President & Vice-President-40

Senator-35, Congressman-25
EDUCATION- for appointive positions only
CIVIL SERVICE
required in appointive positions

Civil service eligible is prioritized over a non-eligible for appointment to
any vacant position even in a temporary capacity
Conviction of the crime of malversation of public funds

Impeachment
C: Because if you are impeached, you cannot hold
public
office
anymore.
That's
perpetual
disqualification.
Congress cannot add disqualifications than what is provided
for in the Constitution
Property in the form of cash bond (Maquera v Bora)
Lifestyle in the form of negative drug test results (Pimentel v
Comelec)
C: lifestyle because it talks about drug use.
When should a public officer possess qualifications?

Effects of Pardon under the Revised Penal Code
It depends upon the Constitution or statute

But generally, at the time of election, appointment or assumption
If qualification is not specified with reference to the time of election, it
refers to qualification to hold office rather than to be elected to it.
C:This talks about Frivaldo Doctrine.
Thus, disqualification existing at the time of election may be removed
before induction to office or before the term of office begins.
ART 36. A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public
office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the
terms of the pardon.
C: You might want to study the case of Estrada here when he
was pardoned by GMA. It was an absolute pardon that is why
he was able to run again.
A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil
indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.
C: so the pardon is only political and refers to the sentence
only, the civil aspect is excluded.
Frivaldo v Comelec
Facts: Frivaldo won as governor but was disqualified by Comelec for being an
alien. Thus, Lee was proclaimed at 8:30pm on June 30, 1995 but at 2pm on
the same day, Frivaldo re-acquired his Philippine citizenship.
Contention of Lee: Even if Frivaldo re-acquired his citizenship, he is still
disqualified because citizenship is a condition precedent to filing of candidacy
Held: Citizenship is required only at the time of proclamation and at the start of
term of office.
Pardon does not automatically reinstate, it merely restores eligibility for

appointment.
10

C: what if you were removed from office because of something that you did and
you were pardoned, Can you say that okay baliknakosaakongopisina. NOT
NECESSARILY, because you are only restored to the ELIGIBILITY to the office NOT
to the office.
C: as opposed to pardon, kung na pardon ka you are only restored to eligibility

not necessarily to the office that you forfeited by reason of the conviction but
here if you are acquitted based on pure innocence in other words your
termination is invalid in the first place you are entitled to reinstatement with
backwages because the acquittal was based on innocence.
Monsanto v Factoran
Facts: An Asst. Treasurer was convicted for estafa and ordered to pay at least
4,000 pesos. She moved to reconsider her conviction during which she was
extended absolute presidential pardon which she accepted. She thus argued
the pardon wiped out her crime and she should be reinstated without need to
re-apply and paid full back wages. She also refused to pay the fine.
Held: Pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted felon to the office
necessarily relinquished or forfeited by reason of conviction although it
restores her eligibility for appointment to that office. Pardon merely removed
her disqualification. She must re-apply. That her conviction did not acquire
finality when she was extended pardon is of no moment, because pardon
presupposes a crime was committed.
Question: What if sir upon reinstatement kayna expire naiyang term, is he given
separation pay instead of backwages?
C: That can be done. Now, how can we know that you are acquitted based on
innocence? It is when the dispositive portion says that "because he did not
commit the crime in the first place in which case you are reinstated with
backwages. What if the case merely says "for lack of evidence?that is not pure
innocence. What the court is saying is that there is evidence but it was not
enough to convince the court with moral certainty that you are convicted
beyond reasonable doubt.
Authority of the CSC to approve appointment is limited to inquiry
Central bank v CSC
Facts: The CSC voided the appointment of Jordan and replaced him with Borja
who it considers more qualified.
C: In this case there are two persons possessing the minimum
qualifications in other words, they are both qualified but the Civil
Service Commission says that this guy is more qualified so I'm going to
void his appointment and replace him with this guy who they think is
more qualified, Can that be done by CSC?
C: because the argument here is she was extended presidential pardon even her
appeal was still pending finality or was not yet decided. So said that the pardon
was even immaterial because I was not yet convicted with finality but the SC
said that the fact that you were pardoned presupposes that a crime was
committed and you accepted the pardon, it also amounts to a waiver on your
part that you committed something that's why you accepted the pardon. TAKE
NOTE OF THIS CASE.
EXCEPT:when acquittal is based on innocence.
C: we are not talking about pardon here but acquittal base on innocence.
Held: The authority of the CSC is limited to determine whether the appointee
possesses appropriate civil service eligibility and other qualifications. The
authority to inquire qualification does not include the power to replace the
choice of the appointing authority as it constitutes encroachment.
Garcia v COA Chairman

Facts: Garcia was administratively charged with dishonesty and criminally
charged with qualified theft due to loss of telegraph poles. But he was
acquitted based on innocence in the criminal case.
Held: If acquittal in criminal case is based on innocence, acquittal in
administrative case follows. Thus, he should be reinstated and paid back
wages because the separation is null and void.
C: This is what will happen, pananglit you are appointed by the government, you
submit your documents, your credentials it will be send to the CSC for review to
inquire whether or not you possess the minimum qualifications. So if it reaches
the CSC there inquiry is limited to whether or not you have the minimum
qualifications not if you are more qualified. Bastanaalangkay minimum
qualification and you are the choice of the appointing authority, the CSC has no
11

other choice but to approve the appointment. It cannot replace the judgment of
the appointing authority.
C: this is very common in government, so if naay vacant ngadto,

mahimokangmaglabang-labang but the other station is a mere
designation it does not not amount to appointment pareharanasaatong
presiding judge, kuwangan man og judge, that is what we called pairing
judge. So for example you are a judge of branch 55, ang branch 56 wala
pay judge kaypananglitnamatay so dunayduhaka judge ana mag pair to
help that branch and that is just a designation, an added responsibility
that is not appointment. In this case, gi designate siyasapikas but
somebody already filled that position in a permanent capacity what he
is saying is "I should be the one to be there forgetting that he was
merely designated.
Even if there is evidence one possesses a better qualification than the other
Lapinid v CSC
Facts: The CSC replaced Lapinid with Junsay because the comparative evaluation
sheets shows Lapinid got 75 while Junsay got 79.5
Held: Appointment is discretionary on the part of the appointing authority. The
authority of the CSC is limited only to inquire whether the appointee
possesses qualifications required by law. If the appointee does, the CSC has
no other choice but approve the appointment.
C: In the government if you are going to be appointed and you applied for a
particular position, there is what we called PSV(Personal Selection Vote) so mo
apply motanan and e.evaluateinyung credentials, interview, and written exam
then you will be ranked. What if the top 7 possesses da minimum qualifications,
the appointing authority is not constrained to choose the top 1, he is given the
leeway to choose from 1 to 7. So if the appointing authority says, I like number
7, the CSC has no choice but to approve because that is the discretion of the
appointing authority. The CSC is limited only into inquiring whether the choice
of the appointing authority possesses the minimum qualifications and not
because the choice is the first rank among applicants.
QUESTION: Sir, naani allowance sila?

ATTY: normally wala, tagaanlangkag relocation allowance probably.
Issue: Can he challenge the permanent appointment?
Held: No, his designation in an acting capacity merely added his functions. It
does not confer security of tenure. (Sevilla v Santos)
C: Remember Designation is not appointment.
Except: when the appointment is used in its general sense, it includes
designation.
Santiago v COA
Facts: A retiree wanted to base his retirement benefits on a designated position
because the salary is higher.
C: very common kung mo retire naang employee sa government
maninguhagyudnanga ma promote because the basis for the
separation or retirement pay is actually on the last position held
The duration of authority of the CSC terminates after the inquiry.

If the CSC finds the appointee is qualified, it must approve. Otherwise, it
disapproves.
- C: there is no middle ground there.
It becomes functus officio-an officer or agency whose mandate ended because
the date expired and the purpose for which it was created was accomplished.
It mostly refers to lack of authority to rehear a case after it has rendered
judgment, they are "void of office". (Luego v CSC)
Held: The law that sets the highest basic salary rate as basis for computation did
not intend to distinguish between appointment and designation.
C: for purposes only of determining the highest basic salary so you can
compute the retirement benefits
Appointment and designation are separate and distinct.

Sevilla v Santos
Facts:Sevilla was Engineer of one city, but he was also designated Acting City
Engineer of another city. Later however, another was appointed in a
permanent capacity to the position he was designated.
Because it includes the highest salary rate "compensation for

substitutionary services or in an acting capacity".
12

C: this is an exception because designation is not appointment you cannot have
a right arising from it but here for purposes of computing retirement benefits,
the SC said pwedenabecause anyway the law says "compensation for
substitutionary services or in an acting capacity" and that already includes
designation. This is for Humanitarian consideration kungmo retire naang taw,
ayawnalnglisudlisura.
Held: The next-in rank rule specifically applies only to promotions and not to
positions created in the course of a valid reorganization.
C: as a matter of fact even in promotion the next in rank rule is not mandatory,
what we are saying here is, if you are first in rank you are only entitled to be first
considered but not entitled to be promoted right away muralangkagnaay right
of first refusal but in the end its the appointing authority that decides.
QUESTION: sir, if ma designateang judges or kanang e pairing silanaa nay

silasweldo o allowance?
ATTY: I don't know maybe kay added responsibility, I think the supreme court is
gallant in giving allowances
Appointment is not complete if the appointee refuses to accept and assume

the office
Borromeo v Mariano
Next-in-rank rule is discretionary on the part of the appointing authority.

C: so pananglitnaay promotion, kinsa may next in line? Ikaw, ikaduha, ikatulo? Is
that mandatory?
Facts: A judge of one judicial district was appointed to another judicial district
but he refused. Despite his refusal, another was appointed in his original
district.
Santiago Jr. v CSC

Facts: The Customs Collector I was promoted as Customs Collector III. The
Customs Collector II protested on the ground that he was the person next-inrank.
Held: It is not mandatory that the person next-in-rank is entitled to promotion,
it only means he is the first to be considered.
Held: Appointment is the sole act of the appointing authority while acceptance
is the sole act of the appointee. Without acceptance in the form of
assumption, the appointment is not complete.
C: because if you don't assume office 30days after the issuance of
the appointment, you are back to zero in government. So for
example you are appointed as presiding judge and you didn't assume
office after 30days then you will have to apply again, back to
zero.Balikkasa judicial and bar council and that takes a lot of time
and the process is very tedious. So parehasranatanansa government
employees nga appointive you must assume office within 30 days
from issuance of appointment because it is part and parcel of
appointment. Appointment and acceptance in the form of
assumption to office.
C: So again it goes to the appointing authority. So if you are next in rank it does
not mean that you have a vested right for you to be promoted, you will just
be first to be considered but without the graces of the appointing authority,
sorry nalang. For as long as the person to be promoted, not necessarily the
person next in rank, possesses the minimum qualifications that promotion
can be validated and accepted.
Next-in-rank rule applies only to promotions.
Panis v CSC
Facts: The positions of permanent public health workers were abolished and
new positions were created. Pursuant to the next-in-rank rule, they insist
appointment to the available positions after the reorganization, not the new
applicants.
C: so here nag reorganize, nag abolish then nag himoogbag.o.
Preventive suspension does not require prior notice and hearing because it is
not a penalty.
C: You cannot cry lack of due process, you cannot say I was unseated
unceremoniously because it is not a penalty in the first place that is just
a first step towards investigation. The purpose there is only to preserve
the sanctity of evidence that might be tinkered if you continue in office
or you might influence the others in so far as the integrity of the
evidence against you is concerned that why there is preventive
13

suspension without notice, mukalitra nag abot as long as there is a
pending case against you.
PART II
POWERS, DUTIES, PRIVILEGES & PROHIBITIONS
Carabeo v Court of Appeals

Facts: An OIC Treasurer was charged with unexplained wealth which was not
declared in his SALN by reason of which he was placed under preventive
suspension without prior notice and hearing.
Held: Prior notice and hearing are not required in preventive suspension
because it is not a penalty but a mere preliminary step in investigation.
Source of Power
START OF ORAL RECITATIONS:

February 20, 2016
Article II, 1987 Constitution

Declaration of principles and state policies
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them.
Scope of authority includes all powers necessary for the effective exercise of
express powers pursuant to the doctrine of necessary implication
Lo Cham v. Ocampo, Canape v Jugo& People v Dinglasan
Facts: A lawyer of the DOJ detailed by the justice secretary to assist the city
fiscal with the same powers and functions of an assistant city fiscal
investigated, signed and filed information sheets. The respondents moved to
quash on the ground of lack of authority.
Abas Kida v Senate case:

C: What happened there was the election of the ARMM was on August and then
there is a law that synchronizes this with the election on May. There has to be
another set of officers but because this was moved from august to may, there
are 6 months there. The term ends on November. The Constitution provides the
term of office of the term of office for local elective officials. So Congress cannot
extend the term of office of these officials. They cannot do this by mere
legislation. If they want to change, then they should amend the Constitution not
by mere legislation. So what happens now from December to June, who takes
care of the ARMM? Because they have to step down on November. There is
going to be an appointment by the President. The basis for this law is in the
Constitution. It is inherent in the power of the President the power to appoint.
It is the Officers in charge appointed by the President that takes care of them.
But this is not applicable to barangay officials. The term of office of barangay
officials is not found in the Constitution but only in special laws. Thus this can be
set by mere legislation and may be amended.
Held: The power to investigate, file and prosecute criminal cases is inherent in
the right to assist. The duties of a public office includes:
1.
2.
3.
All those which truly lie within its scope

Essential to accomplish the main purpose of the office
Relevant to accomplish the main purpose even if they are merely
incidental and collateral
If the law does not prohibit specific acts, all related acts may be performed
pursuant to the doctrine of necessary implication.
C: Before he investigated or signed the documents his authority in the first place
was from the Medico legal. He was only detailed, nangayulangugtabangang DOJ
to assist them. And so the defense counsel somehow spotted the loophole
because they questioned his authority because he was not part of the
prosecution. So they moved to quash the information. The problem here was
whether or not the authority to assist includes the authority to sign the
information.
Pananglit, if the law now resets the election. Does it follow that their
term of office is extended? This law cannot be silent but should expressly
provide that in effect if the election is reset, the term of office is effectively
extended. This should be expressly provided.
14

What is the basis that his authority was implied? It is the Doctrine of Necessary
Implication. It need not to be stated because it includes those incidental and
collateral matters. In other words, it need not to be too specific. In day to day
term this refers to common sense.
Can you use mandamus to compel the mayor to decide? Yes you can. But what
is not allowed is to dictate the mayor how to decide because If this is so,
certiorari. Certiorari tells you to decide this way.
Except: where there is
1.
Grave abuse of discretion
2.
Manifest injustice
3.
Palpable excess of authority equivalent to denial of settled rights
4.
When there is no other plain, adequate or speedy remedy
If there is express prohibition then you cannot apply now the doctrine of
necessary implication.
Kinds of Authority
1.
Discretionary - one where the law imposes a duty upon a public officer
and gives him the right to decide how and when the duty shall be
performed. Discretion is a faculty conferred upon a court or other
official by which he may decide the question either way and still be
right. (Asuncion v De Yriarte)
2. Ministerial one where its discharge by the officer concerned is
imperative and requires neither judgement nor discretion on his part.
(Lamb v Phipps)
C: But then again caveat no! This does not mean abikay
ministerial it is a no brainer. It doesnt mean mag
piyongnalangka.
A discretionary act cannot be compelled by mandamus
Aprueba v Ganzon
Facts: A stall was ordered closed by the mayor due to violations and arrears. The
stall owner paid the arrears and complied with conditions but the mayor still
refused to re-open.
Held: The mayor cannot be compelled because the grant of business licenses is
a discretionary act on his part in the exercise of police power and for reasons
of public policy and sound public administration.
First Philippine Holdings v SB

Facts: A civil case between the PCGG and spouse Romualdez and their dummies
to recover shares of stock is pending with the SB. A company intervened,
claiming ownership of the shares. But the intervention was denied because it
will unduly delay the case, among others.
Held: The grant of intervention is discretionary act of the court that cannot be
compelled by mandamus. But since the company established legal interest in
the matter at litigation, the denial of intervention based on flimsy grounds
amount to grave abuse of discretion. As such, mandamus lies against the
discretionary act of granting or denying the motion to intervene.
C:It was within the discretion of the mayor. But then again we know the real
reason why the mayor was gigilnagigilit was because this people did not vote
for the mayor. You cannot fight the capitol. The mayor can always invoke public
policy.
The general rule is a discretionary act cannot be compelled by mandamus. The

exceptions are: (refer above)
C: So they wanted to intervene in the case. But the SB did not allow. So WON to
grant the intervention, it is discretionary on the part of the SB. But this
discretion should not be gravely abused.
What was the reason why the SC said the SB gravely abused? Their reason is
very flimsy because they said it will unduly delay the case. Karonpaka?Daghanna
clogged dockets. So for you to refuse the intervention, this is very flimsy. You
exceeded your authority.
Right to office
The right to office of an incumbent does not depend on any contract.
It creates no contractual relation between the holder and the public.
It exists by virtue of some law.
It generally entitles the holder to compensation.
Here the SC said it cannot be compelled by mandamus. So here the alternative

should be specific performance and not mandamus.
15

Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving
such increase.
C: Take note that even if we say it is not a contract, there are certain employees
who are called contractual employees. But take note that the civil service
already said that, job order, contractual, casual employees are without
employer-employee relationship with the government.
C: Because otherwise it will be self-serving. You cannot legislate just for your
own benefit. It must take effect only after the end of term of office of all those
who passed the law increasing their salaries.
Right to Compensation
Salary
Personal compensation provided to be paid to him for his services,
and it is generally a fixed annual or periodic payment depending on
the time and not on the amount of services he may render.
Prohibition against self-serving approval

Article VII, Section 6, 1987 Constitution
The President shall have an official residence. The salaries of the
President and Vice-President shall be determined by law and shall not
be decreased during their tenure. No increase in said compensation
shall take effect until after the expiration of the term of the
incumbent during which such increase was approved. They shall not
receive during their tenure any other emolument from the
Government or any other source.
Salary vs. Wages

Salary is given to officers of higher degree of employment than
those to whom wages are given.
C:Exactly the reason why your Labor Code always talks about
wages and not salaries. Because salaries is more appreciated
with person occupying higher positions.
Salary is interchangeably used with compensation.
C: It is the President who approves the bill increasing salaries. A bill does not
become a law without the signature of the president except for certain
circumstances. So even if Congress, for example, enacts a law, increasing the
salary of the president, it goes to the president now. The president cannot
approve that IF it takes effect during his/her term of office. Take note, the
president can still approve provided, it will take effect after he has already left
the term. Otherwise, it will be self-serving.
How to establish right to compensation

The officer must show that he is the officer de jure either by:
Lawful Appointment
Election
Qualification
C:Without any of these three, you are not entitled to compensation.
Prohibition against violation of independence of the Judiciary

Article VIII, Section 10, 1987 Constitution
The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law.
During the continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.
The general rule is during incumbency, the de facto officer is entitled to the
emoluments attached to the office even if he or she occupies the office in bad
faith.
C: So example if judges stay in office for 20 or 30 years, there cannot be an

instance wherein their salary can be decreased by legislation. But the legislation
can increase. There can be no decrease because it will impair the independence
of the judiciary. Because for example, what if there is a case presided by the
Supreme Court and it somehow adversely affects some members of Congress,
and now theyre saying, Supreme Court ha, di ka mu ilaogmga Congressman!,
pa ubsannatoinyong salary. So it can be retaliatory.
Constitutional prohibition on salaries

Prohibition against self-serving legislation
Article VI Section 10, 1987 Constitution
The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives
shall be determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall
take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the
16

Presidential Immunity
Take note, it says during the continuance in office, because were not talking
about a fixed term of office. As opposed to those who are members of the
Congress and the President. Basta judiciary, continuance.The moment you are
appointed until the time it expires there cannot be an instance where your
salary can be decreased by legislation.
The privilege may be invoked or waived by the president only.

Soliven v Makasiar, Beltran v Makasiar
Facts: Cory Aquino filed a criminal case for libel against Beltran who wrote
she hid under her bed at the height of the coup detat. Beltran argued she
cannot file a criminal case during her incumbency because presidential
immunity from suit includes disability to sue.
Held: Privilege of immunity from suit pertains to the president alone by
virtue of the office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office and
not any other person in his or her behalf.
Independence of the Constitutional Commissions

Article IX-A, Section 3, 1987 Constitution
The salary of the Chair and the Commissioners of the Constitutional
Commissions shall be fixed by law and shall not be decreased during
their tenure.
C: The Presidential immunity from suit safeguards the president from attending
court hearings everyday. While he/she is in office, he/she should not be
distracted with court cases. The president should have 100% devotion to the
office. The president can lose the immunity by suing. If the president sues, she
opens herself to the possibility that there can be a countersuit. So if the
president wants to go to court by all means. Also when the president steps
down, he/she has already lost the immunity, like what happened to GMA,
several cases were filed against her the moment she stepped out of
Malacaang.
C: It is to preserve their independence because otherwise, for example

saComelec, dunay ruling angComelec disqualifying a senator, but in the
Supreme Court the senator was upheld and so the senator stayed in office and
now wanted to get back at Comelec. So hes gonna say, okayComelec, pa
mub.an natoinyongsweldo. That will violate the independence of the Comelec.
Aside from these provisions, the other guaranty there insofar as money is
concerned to preserve the independence of the Judiciary and the Constitutional
Commissions is fiscal autonomy. They enjoy fiscal autonomy.
By the way, we said that the president loses the immunity after he steps out of
office, it can not only refer to the end of term but it can be prior to term if there
was impeachment, resignation or death. Death extinguishes personal liability.
Backwages are awarded for the period of suspension or dismissal if it is (1)

UNJUSTIFIED and the employee is found (2) INNOCENT of the charge
CSC v Cruz
Facts: Employee was suspended and dismissed for grave misconduct and
dishonesty. But he was found innocent of the charges. The finding of
dishonesty was downgraded to violation of reasonable office rule for failure
to record attendance which is punishable by reprimand only.
Held: The 2 conditions for award of back wages are met. One, innocence. Two,
suspension or dismissal is unjustified.
In this case, Beltran cannot invoke the privilege because it is a privilege personal
to the president.
Doctrine of Official Immunity
Error in good faith is covered by official immunity
Farolan v Solmac
Facts: Imported film scrap was found to be an oriented fiber which importation
is prohibited. Customs officialswitheld release, pending advice from the BOI
which took years before it allowed release. One of them was sued for
damages because the delay cost the importer business losses.
C: The failure to log in log out is just a minor infraction of a simple office
procedure which warrants only reprimand. Sometimes it is called censure.
Censure langdapat Not dismissal. Because the dismissal was based on
innocence, necessarily it follows that the dismissal was unjustified so the 2
elements were satisfied.
17

Held: The official is not personally liable because he acted in good faith. Even if
he erred, he is not liable because the damage did not result in injury to the
importer.
error in the interpretation of the ordinance was only an honest mistake and
there was no showing that there was bad faith.
What if the mayor and the treasurer was a lawyer? They can still actually invoke
the defense of honest mistake. Even lower court judges can commit mistake and
overturn their decisions but they are not held liable because honest mistake in
the interpretation of the law.
C: The question here is, is a public officer in the performance of his official
function personally liable in case of damage or injury to a third person? Take
note that Farolan first sought the advice of the BOI. He wrote to them. But it
took years for them to reply. And what is worst is,it issued a very belated
opinion nyaconflicting pa gyud. Aside from this, what prompted him to seek the
opinion of the BOI was an expert finding from the National Institute for Science
and Technology.
But if you think about it.Diba at least the treasurer and mayor could have asked
the council if the ordinance was mandatory or optional.
So the bottom line here is that even if there is mistake, the official can be spared
from liability provided there is good faith. Mao rajudnahinumdumi.
The Supreme Court said that there was error on the part of Farolan because he
restricted the release of the plastic materials but even if he committed a
mistake, he was not personally liable because it was in good faith. Remember
good faith is a state of mind. So how did the SC measure his good faith? By the
actions. What were the actions of Farolan that he was in good faith? Because he
first sought the advice of the BOI and he relied on the expert opinion.
Leave of Absence
Right to vacation leave
At least 6 months continuous, faithful and satisfactory leave of absence
with full pay, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
For each calendar year of service (Revised Administrative Code, as
amended)
Honest mistake in the interpretation of ordinance is covered by immunity

Tuzon v CA
Facts: An ordinance authorized the treasurer to as thresher operators who apply
to permit to donate 1% of all threshed palay. Thus, he prepared an
agreement. The operator who did not sign was refused payment of license fee
and renewal of permit. It turned out however that the 1% is optional.
Held: They acted within their authority pursuant to their honest interpretation
of the ordinance. The error does not amount to bad faith hence they are not
liable for damages.
Right to sick leave in addition to vacation leave

At least 6 months continuous, faithful and satisfactory service
Entitles the employee to 15 days sick leave of absence with full pay,
exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
For each calendar year of service.
On account of sickness of the employee or any member of his
immediate family.
C: The benefit extends to the family. But the immediate
member of the family does not earn the credits. But if youre
the employee and youre constrained to take care of asick
member of the family, you can avail of the leave even if youre
not the one whos sick.
C: In this case there was a requirement to sign a contract. He was denied the
mayors permit. Later on it turned out that it was optional and not mandatory.
Because of the refusal of the issuance of the permit, the businessman incurred
business losses because he was not able to operate. And now because of this,
he is asking now the court to make the municipal treasurer liable. Again the SC
said the treasurer and mayor was only acting in their official capacity and the
Retirement Pay
18

compensated. The SC said the public officers were not liable because they acted
in their official capacity and in the honest belief that they had the power to act
on the matter. Because they rushed to the scene right away and decided.
Pensions regular allowances paid to the retiree in consideration of

services rendered or in recognition of merit, civil, or military
Gratuity- a donation, an act of pure liberality of the State
Pension is an act of justice while gratuity is an act of generosity.
They did not have the power to decide but only the power to supervise. But
because they acted in good faith they are not liable.
Construction of retirement laws
How did the SC prove their good faith? Because of the on the spot investigation.
Thus they are not personally liable because of the doctrine of official immunity.
Held: The law that sets the highest basic salary rate as basis for computation did
not intend to distinguish between appointment and designation. Because it
includes the highest salary rate compensation for substitutionary services or
in an acting capacity. Retirement laws should be liberally construed in favor
of the retiree because they are intended to provide sustenance for the
retiree, and even comfort, when no longer has the stamina to continue
earning his livelihood. (Santiago v. COA)
ORAL RECITATIONS:
February 27, 2016
Presumption of good faith and regularity is overcome by clear and convincing

evidence to the contrary. Bad faith results in personal civil liability for
damages.
Prohibitions for and against public officers
Article IX-B, 1987 Constitution, Section 2(3)

No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or
suspended except for causes provided by law.
Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall
receive additional, double or indirect compensation, unless specifically
authorized by law, nor accept without the consent of the Congress, any
present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign
government. Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered additional,
double, or indirect compensation.
SAN LUIS V CA, G.R. NO. 80160, JUNE 26, 1989

Facts: A governor suspended and dismissed a quarry superintendent in defiance
of the order of the CSC and the office of the President to revert and reinstate.
The superintendent was exonerated of the charges.
Held: The governor acted in bad faith. As such, he is personally liable for
damages in the nature of civil liability
C: The SC said that the governor was in bad faith, first, in suspending the quarry
superintendent and eventually in terminating him. Bad faith is a state of mind. It
is only inside the mind of a person. The one single act that shows us that he is in
bad faith is his defiance. That is where bad faith is. There was a lawful order
from the higher authority. You have no choice but to enforce the order. What
he did was he did not follow the order or otherwise stated HE DEFIED THE
ORDER, patently defy the order.
PART III
LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Phil Racing Club v Bonifacio Case:
But always remember that the general rule is that there is presumption of good
faith and regularity insofar as the acts of public officer is concerned in the
performance of his official functions. Again, because there is that presumption,
the only way to overcome that presumption is if theres a clear and convincing
C: There was a faulty start and the race was nullified but the winners were
already proclaimed. So the losers were reimbursed. Because of that the
petitioners (the PH Racing Club) filed a case alleging that because of the
judgement of the commission they suffered business losses and they want to be
19

evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, if it you do not present that quantum of
proof, the presumption stays. He can only be held personally liable if he acts in
bad faith. And we all know that bad faith is a state of mind. It can only be
inferred from the acts of public officer.
custody of the inmates under his custody. Thats the most important part there.
HE CANNOT COMMIT THE OFFENSE HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE NATURE OF HIS
PUBLIC OFFICE.
We said that public officers are presumed with good faith and regularity in the
performance of their functions. But the presumption is not absolute because it
can be contradicted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. To
overcome the presumption, clear and convincing evidence to the contrary must
be presented.
Test to determine if offense is committed in relation to office

CRISOSTOMO V. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 152389, APRIL 14, 2005
Facts: Crisostomo is a jail guard charged with murder of a detainee under his
custody before the Sandiganbayan.
He argues lack of jurisdiction because there is no direct relation between
the commission of murder and his public office.
Held: The direct relation is shown in his duty as a jail guard which is to ensure
safe custody and proper confinement of a detainee who was murdered under
his watch.
The presumption is however not absolute
C: In this case, there is confusion whether or not to specifically allege the fact
that the crime was committed in relation to the public office. How did the SC
reconcile these differences? Somehow, the SC there said that regardless of
whether or not the information alleges that it was committed in relation to his
public office, the SC somehow delegated the duty to the trial court to determine
if there is actually a crime committed in relation to public office, and if it found
that it was, the case should be transferred to the Sandiganbayan as if it were
originally filed in the Sandiganbayan. And if the crime was not in connection
with public office, the trial court will proceed to hear the case.
Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that the
presumption that official duty has been regularly performed is
satisfactory if un-contradicted and overcome by other evidence. The
presumption, however, is not absolute. (Eulogio v Sps. Apeles)
It may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary
To overcome this presumption, clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary must be presented (BPI v Sps Evangelista)
The presumption of regularity may only be rebutted by evidence so
clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy.
Absent such, the presumption must be upheld.
The burden of proof to overcome the presumption lies on the one
contesting the same. (Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc)
B. KINDS OF LIABILITY
Remember that the information is essential in every criminal prosecution

because if the information is defective, eventually, it will be dismissed. It will be
decided in favor of the accused because the information is that one document
that apprises the accused of the nature and extent of the accusation against
him.
Nonfeasance neglect or refusal, without sufficient cause, to perform an act

which it was the officer`s legal obligation to the individual to perform. This is
omission of duty.
Take note that somehow it talks about the ministerial duty
Misfeasance or negligence, failure to use, in the performance of a duty owing
to the individual, that degree of care, skill and diligence which the circumstances
of the case reasonably demand. This is improper act.
It talks about the discretionary part.
In this case, insofar as the information is concerned, it was sufficient to establish

the fact that it was committed in relation to public office. Because he is a jailer.
When you say a jailer, he is actually tasked with the duty to ensure the safe
20

Malfeasance acts without any authority, excess, ignorance or abuse of power.

This is illegal act.
Absence of essential elements of the crime charged does not bar

administrative liability pursuant to the three-fold liability rule.
Public office need not be an element of the crime charged to show they are
related
DOMINGO V. RAYALA, G.R. NO. 1155831, FEBRUARY 18, 2008

Facts: A stenographic reporter charged the NLRC Chairman with sexual
harassment.The Chairman argued the acts complained of do not constitute
sexual harassment because the essential elements of demand for sexual favor
and made as a pre-condition to employment or promotion were not alleged.
HELD: Correct, if it is a criminal case.Even if none of the elements of sexual
harassment is alleged, he is still administratively liable because under the 3fold liability rule, the wrongful acts of a public officer may also give rise to
administrative liability, apart from criminal and civil liability.
It is not required that the demand, request or requirement of a sexual
favor be made categorically.
It is enough if it creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.
ESTEBAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 146646-69, MARCH 11, 2005

Facts:A bookbinder charged a judge with acts of lasciviousness after he made
sexual advances and innuendos on her when she sought his recommendation.
The judge argues the acts of lasciviousness were it not committed in relation to
his office as a judge, and it is not an essential element of the crime.
Held:True, public office is not an element but still, he could not have committed
it were it not for his power to recommend appointment.
C: In this case, the main defense of the Judge which is a very good defense is
that public office is not an element of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. And
since the Sandiganbayan can hear and decide cases involving public officers so
nindutkaauiyang argument. But the SC said that his acts were in relation to his
office because in the first place under the Supreme Court Circular he was under
the duty to sign the application. So in effect, his acts were in relation to his duty
as a judge because of the Circular. Had there been no power of the Judge to
recommend the appointment, Ana May would not be able to approach him in
the first place. So thats actually the reason why the SC said that public office
need not be an element of the crime because here the only thing that we need
to do is establish the connection. The connection there is established because of
his power to recommend the appointment. Without that power to recommend,
Ana May would not have approached him in the first place.
C:Here, according to the NLRC Chair, he cannot be prosecuted for sexual

harassment because he did not verbalize. He did not actually verbalize the
request for sexual favor in exchange for continued employment. Now, the SC
there somehow agreed with the NLRC Chair that his defense, that he did not
verbalize, somehow holds water. Murag ok, probably you have a point there
that you did not actually verbalize the request for sexual favor. But the SC there
made a distinction between criminal and administrative liability. The SC said
that defense might be available if it was a criminal case but this is an
administrative case. So that is not available as a defense. The SC said there that
that could be available as a defense if it were a criminal case but not if it is an
administrative case.
C. THREE-FOLD LIABILITY RULE
They are separate and distinct from each other.
Now, Ill give you an example, this is not part of the case. What if Im a public
officer, Im always late, 5 times a week. Does that amount to criminal liability or
administrative liability? Administrative liability. So here we say that a single act
might give rise to three-fold liability. But there are times when it is a purely
administrative offense. Im just late, 5 times a week. But what if I am late 5
times a week but in my daily time record, I dont reflect there my actual time-in,
It states that the wrongful acts or omissions of a public officer may give
rise to civil, criminal and administrative liability.
C: Take note ha, may so it is not mandatory that all there.
You can be personally liable, not necessarily.
An action for each can proceed independently of the others. (office of
the court admin v Enriquez)
21

Im putting there that Im always on-time. Does that amount to criminal
liability? Yes, because the daily Time Record/ DTR is a public document. If you
reflect something there that is not true, what is the offense committed? If I lie
about my tardiness, I make it appear that I always on-time in a public document,
that gives rise to falsification which is now a criminal case. So duhana, there is
now administrative liability and criminal liability.
Held: Dismissal of the criminal case does not bar administrative case and
accessory penalties pursuant to the 3-fold liability rule.
C: There was a single act committed by Cataquiz, he was charged for graft and
corruption. It actually arise from a single identical set of facts, the same,
pariharaiyanggibuhat, but it gives rise to criminal and administrative liability
because of the three-fold liability rule. But what happened there was that the
criminal case was dismissed. So because the criminal case was dismissed,
Cataquiz, capitalizing the dismissal now argues that since the criminal case is
dismissed, necessarily, my administrative liability must also be wiped out. The
SC specifically said that the dismissal of the criminal case did not bar the
prosecution of the administrative liability of Cataquiz because again under the
three-fold test, they are different. Even if they arise from the same act.
When I lied about my tardiness, necessarily, I was paid for something that I did
not work for. Like for example, I was late for 1 hour but said I was there the
whole time, so the government paid me 8 hours a day even if I only work for 7
hours. That gives rise to a civil liability because this time I got something that I
did not work for. So I have to reimburse the government. So now, I will be held
liable for all three cases. There is administrative liability Im always late. Diba
what is the purpose of administrative cases? To discipline. Then, I falsified,
thats criminal liability. And I got something I did not work for, I have to
reimburse, thats civil liability.
First, the first premise is this, even if they arise from identical set of facts, the
dismissal in the criminal case does not necessarily dismiss also the
administrative case, unless the dismissal in the criminal case is based on Pure
Innocence. Remember that, thats how you connect the cases. The first premise
is theres a criminal case, dismissed. Does it also dismiss the administrative
liability? Not necessarily, because they are separate and distinct from each
other. Except if the dismissal in the criminal case is based on Pure Innocence.
In that case, THE THREE-FOLD LIABILITY RULE WILL APPLY MANDATORILY. What
Im saying is NOT ALL THE TIME THAT IT GIVES RISE TO CIVIL, CRIMINAL, and
ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITIES.
Dismissal of a criminal case does not bar administrative liability even if both
arise from identical facts because they are separate and distinct from each
other.
Question: As what Ive read in the case, they are separate cases, the criminal
and administrative liability, what if the situation is reversed sir ba. What was
dismissed was the administrative liability where it only requires substantial
evidence?
Answer: So at least kungna dismiss nakasa administrative liability, there is
already hope that the criminal liability will also be dismissed because of the
quantum of proof there. But going back to the principle that they can proceed
independently of each other, still the criminal case will go on, but you are right,
it could be a waste of time. But that waste of time is favorable to you because
eventually you are going to be acquitted. If sa administrative case pa langwala
nay evidence, how much more sa criminal case. Thats a very good point. But
again, they proceed independently of each other.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT V. CATAQUIZ, G.R. NO.183445, SEPT. 14, 2011

Facts: Cataquiz was criminally and administratively charged for graft and
corruption.
He was replaced and later dismissed from service, disqualified to hold
public office and forfeited of retirement benefits.But the criminal case was
dismissed. He argued it constitutes the law of the case. As such, the
administrative case must also be dismissed. He also argued he could no longer
be dismissed because he was dismissed by replacement earlier. As such, the
accessory penalties of disqualification and forfeiture cannot be imposed
pursuant to the principle that the accessory follows the principal.
22

C: By the way, for Administrative cases, the quantum of proof is SUSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE. Onsa may maguwangniya civil case? PREPONDERANCE.Onsa pay
maguwangniya?
CLEAR
AND
CONVINCING
EVIDENCE.Onsa
pa
gyudangmaguwangnila criminal case? PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
But you know what, there is still the eldest one, the highest quantum of proof,
higher than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Have you ever heard about
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE? That is the highest quantum of proof. Because
when you say proof beyond reasonable doubt, what the judge is telling here is
only he has already moral certainty that you committed the crime, meaning
there is still doubt but it is unreasonable doubt because it is beyond reasonable
doubt that convicts you because of moral certainty. When you say
overwhelming evidence, theres no room for doubt, every evidence points to
you as guilty of the crime charged.
Held: The action is misplaced.There is no general immunity arising solely from

occupying a public office. Public officers can be held personally liable for ultra
vires acts or if they act in bad faith.
But to allow a counterclaim against a lawyer leads to mischievous
consequences.Any claim for damages should be filed in an entirely separate
and distinct civil action.The issue is whether it is proper to implead the
lawyer.
C: If you want to really pursue the case, he should file a separate civil case for
damages. Otherwise, if they were to be allowed to implead the lawyer of the
case, it results to mischievous consequences. If that were the case, the
government lawyer, not only will he be afraid, he will also be distracted. The
remedy employed by Enrile was so unprocedural and strange. Do you know that
Enrile was a lawyer and a bar top-notches? So he knows the law. Why do you
think did he do that? For publicity.
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE
General rule: the public officers are immuned from suit provided they are in
good faith and performed with regularity of the function of their office.
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
Exception: ultra vires act coupled with bad faith.
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
Caveat! Although ultra vires, it per se does not amount to bad faith if it was a
result of an honest interpretation. For always, there has to be that bad faith to
make that officer personally liable. So, ultra vires + bad faith.
SUSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
But when the public officer acts as a government lawyer, the action for
damages must be brought in a separate action.
LIABILITY OF SUPERIOR OFFICERS FOR ACTS OF SUBORDINATES

C: General Rule,if you are a head of office, you are allowed to rely on the good
faith and competence of your subordinates. (Arias vsSandiganbayan)
Exemption, when there is no allegation of conspiracy among the superior
andsubordinates, but instead a separate charge for neglect of duty was filed
against the head of office. (Cesavs Ombudsman)
CHAVEZ V. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO.91391, JAN. 24, 1991

Facts:The PCGG, represented by Solicitor General Frank Chavez, filed a
complaint for reconveyance, reversion and accounting, restitution and
damages against Enrile.
Enrile impleaded Chavez in his counter-claim for damages, alleging it is a
mere harassment suit because he was already cleared from a similar case
before.
Liability of officers for acts of subordinates.
23

The signature of the approving officer does not in itself amount to conspiracy
with the subordinates.
If the document/voucher presented to Arias had something - wrong superimposition, snow-flaked or camouflaged, was it not an added reason?It
could be. But the SC, it is not. There may have been superimposition, it may
have been snow-flaked but the price is actually fair and reasonable as it was
consistent with the fair market value of the land. SC recognizes that overtime
the price of the land will increase. From P5, it became P10 in a year time then
P80. So there, even if there was an added reason as to form, since there was an
alteration BUT as to the substance, it should not surprise or alert Arias because
thats the way things are, the prices of real property increases over time. A good
point here, Arias only came to the picture, later. He was not part of the
transaction He was new and in fact, many do not know him.
ARIAS V. SANDIGANBAYAN, 180 SCRA 309

Facts:An auditor approved payment for expropriated land which turned out to
be overpriced and supported by falsified documents. He was charged in
conspiracy with others who examined, reviewed and prepared falsified
documents for the transaction.
rd
C: There was a 3 person who tried to negotiate and fix it. She
kept on followed and there was overpricing (5 per square
meter to 80 per square meter. There was something wrong
with the documents to be signed by Arias as to the price.
There was a superimposition, it was snow flaked
camouflage. As to the supporting documents, they were
tampered - the registration stamp was antedated, the tax
declaration number was typewritten and the land was
classified to residential instead of rice field.
HELD:The mere signature of the head of office who had to rely to a reasonable
extent on the competence and good faith of his subordinates is not an
evidence of conspiracy.
To require the head of office to personally probe records, inspect
documents or investigate the motives of all individuals involved in the
transaction before signing it is asking the impossible.
There has to be some added reason why the head of office should
examine the documents in detail.
Otherwise, he repeats the process all over again, defeating delegation
and division of labor, which are good administrative practices.
Heads of offices rejoiced for they can sign routinarily since they cannot be held
liable because of this Arias Doctrine.
Except: When there is no allegation of conspiracy among the superior and

subordinates.
CESA V. OMBUDSMAN, G.R. NO. 166658, APRIL 30, 2008
Facts: Under a city treasurer are 5 department heads and 370 employees, one
of whom is a paymaster who malversed at least 18m pesos of public
funds.The city mayor filed an administrative case against the paymaster. But
the Ombudsman impleaded city treasurer for neglect of duty.
The city treasurer argues he could not be held liable because he does not
approve cash advances.Invoking the Arias doctrine, he said he had to rely on
his subordinates by virtue of division of labor and delegation of functions.
Held: The city treasurer is still liable for neglect of duty because his lack of
supervision contributed to malversation of public funds.
C: He was not charged in conspiracy with the malversation.
Only neglect of duty that lead to malversation. We are not
saying that he was part and parcel of the crime. But he
contributed, the so-called Contributory Negligence thats why
Badana was able to take out substantial amount of money.
As a matter of fact, he approved paymasters requests based on papers
without particulars.
C:Are you required to review everything as head of office? No, because it will
just be a waste a time. You repeat the process all over again. Nganonagstaff pa
man kana di man diaykamusalig. Imo pa man balikontananilagibuhat. SC said
delegation of power and function and division of labor are sound
administrative practices. In other words, as head of office, you are allowed to
rely on the competence and good faith of those people working under you.
Thats why here, you cannot be held liable in conspiracy with the others if you
are the head office. But the SC said, unless there is an added reason for you to
be prompted.
24

The public officials foreknowledge of facts and circumstances that
suggested an irregularity constitutes an added reason to exercise greater
degree of circumspection before signing and issuing public documents.
C: The unliquidated cash advances; the documents were not
approved paymasters had no particulars.
Arias doctrine does not apply because he was not charged in conspiracy
with the paymaster. He was separately charged and found to be negligent in
his supervisory powers.
C: The Arias Doctrine cannot be applied for he was not charged in conspiracy
with them. He was simply charged with neglect of duty (reasoning of the CA).
The SC affirmed this, not expressly, but only impliedly. At the dispositive
portion, it ruled that the decision is affirmed but modified. The part that was
modified was the Ombudsmans decision of choosing the word recommend as
to its powers, implying that it is only directory. The SC corrected that by saying
that it is mandatory. In this case, it did not modify nor did it touch the issue
where the CA said that it cannot invoke the Arias doctrine for he was not
charged in conspiracy with the others.
PART IV
TERMINATION OF RELATIONS
Reconciliation with Arias doctrine. 2 possible answers:
Yes, that is valid, you can argue that way BUT if you think of the cases
of Arias and Cesa, it would appear that there really has to be
conspiracy. You can argue that way also. Like I said there are thousand
ways to kill a cat.
Actually the part on foreknowledge (prior knowledge) of facts and
circumstances that should have alerted him to think twice before
signing and issuing a document was tolled on the case of Alfonso v
Office of the President. In this case, it was not clear whether or not
there was to conspiracy for administrative case anggihisgutan ha but
there was a criminal. Somehow there was a conspiracy, it is about a
Registrar of Deeds in conspiracy with Deputy Registrar when they
issued 2 titles out of the same parcel of land. So somehow there was a
conspiracy but you cannot say conspiracy in an administrative case, it
pertains to criminal case.
So that is acceptable, can be used as an argument by just relying on
your subordinates. That is not Arias doctrine but you just take it out of
context of the Arias Doctrine.
He was not charged in conspiracy with others.

He had no foreknowledge (prior knowledge) of facts and circumstances
that should have alerted him to think twice before signing and issuing a
document. This was tolled on the case of Alfonso v Office of the
President. In this case, it was not clear whether or not there was to
conspiracy for administrative case anggihisgutan ha but there was a
criminal. Somehow there was a conspiracy, it is about a Registrar of
Deeds in conspiracy with Deputy Registrar when they issued 2 titles out
of the same parcel of land. So somehow there was a conspiracy but you
cannot say conspiracy in an administrative case, it pertains to criminal
case
MODES OF TERMINATION OF RELATIONS

End of term
Retirement
Abolition of office
Reorganization
Abandonment
Incompatible office
Resignation
Removal
Recall
Prescription
Failure to assume office
Q:Sir isnt that Arias Doctrine is about the fact that you can rely on your
subordinates so that you cannot be charged?
25

End of term
Fernandez v Ledesma
Facts: The chief of police was replaced by the president with another pursuant
to the city charter that allows him to remove appointed officers in the city at
his pleasure or discretion, except the municipal judge who may be removed
only for cause provided by law.
Held: If the creation and tenure of office is expressly made dependent upon the
pleasure of the appointing authority, the appointment has no fixed term.
As such, replacement does not amount to removal but expiration of term.
secretaries/assistants. So pwedenasila even if they

are related to each other because they are primarily
confidential. Then, policy determining, we have
cabinet secretaries as example. They determine the
policy for the direction of the administration. And
when you say highly technical positions, these are
actually experts in their field and if you occupy these
positions you are exempted from the merit and
fitness system of the civil service commission. You are
not required to be a civil service eligible for that
matter. For as long as the president picks you, that is
alright because that is exempted from the
requirement.
Held: The position is not primarily confidential. The only authority to classify it
as such is the President. The constitution merely exempts these positions
from the civil service requirement that appointments must be made on the
basis of merit and fitness as determined by competitive examinations.
As such, they can only be suspended or removed for cause as m may be
provided by law. And that cause is loss of confidence. If they are terminated
on ground of loss of confidence, it is not removal but expiration of the term of
office.
C: Never mind the facts because they arent applicable anymore. Just remember
the principle here that says if youre appointed to serve at the pleasure of the
appointing authority, and that appointing authority says I dont like you
anymore, I have lost trust and confidence in you, that is not termination, much
less illegal termination, but that is end of term. Because your term of office
depends upon the pleasure of the appointing authority. So if the appointing
authority says youre fired, youre not actually terminated, youre term of office
has just ended.
So kungimolangtan.awn, kanangmga cabinet secretaries they actually serve at
the pleasure of the president. So if this president says, I dont like this secretary,
hes not performing. Fired! He has no choice but to accept it. But did we not say
that in law, you cannot be suspended or removed without cause as may be
provided by law? There is a cause. And the cause is loss of trust and confidence.
And you cannot argue that.
C: The principle of law involved here is very clear. If you serve at the pleasure of
the appointing authority, your term of office depends upon the pleasure of the
appointing authority. If you are terminated because of loss of trust and
confidence, you dont call that termination but end of term of office.
Hernandez v Villegas
Facts: The Director for Security of the Bureau of Customs was removed and
transferred as Arrastre Superintendent without cause. Respondents argued
that the transfer is allowed because the position is primarily confidential as it
coordinates functions of security, patrol and investigation.
Primarily confidential policy determining and highly technical positions
are excluded from the merit system and their dismissal is at the pleasure of
the appointing authority. Thus, the Director can be removed and transferred
with or without cause.
C:Primarily confidential, these are actually employees
nga more or less relatives of the appointing authority.
Like kanimgapolitoko they have confidential
Retirement
Beronilla v GSIS
Facts: Beronilla changed his year of birth from 1898 to 1900 which was
approved by the GSIS general manager.Thus, the proceeds of his insurance
policy was re-computed, maturity date and value were adjusted. He also paid
additional premium.But later it was found out that he had been paid salaries
and fringe benefits despite lapse of his compulsory retirement age.
Thus, the GSIS Board of Trustees resolved to supersede the decision of
the general manager that allowed change of year of birth.
Contention of Beronilla: He argued it impaired the obligation of contract
between him and the GSIS regarding his retirement.
26

Held: The constitutional injunction against impairment of obligations of
insurance contracts can only be directed against legislation and not
resolutions of government agencies.
Retirement of government employees is imposed by law and is not a
result of any contractual stipulation.
Held: Removal presupposes that the officer was ousted from office prior to term
end and that the office still exists after the ouster of the occupant. It is not the
case in point.
A law expressly abolished the Placement Bureau. Thus, the Office of the
Director is impliedly abolished because it cannot exist without the Bureau.The
abolition of the office likewise abolished the right of the occupant to
stay.There is no removal, but abolition by express legislative act.
C: What happened in this case is, theres an employer, retirable. When you
reach the mandatory age of 65, you have no choice but to retire government
service. Now what happened, he wanted to change his year of birth from 1898
to 1900 to make it appear that hes good for 2 more years. Mura siyagnanaginot
bah.Gusto pa siya mu work for 2 more years. And he so he presented the body
of evidence, showing to the general manager of GSIS that hes still good for 2
more years. GSIS manager granted the change of the birth year. But upon audit,
it was found out that Beronilla has already exceeded the mandatory retirement
age. And so, it now reported to the Board of Trustees to the GSIS that the guy
must be retired. And so the Board of Trustees, based on the audit investigation
resolved, superseded the decision of the general manager to extend 2 more
years. And now Beronilla, the retiree is now saying that he cannot do that
because, number one, I have a Constitutional right against impairment of
obligations and contracts. And the retirement benefit that I will earn from
government is a contractual stipulation, you cannot touch that. But the SC there
said that retirements benefits are not granted by contractual stipulation but by
express legislative action. As such, the prohibition against impairment of
obligation and contracts is not available as a remedy.
C: This is actually a case of friendship and betrayal. What happened here is this.
Manalang and Quitoriano are friends. Quitoriano somehow assured Manalang
that hes going to be appointed once the office is abolished and another is
placed. But here, Quitoriano was the one appointed. The one who promised the
position was the one appointed. And so Manalang says that my office was not
abolished because it merely faded away. But he SC there said that it cannot be
fading away because there was an express legislative action abolishing the
office.
In this case, when you say remove, the occupant is removed but the office
remains. There was no removal to speak of because there was no office to speak
of. This is actually an abolition of office resulting in termination because the first
thing that resulted the termination is the abolition of office. And by express
legislative action, you have no choice but to abide. Whats so painful is it was
Manalang himself who drafted the law himself abolishing his office resulting in
his termination.
Abolition of office
Manalang v Quitoriano
Facts: The Placement Bureau was expressly abolished by law organizing its
replacement, the National Employment Service.Manalang, the Bureau
Director was expected to be appointed Commissioner but labor secretary
Quitoriano was appointed.
Manalang argued there is no abolition of office but mere fading away of
the title Placement Bureau. And all its functions are continued by the National
Employment Service.Hence, he continues to occupy it by operation of law. As
such, the appointment of Quintoriano is illegal because it amounted to his
removal from office without cause.
If there is no evidence of bad faith in the abolition of office, the termination

does not result in removal, but a result of abolition
Facundo v Carbonell&Ulep v. Carbonell
Facts: Facundo is an eligible market collector while Ulep is a non-eligible
clerk.The municipal council resolved to abolish their positions because they
are unnecessary, useless and redundant.But on the same day, another
resolution was passed creating 4 positions for policemen.They argued the
resolution abolishing their offices illegally terminated them.
Held: While it appears the abolition is tainted with politics, the positions created
by one resolution are entirely different from the positions abolished by
another resolution.
27

Thus, there is no evidence of bad faith.Ulep could not invoke his right
against removal without cause because he was not removed, but his office
was abolished.Thus, it does not matter whether he is civil service eligible,
non-civil service eligible, or eligible-in-waiting.
agency, all employees under the office of the governor, must be loyal to the
governor. So thats where nadakpansiyana politically motivated. You just want
to get rid of civil service employees with people of your choice.
Abolition of office presupposes clear intention to do away with it wholly and
permanently
C: In this case, it could have been abolition in bad faith IF the other positions
created performed substantially the same functions as those that were
abolished. But when they are entirely separate from each other, the SC said it is
not prepared to declare that it is bad faith. Bad faith is a state of mind, it can
only be gauged by the concrete actions of the public officers. In this case,
klaromanjud that it was politically motivated because they did not support the
mayor there. But whats the evidence? Nothing, its mere speculation.
Busacay v Buenaventura
Facts: A toll collector was laid off when the bridge was totally destroyed by
flood.When it reopened, he was replaced because accordingly, his position is
temporary and the total collapse of the bridge abolished it.
Held: The total collapse of the bridge merely suspended the position, because
there is no intention to do away with it wholly and permanently. When it
reopened, the position was automatically restored.
Abolition of office in bad faith is null and void hence it results in unlawful
termination
Reorganization
Dario v Mison
Facts: Cory Aquino reorganized the Bureau of Customs. Thus, Mison terminated
394 customs officials and employees but replaced them with 522 new
employees.
Held: Reorganization is valid if done in good faith. There is reorganization if
personnel is reduced, offices consolidated or abolished by reason of economy
or redundancy.
No economy, 394 were replaced with 522 new employees. No
reorganization, but mere change of personnel.
Cruz v Primicias
Facts: Cruz and others are civil service eligible provincial clerks.By virtue of
authority from the provincial board, the governor issued an executive order
reorganizing his office and the provincial board to promote economy,
efficiency and simplicity.It abolished the positions of clerks but created
positions for governors confidential staff.
Held: The issue is not removal but the validity of their offices.Is it null because it
clearly serves personal or political ends or to circumvent security of tenure.
No economy. Of the 72 positions abolished, 50 were vacant and the 22
occupied positions were paid P25,000 per semester.Whereas the 28 new
positions were paid P43,000 per semester.There is no need for more
efficiency because there is no complaint for inefficiency filed. As a matter of
fact, they were all promoted before due to efficiency.
C: take note when you say reorganization it always presupposes, number one,
reduction of personnel. Then consolidation or abolition of office.Because
reorganization is aimed at efficiency and redundancy.
C: Again, their reason was to economize, to make it more efficient but makita
man nimosaebidensya, theres no economy. Imonggipulihanog mas
dagkoogsweldo, og mas daghannamga taw. And efficiency? How come theres
an issue on efficiency when all these people youre removing actually were
promoted before because of efficiency. And now youre saying youre looking
for someone else more efficient? Okay what happened there was, nakit.an
judang political motivation sa governor because, saiyang pleadings he described
the office of the governor as a political agency. And as such, being a political
Qualifications are continuing requirements

Section 11, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution
The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower court shall
hold office during good behaviour until they reach the age of seventy
years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office.
The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of
lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of majority of the
28

Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in

the case voted thereon.
Replacement of 394 eligible employees with 522 new

employees negates economy as justification for
reorganization. (Dario v Mison)
Replacement of 22 occupied position at P25,000 per semester
with 28 new positions at P43,000 per semester negates
economy as justification for reorganization. (Cruz v Primicias)
B) An office is abolished and replaced with another performing
substantially the same functions;
The office of a market collector and civil registrar clerk were
dissolved and replaced with 4 positions for policemen.
It appeared that the market collector and local civil registrar
clerk were removed via abolition of their offices because of
their political affiliation.
Although the reorganization is tainted with politics, the
Supreme Court was not prepared to declare it an abuse of
power because the dissolved positions and the newly created
positions performed entirely different functions.
It would have been struck down as done in bad faith had both
offices performed substantially the same functions. (Facundo v
Pabalan, Ulep v Carbonell)
C) Incumbent are replaced with less qualified in terms of status of
appointment, performance and merit;
Replacement of eligible clerks who were once promoted for
efficiency with confidential employees whose only
qualification is loyalty to the governor negates efficiency as
justification for reorganization. (Cruz v Primicias)
D) Reclassification with substantially the same functions as the original
offices;
E) Removal violates order of separation provided in Section 3.
Order of separation of personnel pursuant to reorganization:
i. Casual employees serving less than 5 years
ii. Casual employees serving 5 or more years
iii. Temporary employees
iv. Permanent employees
Reorganization by abolition does not result in unlawful removal from office

De la Llana v Alba
Facts: De la Llana is a lower court judge who challenged the constitutionality of
BP 129 reorganizing the judiciary.He argued it violates his security of tenure
because he holds office during good behaviour until he reaches compulsory
age of retirement or is incapacitated.
Held: Reorganization of lower courts does not violate security of tenure of its
occupants because there is no removal but abolition of their offices.
C: Take note that the qualifier there is the abolition, reorganization must be in
good faith.
The power of the president to reorganize his office does not include the power
to create
Biraogo v Truth Commission &Lagman v Albano
Facts: President Aquino created the truth commission to investigate graft and
corruption cases allegedly committed under the Arroyo administration.
Held: While the law grants the president continuing authority to reorganize his
office, it does not include the power to create an office.
Reorganization involves reduction of personnel, consolidation or
abolition of offices by reason of economy or redundancy.Thus, it presupposes
an office existed prior to alteration.It is not an exercise of power of control
because it involves the power to modify, alter, nullify or set aside the decision
of a subordinate.It does not include the power to create an office.The power
to create a public office is legislative, or validly delegated by Congress or
inherent duty faithfully execute laws.
C: the bottom-line there is this, if it is the office of the President, the power to
reorganize by the president does not include the power to create an office.
Bad faith in reorganization per RA 6656
These are the badges of bad faith in reorganization.
A) Significant increase in the number of positions;
Evidence of bad faith must be adduced, otherwise the reorganization is

sustained.
29

Cotiangco v Province of biliran
Facts: Permanent public health workers were terminated when their offices
were abolished due to reorganization which they claimed was done in bad
faith.
Held: Good faith is presumed. He who alleges otherwise has the burden of
proof.
Instead of significant increase in positions, it decreased from 120 to 98.
The new positions created were for storekeepers that do not perform similar
functions as health practitioners.
They also failed to show:
Reclassification of offices performing substantially similar functions
Evidence they are better qualified in performance and merit than those
who replaced them.
Order of separation was violated, especially the provision that says
those who are least qualified in terms of performance and merit shall
be laid off first, regardless of service.
But it can be waived through abandonment.If the officer discharged the

functions of his new position and received salaries for it, he is considered to
have abandoned his former position without right to repossess.
C: The lesson of the story is this: do not assume office which appointment is still
temporary because it will be construed to be you abandoned your old office.
Other acts constitutive of abandonment
Unabia v City Mayor
Facts: A foreman was removed by the city mayor without investigation and
cause.
But he filed a petition for quo warranto to recover his position a year and
15 days after.
Held: Inaction or failure to recover position for an unreasonable length of time
constitutes abandonment.
Zandueta v de la Costa
Facts: A judge accepted another appointment, discharged its functions and
received salaries.
Held: He abandoned his office without right to repossess if the new
appointment was disapproved.
Abandonment
Summers v Ozaeta
Facts: A cadastral judge received, qualified and assumed an ad interim
appointment as judge-at-large of first instance. But it was disapproved by the
Commission on Appointments.
C: Ad interim appointment is the one being done
while Congress is in recess. It is temporary subject to
the confirmation of the Commission on
Appointments. What happened here is this: before
his confirmation, the judge was too excited, assumed
office. Then later, the Commission on Appointments
disapproved his appointment.
He argues he did not abandon his former position because the
constitution entitles him to hold office as cadastral judge during good
behaviour until he reaches mandatory retirement age of 70 or becomes
incapacitated.
Held: There is no doubt about the right to hold office during good behaviour
until he reaches maximum retirement age of 70 years or become
incapacitated.
Incompatible office
Incompatibility is found on the character of the offices and their relation to each
other, in the subordination of one to the other, and in the nature of the
functions and duties which attach to them.
It requires the involvement of two government offices or positions which are
held by one individual at the same time.
Example: Treasurer and auditor; when you hold an appointive position and file
for certificate of candidacy, you are considered resigned because they are
th
incompatible; Specific example:Ace Durano, elected congressman, 5 district.
But Gloria Arroyo appointed him as Commission secretary. Incompatible
because legislative and executive.
Automatically, when he accepted
appointment, he vacated is elected office as Congressman. Exactly the reason
th
why there was a special election for 5 district during that time.
30

It exists where:
1) There is conflict and interference in their duties and functions.
2) One is subordinate to the other.
3) The law, for reasons of public policy, declares the incompatibility even
though there is no inconsistency in the nature and functions of the
offices.
Thus, Members of Congress are disqualified to hold any other office or
employment in the government.
So, he is not eligible to be appointed to the office created during his term even if
he resigns or loses his seat before end of term.
Term of office a fixed period of time during which the officer has a right to
hold office
Tenure of office the period during which the incumbent actually holds office
Resignation
Formal renunciation of a public office
If the law requires a particular form, it must be followed.
Where no such form is prescribed or particular mode required, it may
be made by any method indicative of the purpose.
It need not be in writing, unless so required by law.
It may be oral or implied by conduct.
They cannot hold 2 classes of office

Incompatible office
Forbidden office
Incompatible office includes any kind of office or employment in the
government, or any of its subdivision, agency or instrumentality including
GOCCs or their subsidiaries.
C: In the Estrada case, there was Constructive resignation because no form

required as to how to tender resignation unless expressly required by law. Oral
or implied.
Acceptance of the second office incompatible with the first ipso facto vacates
the latter.
Resignation implied by conduct or CONSTRUCTIVE RESIGNATION

Thus, a senator or congressman who accepts any other office or employment in
the government during his term of office forfeits his seat.
By applying for and receiving retirement benefits, one may be deemed to

haveirrevocably resigned from government service. (TristevsMacaraeg)
If resignation is conditional, there is no resignation at all due to lack of
intention torelinquish the position.
To constitute a complete and operative act of resignation, theremust be:
- Clear intention to relinquish, and
- Acceptance by a competent and lawful authority. (Gonzales vs
Hernandez)
While the holding of another office is allowed, he automatically forfeits his

elective post.
An appointive officer is deemed ipso facto resigned upon filing of candidacy for
an elective position.
C: what were saying is, there is no prohibition against incompatible office. But it
results in the termination of the office.
C: when you resign from the government, there must be acceptance from the
authority. Without the acceptance, he cannot resign just yet unless he abandons
his office because there are positions which require a certain period of time
before you can tender resignation. You may have to turn over documents first.
In LC, you have 30 days prior to the intended date.
Forbidden office refers to any office created or the emoluments of which have
been increased during the term for which he was elected, not merely during his
tenure or actual incumbency.
Ineligibility lasts until after end of term, not tenure.
To whom tendered
To the one designated by statute
31

If not designated by law, to the officer or body having authority to appoint his
successoror call an election.
EXCEPT: If the public officer resigned before the administrative case was filed
and it is clearly shown that it was not intended to pre-empt its filing
C: You cannot just say To whom it may concern you have to address it
properly and specifically.
C: if the person resigns, theres already no point in disciplining you however, it

depends on the date of resignation. If you resign before the filing of the admin
case its ok. But if you resign after the case was filed, the admin case will
continue otherwise it can be circumvented by mere filing of resignation.
Acceptance
By formal declaration or appointment of a successor
Without it, resignation is inoperative and ineffective
Without it, the officer who abandons his office to the detriment of public
service is criminally liable.
Without it, the offer to resign is revocable.
Ombudsman vsAndutan
Facts: A deputy director of the finance department resigned after he was
directed to vacate for being a non-career official. More than a year after he
resigned however, he was administratively charged for dishonesty, grave
misconduct, falsification and prejudicial conduct.
C: General rule is that the ombudsman can still
investigate even after he resigns but take note he was
directed to vacate. Take note after a year after
resignation here comes administrative cases. Is he
not entitled to his peace of mind?
C: There is such a thing as implied acceptance of the resignation. Even if there

was no written form of acceptance, the fact that somebody was appointed in
your place, that is now acceptance.
Withdrawal of resignation is allowed provided it is done before:
Its intended date
It is accepted
The appointing officer acts in reliance on it.
Held: The ombudsman may still investigate an administrative offense after a

year it was committed. But if the public officer resigned before it is filed, the
administrative case is mooted and the accessory penalties could no longer be
imposed. While it is true that the Supreme Court has held that resignation
does not moot administrative cases, the public officials involved in such cases
resigned after the administrative cases were filed against them. In those
cases, it was intended either to discontinue one already filed or pre-empt
imminent filing of one. None of which is present, because the director was
forced to resign.
C: meaning wala pa siyakitaugkapulinimo.

Effect of resignation on administrative case.
OP & PAGC vsCataquiz
Facts:Cataquiz was dismissed with accessory penalties of disqualification and
forfeiture. But he was already replaced with another prior to his dismissal. The
Court of Appeals thus disallowed the accessory penalties because there is no
more principal penalty of dismissal which the accessories should follow.
Held: Removal or resignation is not a bar to the finding of administrative
liability.Hence, accessory penalties can still be imposed.
C: take note, to pre-empt the filing of one. If you had a feeling that a case will be
filed against you and it is imminent, then you resign. That will not necessarily
bar your administrative liability the imminent filing of one. In this case, it cannot
be said that he resigned to pre-empt the filing of one or resigned so that the
pending admin case will be discontinued because in this case he was forced to
resign. Take note of the difference
C: Purpose of admin case is for discipline. If you resign it doesnt mean it will bar
your administrative liability. It depends.
32

Removal or dismissal
Entails ouster of an incumbent before the expiration of his term.
It implies that the office exists after the ouster. (ManalangvsQuitoriano)
It may be express or implied. Implied if
Appointment of another officer
Transfer to another office
Demotion
Reassignment
between the parties which warrants dismissal of the administrative charges

against him.
C: but here the question was, can we still dismiss him
even if he was already replaced or dismissed by
replacement. The dismissal there was constructive.
Held: The dismissal by the Ombudsman of the cases against him involving
similar facts does not bar the president from removing him. As presidential
appointee, he is under the presidents direct disciplining authority which
includes dismissal.
Power to appoint includes power to remove, where there is no fixed term

Limitations on the power to remove
Purely executive officials with no fixed term are removable anytime
with or without cause.
Civil service employees cannot be removed or suspended except for
cause as provided for by law.
For cause means reasons which the law and sound public policy recognize as
sufficient ground for removal.(LacsonvsRoque)
Impeachable officials can only be removed on grounds enumerated in the

constitution
In Re: Gonzales, 160 SCRA 771
Facts: A chief justice was sought to be disbarred.
Held: The Chief Justice is removable only by impeachment. Since he is also
required to be a member of the Philippine Bar, he cannot be disbarred during
his incumbency. To grant disbarment circumvents constitutional mandate
that SC members can only be removed by impeachment.
C: here we are talking about those who are appointed. There it says with or
without cause but there are actually is a cause and the cause is loss of trust and
confidence. Again, it must be for cause and with due process. But take note due
process in admin proceedings is diff from court cases. As long as there is
opportunity to be heard, procedural due process is already served.
C: you cannot go through the backdoor here since the continuing requirement
to be a chief justice is to be a member of the bar and if there is a case to disbar
then thats circumvention. The only way to remove a CJ is through impeach him.
Dismissal of criminal case does not bar removal in admin case unless dismissal
is based on pure innocence.
Recall T: Sir made a small comment then Skipped recall.

C: Remember that in recall, the ground is loss of trust and confidence. But it
might be a misnomer because those who might want to sign the recall need not
be those persons who cast their vote during elections. Even if you didnt vote,
you can sign the petition for recall. That is defective because, if the ground is
loss of trust and confidence, how can you lose something you did not repose in
the first place. But thats the law.
OP & PAGC vsCataquiz

Facts:Cataquiz was recommended to be dismissed due to graft and corruption.
Instead of acting on it, the president replaced him with another in an acting
capacity. He was later dismissed by the president, disqualified to hold public
office and forfeited of benefits. But since the dismissal could no longer be
enforced because of prior replacement, the president removed the penalty of
dismissal but reiterated disqualification and forfeiture.
Contention of Cataquiz: The Ombudsman dismissed the criminal cases against
him involving the same set of facts. As such, it becomes the law of the case
Prescription
33

Unabiavs Mayor
Criminal liability for failure to assume office
Facts: On June 16, 1953, a foreman was removed and replaced by the city
mayor without investigation and cause. On July 1, 1954, he filed quo warranto
to be reinstated.
Held: He appears to have abandoned his position because it took him a year and
15 days to file quo warranto. But since the law does not fix a period for
abandonment, prescription of action is the more appropriate mode on how
his official relations were terminated.
Article 234.Refusal to discharge elective office.Arresto mayor or a maximum

1,000 fine orboth.
Elements:
Offender is elected by popular election to a public office
Refuses to swear or discharge duties of office without legal motive
. Legal motive means legal justification.
C: stated otherwise, after 1 year your right to your office prescribes.
Reason why it is punished:when you are elected, discharge of duties no longer

becomes a matter of right, but a matter of duty.(Reyes)
Reasons for prescription

PART V
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINE
TumulakvsEgay
Facts: In July 1946, a justice of the peace was replaced with another. In August
1948, he fileda quo warranto case.
Held: The action prescribed. It is not proper that the title of a public office
should be subjected to continued uncertainty. Public interest requires that
such right should be determined as soon as possible or within reasonable
time.
The SC has exclusive administrative control and supervision over all court
personnel even if they are presidential appointees
Undue delay in disposition of a case is administrative in nature. As such, it
pertains tothe exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. (Dolalasvs
Ombudsman)
But falsification of certificates of service is not only criminal for falsification
but alsoadministrative for serious misconduct and inefficiency.
As such, the Ombudsman mustdefer action and refer it to SC to determine if
he acted within his scope of duties.(Macedavs Vasquez)
C:thats the reason it prescribes because it subjects the office to continued

uncertainty.
Failure to assume office.
C: remember what we said? The power to appoint includes the power to

remove unless no less than the law or the constitution expressly separates
them. In this case, it is the president who appoints the judges and justices but
the president has no power to remove them.
If justices - impeachment
If judges of lower courts - SC
Effect: Failure to assume vacates the office and terminates relations

Section 11. Failure to assume office of the Omnibus Election Code
The office of any official elected who fails or refuses to take his oath of office
within six months from his proclamation shall be considered vacant, unless said
failure is for a cause or causes beyond his control.
C: so if the judge has not acted upon your case for 2 years already, your remedy
is to file an administrative case against the judge with the SC. Not with the
regular courts or with the ombudsman because they do not have jurisdiction. If
it is against a lawyer, it may be through the IBP or the SC. As long as it is
C: for example, you won the elections. But you did not assume office because
you were sick. That is a justifiable ground. But what if you just didnt like to
assume office? Or you went abroad? That may be a ground that you have
already failed to assume office. But of course this never happens.
34

administrative discipline over all lower court judges, court employees, the
jurisdiction pertains to the SC.
(10)
Conviction
of
a
crime
involving
moral
turpitude;
(11) Improper or unauthorized solicitation of contributions from
subordinate employeesand by teachers or school officials from school
children;
(12) Violation of existing Civil Service Law and rules or reasonable office
regulations;
(13) Falsification of official document; C: one time offense because its
dishonesty.
(14) Frequent unauthorized absences or tardiness in reporting for duty,
loafing orfrequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office
hours;
C: Loafing during office hourskanang mag laag2 during office hours.
(15) Habitual drunkenness;
(16) Gambling prohibited by law;
C: what if gambling is allowed like in casinos? You cannot necessarily go
there because against government officials to get inside casinos and
gamble.
(17) Refusal to perform official duty or render overtime service;
(18) Disgraceful, immoral or dishonest conduct prior to entering the
service;
C: so are we saying that when you get into service you can be immoral
already? Ingonramanprior. What were talking about here is if there is
concealment of the lifestyle. Kana man gudmu applykasagovernment,
daghan questions regarding your life. If there is concealment there,
draka ma igo.
(19) Physical or mental incapacity or disability due to immoral or vicious
habits;
(20) Borrowing money by superior officers from subordinates or lending by
subordinatesto superior officers;
C: pwedeang subordinate manghulampero not the superior because it
is presumed that the superior has higher salary than the subordinate.
(21)Lending money at usurious rates of interest;
(22) Willful failure to pay just debts or willful failure to pay taxes due the
government;
C: insofar as payment of just debts is concerned, the penalty for a one
time offense is a mere reprimand for humanitarian considerations.
(23) Contracting loans of money or other property from persons with
whom the office ofthe employee concerned has business relations;
Discipline over non-presidential appointees

Book V, EO 292 or the Revised Administrative Code
(a) No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed
except forcause as provided by law and after due process.
C: remember that there must be for cause and with due process.
(b) the following shall be grounds for disciplinary action:
(1) Dishonesty;
C: one time offense, penalty is dismissal. No second chances. You
cannot say grave dishonesty.
(2) Oppression;
C: not necessarily dismissal because there is such a thing as grave
oppression.
(3) Neglect of duty;
C: grave neglect of duty
(4) Misconduct;
C: grave misconduct
(5) Disgraceful and immoral conduct;
C: how do you define morality? Thats very hard.
(6) Being notoriously undesirable;
C: requisites: 1. There is notoriety; 2. Habit.
(7) Discourtesy in the course of official duties;
C: dli mu atimansamgacliente. Especially kanang dli mu tanawnimo
while magsturya. Dapat nay eye contact.
(8) Inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties;
C: we have our performance evaluation which is twice a year. If you fail
twice a year in a row, thats a ground for dismissal because of
incompetence or inefficiency.
(9) Receiving for personal use of a fee, gift or other valuable thing in the
course ofofficial duties or in connection therewith when such fee, gift, or
other valuable thing isgiven by any person in the hope or expectation of
receiving a favor or better treatmentthan that accorded other persons, or
committing acts punishable under the anti-graftlaws;
C: minimal gifts are allowed. Hard to enforce because it runs counter to
our culture.
35

C: because of conflict of interest.
(24) Pursuit of private business, vocation or profession without the
permission requiredby the Civil Service rules and regulations;
C: important because there are positions which allow you to practice
your profession as long as you have authority and subject to
limitations.
(25)Insubordination;
C: AKA defiance
(26)Engaging directly or indirectly in partisan political activities by one
holding a nonpoliticaloffice;
(27) Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service;
C: not defined but pertains to people who are difficult to deal with
inside the office and those with attitude problems.
(28) Lobbying for personal interest or gain in legislative halls or offices
without authority;
C: can there be authority? No. It is only for emphasis.
(29) Promoting the sale of tickets in behalf of private enterprises that are
not intendedfor charitable or public welfare purposes and even in the
latter cases if there is no priorauthority;
(30) Nepotism as defined in Section 59 of this Title.
recommending authority, or of the chief of the bureau or office, or of the

persons exercising immediate supervision over him, are hereby prohibited.
C: take note it says both recommending and appointing authority. You cannot
say that anyway, it was merely recommendatory. Somebody else appointed
him. That cannot be a defense. Cannot do that if its in favor of a relative.
As used in this Section, the word "relative" and members of the family referred
to are thoserelated within the third degree either of consanguinity or of affinity.
(2) The following are exempted from the operation of the rules on nepotism:
(a) persons employed in a confidential capacity,
(b) teachers,
(c) physicians, and
(d) members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines:
Provided, however, that in each particular instance full report of such
appointment shallbe made to the Commission.
C: fourth degree is first cousin. Take note of the exceptions. Persons employed
in personal capacity. Example: personal secretary. Some would even appoint
their spouse as confidential employees. For teachers and etc., the reason there
is because limited number of them. However, if you appoint them there must be
transparency by reporting the fact of appointment of a relative to the
commission.
(c) Except when initiated by the disciplining authority, no complaint against a

civil serviceofficial or employee shall be given due course unless the same is in
writing
and
subscribedand
sworn
to
by
the
complainant.
(d) In meting out punishment, the same penalties shall be imposed for similar
offenses andonly one penalty shall be imposed in each case. The disciplining
authority may impose thepenalty of removal from the service, transfer,
demotion
in
rank,
suspension
for
not
more
than
one year without pay, fine in an amount not exceeding six months' salary or
reprimand.
The restriction mentioned in subsection (1) shall not be applicable to the case of
a member of any family who, after his or her appointment to any position in an
office or bureau, contracts marriage with someone in the same office or bureau,
in which event the employment or retention therein of both husband and wife
may be allowed.
Sec 59 nepotism C: No prohibition to fall in love in the same workplace. Pananglit, you appointed
somebody and later on nagkaminyomo, so can you now say that it retroacts to
the date of appointment because it is prohibited? No. It cannot be done.
(1) All appointments in the national, provincial, city and municipal governments
or in any branch or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, made in favor of a relative of the appointing or
36

(3) In order to give immediate effect to these provisions, cases of previous
appointmentwhich are in contravention hereof shall be corrected by transfer,
and pending such transfer,no promotion or salary increase shall be allowed in
favor of the relative or relatives who wereappointed in violation of these
provisions.
Members of the Supreme Court 15

Members of the Constitutional Commissions - 3
COA 3
Comelec 7
The Ombudsman
Grounds for impeachment
Culpable violation of the Constitution
Treason
Bribery
Graft and Corruption
Other high crimes
Betrayal of public trust
C: if ever the appointing authority appointed somebody and they later

contracted marriage in the same workplace. The remedy there is that one of
them will be transferred.
Impeachment aka sumbong aka told on me

Article XI, 1987 Constitution
Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme
Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman
may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high
crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may
be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
A method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.
Purpose to protect the people from official delinquencies.
It is not to punish but only to remove an officer who does not deserve to hold
office.
Limitedto removal from office and disqualification to hold public office.
Without prejudice to filing ofappropriate cases. Thus, double jeopardy is not a
defense.
Betrayal of public trust refers to any form of violation of oath of office even
if it is not a criminally punishable offense
Too broad, thus the SC clarified this definition.
It refers to acts which are just short of being criminal but constitute gross
faithlessness against public trust, tyrannical abuse of power, inexcusable
negligence of duty, favoritism, and gross exercise of discretionary powers.
Acts that constitute betrayal of public trust as to warrant removal from office
may be less than criminal but must be attended by bad faith and of such gravity
and seriousness as the other grounds for impeachment. (Gonzales vs OP)
C: take note betrayal of public trust it is less than criminal but must be attended
by bad faith and same gravity as the other grounds for impeachment. Last year
during the mamasapano massacre, people wanted to impeach the president
and it is less than criminal but the president was not in bad faith so it cannot be
a ground.
C: graft - involves irregularities; corruption - involves money
C: removal rani siya ah. Without prejudice to the filing of cases after removal.
Double jeopardy is not a defense. Example ni corona. After na remove siya g
fileandayunugmgakaso. He cannot invoke double jeopardy.
Administrative discipline over local elective officials

Local Government Code
Section 60. Grounds for Disciplinary Actions.
An elective local official may be disciplined, suspended, or removed from office
on any of thefollowing grounds:
(a) Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines;
(b) Culpable violation of the Constitution;
Impeachment is beyond the presidents power of executive clemency

C: president cannot forgive someone who was impeached.
Impeachable officials: (C: 31 impeachable officials - list is exclusive.)
President
Vice-President
37

(c) Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office, gross negligence, or dereliction
of duty;
(d) Commission of any offense involving moral turpitude or an offense
punishable by at leastprision mayor;
(e) Abuse of authority;
(f) Unauthorized absence for fifteen (15) consecutive working days, except
sanggunian members
C: except for sanggunian members because they only attend the
sessions once a month. If they are absent for 4 consecutive times, then
it is a ground for disciplinary action under the DILG.
Where filed for suspension - C: Office of the President but also concurrent with
the office of the Ombudsman. So look at where you have a good chance.
(g) Application for, or acquisition of, foreign citizenship or residence or the

status of animmigrant of another country; and
(h) Such other grounds as may be provided in this Code and other laws.
An elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds
enumerated above by orderof the proper court.
Section 63.Preventive suspension.

Who suspends President- elective official of province, highly urbanized city or independent
component city
But with concurrent jurisdiction with the Ombudsman (Hagad v. Dadole)
Governor- elective official of a component city or municipality
Mayor- elective official of a barangay
When- any time after issues are joined
Section 67.Administrative appeals.

Where filed SangguniangPanlungsod of component city Sangguniang BayanSangguniangPanlalawigan
SangguniangPanlalawigan and SangguniangPanlungsod of highly urbanized
city and independent component city- office of the president
When filed- 30 days from receipt of decision
C: in other words, you can only remove an official by the court; Suspension - OP
or ombudsman. Remedy if you want to remove is quo warranto and the above
are the grounds
Section 63.Basis for Preventive suspension

Evidence of guilt is strong
Disciplining authority decides when evidence of guilt is strong. (Nera v. Garcia)
Reason for preventive suspension:
Given the gravity of the offense, there is great probability that continuance in
office influence the witnesses
Pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence
Limitations- single case- not beyond 60 days
Multiple cases- not more than 90 days
Within a single year or on the same grounds existing and known during first
suspension
Sec. 61 form and filing of administrative complaints

A verified complaint against any erring local elective official shall be prepared
as follows:
(a) Office of the President - elective official of a province, a highly urbanized city,
an independent component city or component city. Decisions of the OP are final
and executory.
(b) sangguniangpanlalawigan - elective official of a municipality; decision may be
appealed to the Office of the President;
(c) sangguniangpanlungsod or sangguniangbayan - elective barangay official;SP
or SB decision shall be final and executory.
Section 64.Salary pending suspension

Not entitled to salary during suspension
But if exonerated and reinstated- paid full salary and other emoluments
(Ganaden v. CA)
C: if you want to file a complaint against an official must be in the form of a

verified complaint.
Removal - by the court;
Section 65.Right of Respondent
38

Full opportunity to appear and defend himself in person or by counsel
The party in an inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, and the body
has no duty to furnish him with counsel. (Remolona v. CSC)
Confront and cross-examine witnesses
Production of evidence through compulsory process
because he is not supposed to be a passive party. Even if there is a newspaper

report on the irregularities, the Ombudsman can be proactive and take action.
As a matter of fact, you can file a complaint with the ombudsman in any form
whatsoever. You can even call them and they will answer. As a matter of fact,
anonymous letters can already merit investigation.
Section 68.Execution pending appeal.

Appeal does not prevent decision from becoming final and executor.
If respondent wins an appeal The period during which the appeal is pending shall be considered a period of
preventive suspension.
If the appeal exonerates He shall be paid salary and other emoluments during the pendency of the
appeal. (Ganaden v. CA)
Ombudsman v. Beltran
Facts: An employee of the Tricycle Regulatory Office invoked the Tapiador ruling
after he was dismissed by the Ombudsman after being found guilty of
misconduct for failure to remit fees collected from tricycle drivers.
Held: The Ombudsman is the real party-in-interest in administrative cases
because it stands to suffer if decisions adverse to it become final and
executor.
If deprived with authority, enforcement of its mandated functions as protector
of the people is defeated.
Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman

The full administrative disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman is not limited to
recommendation only, it includes the power to remove, suspend, demote, fine,
censure and prosecute public officers found at fault.
The word recommend is mandatory and the proper officer whom it is

coursed through has no choice but to enforce it.
Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Santos
Facts: Santos is LTFRB special collection and disbursing officer who was
dismissed by the Ombudsman for dishonesty after she was found by the COA
with a cash shortage.
She went to the CA, saying that the Ombudsman cannot directly dismiss her
because its disciplinary power is merely recommendatory. The CA agreed with
her.
Section 13 (3), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a
public official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal,
suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure
compliance therewith.
Ombudsman v CA &Armilla
Facts: DENR employees were suspended by the Ombudsman for simple
misconduct. They argued that the Ombudsman is without authority to
suspend them because is power is merely recommendatory pursuant to
Tapiador.
Held: The Tapiador ruling that says the power of the Ombudsman is merely
recommendatory is a mere obiter dictum.
The term recommend in the Constitution should not be literally
interpreted but construed in tandem with the Ombudsman which vests full
administrative
disciplinary
authority
from
recommendation
to
implementation.
The ombudsman is not intended to be passive but an activist watchman
armed with the power to prosecute and enforce anti-graft laws.
The administrative disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman is not merely
recommendatory, but mandatory.
C: this is the provision in the Constitution that causes a lot of confusion

because it uses the word recommend. However, please note, in the
end it states, and ensure compliance therewith That last part there
makes it recommendatory. That even if the Ombudsman says okay we
have a finding that the employee under you committed an infractions,
suspend him! You may say, its merely recommendatory to me as head
C: By the way, what is the literal translation of the word ombudsman?

Representative. And there we said also that the Ombudsman is an activist,
39

of office, I should not suspend him yet. Can that be allowed? No.
Because the law also says ensure compliance with the
recommendation. That makes it mandatory.
The Ombudsman has the power to prosecute criminal cases involving public
officers, and including the power to conduct preliminary investigation
Section 15(3) of R.A 6770:

xxx or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by
law, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure,
or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith;
C: bottom line, the word recommend there is mandatory.
Camanagvs Guerrero
Facts: The Ombudsman conducted an investigation and found probable cause
against a BIR employee who claimed to be a CPA by falsifying official
documents and deputized the city prosecutor to file and prosecute
falsification charges.
- C: Why do people do that when that can be easily be verifiable.
Argument:It is only when the officer fails to act that the Ombudsman is
empowered to enforce and compel such officer to act.
If R.A 6770 empowered the Ombudsman to directly remove, it should have
placed the word enforce at the start of the provision.
The office of the ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective
and appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions,
instrumentalities and agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local
government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries,
Held: Do not be too literal.
Ledesma v. Court of Appeals said that such literal interpretation is too restrictive
and inconsistent with the wisdom and spirit behind the creation of the Office
of the Ombudsman.
The word recommend as used in the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act
means that the implementation of the order to remove, suspend, demote,
fine, censure and prosecute be coursed through the proper officer.
C: Recommend, it means somebody else will impose the
recommendation and that somebody else is the head of agency/office
under which the person sought to be suspended is employed.
Employee argued that the Ombudsman has no power to conduct preliminary

investigation because the Constitution merely empowered it to direct the
officer concerned to take appropriate action and recommend prosecution.
Held: It is true that the framers intended to withhold prosecutorial powers from
the Ombudsman.
- C: Yes because under the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission, it did not mention as the intention there was not to grant
prosecutoral powers to the Ombudsman. However, despite that
intention, it did not hesitate to grant Congress to add powers to the
Ombudsman. These additional powers include the power to investigate
and to prosecute cases.
However, they also did not hesitate to recommend legislation to prescribe its
other powers, duties and functions.
Section 13(8), Article XI empowers it to exercise such other powers and
perform such other functions or duties as Congress may legislate.
- C: Again, statutory construction ejusdem generis, it was a blanket
authority.
And that officer has no choice but to enforce it.

Provided, that the refusal by any officer without just cause to comply with an
order of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure or
prosecute an officer or employee who is at fault or who neglects to perform
an act or discharge a duty required by law shall be a ground for disciplinary
action against said officer.
This strongly indicates that recommendation is not merely advisory in nature
but mandatory within the bounds of the law.
Thus, the Ombudsman Act of 1989 was enacted granting it power to prosecute
including power to investigate.
- Even if there is a gap or loophole in the Constitution, here now comes
an act of legislation from Congress filling in the gap.
The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over GOCCs is confined only to those with
original charter
40

Khan Jr. Vs Ombudsman
Facts: PAL officers were charged for violation of R.A. 3019 before the
Ombudsman after they allegedly used their positions to secure a contract for
a company they were stockholders. They moved to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction, saying PAL is a private entity and they were not public officers. It
was denied because PAL is now a GOCC after its controlling interest was
acquired by the government through the GSIS.
- Just like the case of Congressman Abellanosa. The problem involves
scholarships sa City.
Held: The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over GOCCs is confined only to those
with original charters.
- C: First premise is, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the employees
of the GOCCs but you have to determine whether that GOCC is has an
original charter or whether it was registered in SEC. And when you say
original charter, there is a special law creating that GOCC. But if you
registered with SEC, you are without charter and only an
C: As a matter of fact, the falsification was not even for me, it was
for my wife. Probably this is a case where the wife always prevails.
Held: A public officer may be dismissed from service for an offense not related
to work or foreign to his performance of official duties because dishonesty
affects fitness to continue in office.
C: Take note: the reason why even if it is not related to his official
functions is because dishonesty affects fitness to continue in office.
It is a continuing qualification. Di ba? What did we say? AT ALL
TIMES ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE AND MUST SERVE THEM
WITH UTMOST RESPONSIBILITY, INTEGRITY, LOYALTY AND
EFFICIENCY. So, of course we have to define dishonesty.
Dishonesty defined
As an administrative offense, dishonesty is defined as the disposition to lie,
cheat, deceive, or defraud, untrustworthiness, lack of integrity in principle, lack
of fairness and straightforwardness, disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.
(PagcorvsRillorosa)
It is the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to ones
office or connected with the performance of his duties. (Alfonso vs OP)
While it is true that PAL is now a GOCC after its controlling interest was acquired
by the government through the GSIS, it has no original charter. It was
originally organized as a private entity seeded with private capital under the
general corporate law.
Juco defines the phrase with original charter as chartered by special law as
distinguished from corporations organized under the Corporation Code.
C: So can we say, I did not tell you because you did not ask me Can that be
available as a remedy? Di ba? I am not dishonest, I just did not tell you, because
nobody asked me. It is not available as a remedy because it involves
concealment. Or distortion of truth, that is only dishonesty.
A public officer may be dismissed from service for private and personal acts
The Military Ombudsman is not prohibited to perform other functions
affecting non-military personnel. Thus, it has jurisdiction to investigate police
officers even if they are civilian personnel of the government.
C:Because again, what is our premise? At all times we are accountable to the
people. You cannot say that these do not pertain to my performance as a public
officer, it has nothing to do with my job description. These are not available as
defense.
And there is no distinction between the duty to investigate and the power to
conduct preliminary investigation
Remolonavs CSC
Facts: A postmaster was dismissed after found guilty of dishonesty for faking the
eligibility of his wife. He argued his dismissal violates due process because it
was not for cause since the dishonest act was not committed in the
performance of his official duties as postmaster.
C: Its like this class, the Ombudsman scope is national, then Deputies for Luzon,
Visayas and Mindanao. And then there is still a Deputy Ombudsman for the
Military. By the name itself, you might think its jurisdiction is purely for the
military. But here, even if you are a police officer, jurisdiction pertains to the
41

Deputy Ombudsman for the military even if the police officer is civilian in
character under the Constitution.
The School Superintendent has original jurisdiction over administrative cases

involving public school teachers.
Power to conduct preliminary investigation is to find probable cause.
C: Take note of this, even if a teacher is a public officer.
Acopvs Ombudsman, LacsonvsCasaclang

Facts:Different composite teams of police officers were investigated by the
Deputy Ombudsman for the military for their involvement in the rubout of 11
suspected members of the notorious robbery gang, KuratongBaleleng.
They argued the duty of the Ombudsman to investigate is separate and distinct
from the power to conduct preliminary investigation which remains with the
Special Prosecutor. The Military Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over police
officers because they are civilian personnel of the government.
Held: Based on the deliberations of the framers, there is no distinction between
the duty to investigate and the power to conduct preliminary investigation.
There is also no showing that such power remains with the Special
Prosecutor.
While there is an intention to withhold prosecutorial powers, it did not hesitate
to recommend legislation to add powers, functions and duties of the
Ombudsman.
Hence, the Ombudsman Act of 1989 was passed which made the Office of the
Special Prosecutor an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman. It
also removed powers of the Special Prosecutor and transferred them to the
Ombudsman.
There is no evidence from the deliberation that the Military Ombudsman is
prohibited from performing other functions affecting non-military personnel.
C:Jurisdiction is not exclusive even if the name suggests that it is
for the Military.
As such, the Ombudsman must yield, except, where there is estoppel.

Facts:A public school teacher was charged with falsification, dishonesty and
gave misconduct before the Ombudsman after he failed to produce original
copy of his TOR, which authenticity was denied by the school registrar.
He filed his counter-affidavit. But he was found guilty of dishonesty and
dismissed him from service.
He argues the School Superintendent has exclusive jurisdiction over
administrative cases against public school teachers under the Magna Carta for
Public School Teachers.
Held: The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers and the Ombudsman Act of
1989 reveal overlapping jurisdiction over administrative cases against public
school teachers.
Section 9 of the Magna Carta grants jurisdiction to the investigating Committee
headed by the School Superintendent over erring public school teachers. But
Section 19 of the Ombudsman Act likewise grants jurisdiction to the
Ombudsman over acts or omissions that are contrary to law. Section 13 (1),
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution empowers the Ombudsman to investigate
act or omission that appear to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.
C:Even if it only appears to be illegal, unjust ,improper or inefficient
Delosovs Domingodefined illegal act or omission of any official as any crime
committed by a public officer, even if the act or omission is not related with
the performance of official duty.
Ombudsman vsEstandarterules that per Magna Carta for Public School
Teachers, original jurisdiction over administrative cases against public school
teachers pertains to the School Superintendent.
C: Take note! Original jurisdiction, it may not be entirely
exclusivebecause it says if there is estoppel, it cannot anymore
invoke lack of jurisdiction. And the reason for this is:
Sec. 31 of the Ombudsman Act authorizes the Ombudsman to designate

personnel of his office or deputize any prosecutor or government lawyer to
act as special investigator or prosecutor.
Thus, the Ombudsman may refer cases involving non-military personnel for
investigation to the Military Ombudsman.
C:That authority to deputize includes those who are under the
Ombudsman including the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military.
Purpose is to impose a separate standard and procedural requirement for

administrative cases involving public school teachers.
42

Garcia moved to bail but was denied because there is strong prosecution
evidence.
But suddenly, Sulit sought approval of the plea bargaining agreement entered
into with Garcia.
The Sandiganbayan resolved that the change of plea is warranted and the plea
bargaining agreement complies with jurisprudential requirements.
Outraged by the back deal that could allow Garcia to get off the hook, Congress
investigated and recommended to the President that Sulit be dismissed after
filing of charges for acts or omissions amounting to betrayal of public trust.
The office of the President initiated an administrative case against Sulit. But she
invoked prematurity and lack of jurisdiction.
Both Gonzales and Sulit challenged the constitutionality of Section 8(2) of the
Ombudsman Act of 1989.
It says the deputy or special prosecutor may be removed from office by the
President for any of the grounds for the removal of the Ombudsman and after
due process.
Issue: Whether the Office of the President has jurisdiction to exercise
administrative disciplinary power over a deputy ombudsman or a special
prosecutor who belong to a constitutionally created office of the
Ombudsman.
Held: While the disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman is extensive and
covers all public officer except those removable by impeachment is not
exclusive.
Section 8(2) of the Ombudsman Act says that the Deputy or Special Prosecutor
may be removed from office by the President for any of the grounds for
impeachment of the Ombudsman, after due process.
Unquestionably, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to discipline his or her own
mend. Also unquestionably, the President has concurrent authority with the
Ombudsman to remove the deputy and the special prosecutor under certain
conditions.
That it must be for any of the grounds for removal of the Ombudsman:
Culpable violation of the Constitution
Graft and Corruption
Other high crimes
Bribery
Treason
Betrayal of public trust
C: Otherwise stated, the law says that DepEd knows more than the Ombudsman
in so far as disciplinary action against its public schoolteahers are concerned.
EXCEPT: when there is estoppel
In this case, Galicia is estopped because he was given due process and he filed
his counter-affidavit. It was only when the decision was adverse to him that he
raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction for the first time. (Ombudsman vs Galicia)
C: You cannot, because administrative case man gudsya as
opposed to cases under the regular courts when lack of
jurisdiction is a continuing ground.
The public school teacher is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman because he was given sufficient opportunity to be heard and he
submitted his defenses. (Alcala vsVillar)
The President and the Ombudsman have concurrent authority to remove the
Deputy and Special Prosecutor under certain conditions
Gonzales v Office of the President &Sulit v Ochoa
Facts: Mendoza held hostage and killed foreign tourists because the
Ombudsman failed to act on his motion for reconsideration. The Incident
Investigation and Review Committee recommended Deputy Ombudsman
Gonzales for dismissal.
The Office of the President found him guilty of gross neglect of duty and grave
misconduct constituting betrayal of public trust.
The IIRC blamed Gonzales for not acting on the motion for reconsideration filed
by Mendoza for more than 9 months without justification. Worse, they
merely offered to review the motion for reconsideration when they received
the demand of Mendoza to resolve. They should have resolved it right away
or suspended the enforcement of the dismissal. This aggravated the situation
and triggered the collapse of the negotiation.
Thus, the IIRC found Gonzales guilty of serious and inexcusable negligence and
gross violation of the rule that motions for reconsideration must be resolved
within 5 days from filing.
Meanwhile, Mayor Carlos Garcia, his wife and sons were charged with plunder
and money laundering by Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit before
the Sandiganbayan.
43

That due process is observed. Section 8(2) is not unconstitutional. Removal of
the Ombudsman by impeachment is clear under the law but the removal of
the deputy and special prosecutor is not.
As such, the express grant by Section 8(2) on the President to remove a deputy
and special prosecutor merely filled the gap in law.
The power to remove the deputy and special prosecutor is implied from the
power of the president to appoint them.
As a general rule, all officers appointed by the president are removable by him,
except when the law expressly provides otherwise.
Like when the Constitution expressly separates the power to remove from the
power to appoint.
As a matter of fact, Gonzales recommended for final approval within 9 days

from receipt.
Even if there was long delay and unexplained failure to supervise his
subordinates, it cannot be considered a malevolent and vicious act amounting
to betrayal of public trust.
Sulitsdefense of prematurity does not hold water.
True, it is the Sandiganbayan that determines the propriety of a plea bargain
based on evidence.
What the disciplinary authority determines is whether the special prosecutor
considered the best interest of the government or was diligent and efficient in
performing her prosecutorial duty when she entered into a plea bargain.
But she was found to be inept and negligent in her duty for failing to build a
strong case for the government. And instead of pursuing or building a strong
case despite the strength of evidence against Garcia, she entered into a plea
bargain which is grossly disadvantageous to the government. This could lead
to administrative liability hence the Office of the President should continue
the investigation.
Examples:
Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President but removable by
impeachment.
Judges of lower courts are appointed by the president but removable by the
Supreme Court.
The Chairmen and Commissioners of the Constitutional bodies, and the
Ombudsman are appointed by the President but removable by impeachment.
The power to remove does not diminish the independence of the Ombudsman
because such independence refers to political independence only.
The terms of office, salary, appointments and discipline are reasonably insulated
from the whims of the politicians through prescribed term of 7 years,
prohibition against salary decreases and fiscal autonomy.
Espinosa v. Ombudsman elucidated the independence of the Ombudsman as
having endowed with a wide latitude of investigative and prosecutorial
powers virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention.
But Gonzales cannot be removed for acts that do not constitute betrayal of
public trust.
The tragic hostage-taking incident was the result of a confluence of several
unfortunate events including system failure of government response. It
cannot be solely attributed to what Gonzales may have negligently failed to
do for the quiet and complete resolution of the case, or in his error of
judgment.
The failure to immediately act on a request for early resolution is not, by itself,
gross neglect of duty amounting to betrayal of public trust.
44

FINALSTRANSCRIPTAtty. Ferdinand Gujilde EH 403 2015-2016
D. CabahugMontecilloOmarQuianolaRudasSalasUy
PART I
Facts: The government leased a parcel of land but it was cancelled by the airport
manager. It was argued the airport manager has no authority to cancel but
the department secretary acting for the president or the airport director by
delegated authority.
Held: Under the Revised Administrative Code, the authority to lease belongs to
the President, officer authorized by him or by law.
The authority of the airport manager falls under the third category as it is
expressly granted by RA 776. Thus, administrative law may be a sourced
from statutes other than the Administrative Code.
C: The SC said in this case the airport manager tried to lease a parcel of land
owned by the government and now the authorities are questioning this
because it is only the President or the Department Secretary who have
authority to lease a parcel of land. But here, the SC said under the
AdminCodeit belongs to the President or officer meaning secretary or mayor
and here the authority of the airport manager to lease the land comes from
the third category because it was expressly granted by RA 776. Bottom line
admin law is not limited to admin code it can also be other statutes.
Administrative Law, sources

Constitution
Statutes
Revised Administrative Code of 1917
Administrative Code of 1987
Jurisprudence
Rules and Regulations by administrative agencies
Rules and Regulations by orders and decisions
Mecano v. CoA, 216 SCRA 500 (1992)
Facts: An employee claimed reimbursement for medical expenses but this was
denied because the provision he invoked in the Revised Administrative Code
of 1917 was omitted in the Administrative Code of 1987.
Held: In the absence of express repeal, the omission does not necessarily mean
it is repealed. In the absence of inconsistency between the two laws and
intent to cover the whole subject matter of the old law, it was neither
impliedly repealed.
Thus, the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 remains a source of
administrative law.
C: This was a case of a director who wanted to be reimbursed for medical
expenses because he said that he suffered an illness that he acquired in the
line of duty. As such, he is entitled to reimbursement from the government. A
specific law that he invokes here comes from the Administrative Code of 1917
and so of course the COA disallowed it and said that the Administrative Code
of 1987 already repealed the code 1917. But the SC said that the
Administrative Code of 1987 did not expressly repeal the former code. So it
was impliedly repealed. It is impliedly repealed when first there are
inconsistencies and the Supreme Court did not find any. Second is if the
AdminLaw covers subject matters with the prior law. And the SC said it did
not cover because it was only limited to administration and codification. As
such the Administrative Code of 1917 no matter how old it is, is still
enforceable because of the absence of express repeal. Even if it was omitted.
Doctrine of Separation of Powers

Purpose: to prevent concentration of executive, legislative and judicial powers
to a single branch of government.
How is it attained: by allocating their exercise to the three branches of
government.
But is it absolute?
No, sharing and mixing of powers between and among the three
branches is allowed.
President- shares legislation through veto power
Courts- shares legislation through its power to review that interprets
or invalidates laws
Congress- shares exercise of executive power through confirmation
of appointments and assent to treaties.
It also shares judicial power through its power to create inferior
courts and regulate number and pay of judges.
Principle of checks and Balances
Purpose:
To prevent supremacy of one branch over any other
To secure coordination of various departments
Leveriza v. IAC, 157 SCRA 282 (1988)

Thus, the principle of separation of powers:
(a) Allows blending of some of the executive, legislative, or judicial
powers in one body.
C: take note of the word blending.
(b) Does not prevent one branch from inquiring into the affairs of
other branches to maintain the balance of power.
C: if it is a mere inquiry, thats alright. Mura baug what are you
doing? but you cannot say You should have done it this way.
(c) But ensures that it does not encroach on the matters within the
exclusive of the other branches.
Supervision
Legislative Scrutiny
Purpose: to determine economy and efficiency of the operation of
government activities
Basis: power of appropriation which includes the power to specify the project
or activity to be funded
Exercised through:
Power of the purse and power of confirmation
C: Remember that Congress legislates appropriation. Meaning it holds the
power of the purse. Why purse? Naadihaangkwartasa government.
The principal power of the Congress to legislate includes the auxiliary power
to ensure that the laws it enacts are faithfully executed.
C: okay so you cannot say that Congress already enacted a law and now it goes
up to the Executive department to enforce it. Congress may still retain the
jurisdiction and that is to ensure there is compliance with the law. This is the
power of the Congress to supervise the enforcement of the law that they have
enacted.
Principal power to legislate + auxiliary power to ensure faithful compliance =
power of oversight
Power of appropriation or power of the purse

Budget hearing
Administrative officials defend their budget proposals
C: Kabantaymoani? Kita mosa TV ngamga officials begging for money. Justifying
the budget proposal. Like the incident of the son of Miriam Santiago. Miriams
son applied for UP and after that he committed suicide. Miriam claimed that
during the panel interview, her son was asked questions regarding the mental
state of the mind. And so she claims that her son was so intimidated he
committed suicide. And because of that the following year administrators from
UP went to Congress asking for budget. And to their misfortune, Miriam was
there in the Budget hearing. And so Miriam went ballistic and said:
AngkapalngmukhaninyupumuntasaCongresohumingingpera.
Anoangginawaninyosaanakko. That was what she said because she claimed the
son committed suicide because of intimidation.
It is a means to review policy and audit the use of previous appropriation to
ascertain whether they have been disbursed accordingly.
It is an opportunity for Congress to express its confidence or disgust in the
performance of a public officer.
C: Mao nigibuhatni Miriam
But legislative scrutiny does not end in budget hearings.
As such, Congress can ask department heads to appear before and be heard
by it on any matter pertaining to their departments.
C: Remember GMA? At the height of her scandals there was a time Congress
tried to invite her department head and secretaries to shed light on
controversies but none of them appeared because they made this as a basis --
Power of oversight C: meaning the power to supervise

Intrinsic in the grant of legislative power
Integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of
government
It embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its understanding
of and influence over the implementation of its enactments.
It concerns post-enactment measures undertaken by Congress to:
(a) Monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives
(b) Determine whether agencies are properly administered
(c) Eliminate executive waste and dishonesty
(d) Prevent executive usurpation of legislative authority
(e) Assess executive conformity with the congressional perception of
public interest
Categories of congressional oversight functions:
Scrutiny
Investigation

Section 22, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides department heads,
may upon their initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request
of either House, appear before ad be heard on any matter relative to their
departments.
C: take note ha with the consent of the President. So if the President refuses,
they have no choice otherwise if there is compulsive process there, even if you
can force them that will now be encroachment.
Limitations to Congressional Investigations:

Must be in aid of legislation
In accordance with its duly published rules and regulations
The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be
respected.
committed him to the custody of the Sgt-at-Arms and imprisoned him until he
answers the question.
Contention of the witness:
Senate has no power to cite him in contempt.
Information sought to be obtained is immaterial and does not serve any
intended or purported legislation.
The answer required incriminates him.
Held: The power of inquiry includes the power to enforce it. Legislation
presupposes information. Mere request for information is often unavailing,
thus some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is needed.
Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the jurisdiction of the
legislative body to make, the investigating committee has the power to
require the witness to answer any question pertinent to its inquiry, subject to
his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
The inquiry must be material or necessary to the exercise of the power. Hence,
the witness cannot be coerced to answer a question that has obviously no
relation to the subject of the inquiry.
The witness admitted that the transaction was legal. That he gave P440k to a
representative of Burt in compliance with the latters verbal instruction. That
he refused to reveal the name of the representative on the ground that it
incriminates him.
It is not enough for the witness to say that the answer will incriminate him for
he is not the sole judge of his liability. The danger of self-incrimination must
appear reasonable and real to the court. The fact that the testimony of the
witness may tend to show that he violated a law is not sufficient to entitle him
to the protection. It cannot be invoked by reason of fanciful excuse, for
protection against an imaginary danger, or to secure immunity to a third
person.
C: So again, if there is no compulsion there, nganu nag hearing pa ta?
Ngapwederamandiaydilimutubagkay you have the freedom to choose a
particular question if that is incriminating or not. So bottom-line there is that
you are not the sole judge there of your liability. Its like you are taking the
witness stand.
Arnault v. Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29 (1950)

Facts: During Congressional investigation, a witness refused to answer questions
he claimed to be self-incriminatory. The Senate cited him in contempt,
Grounds for contumacy:

(a) Refuses, after being duly summoned, to obey such summons without
legal excuse;
Power of confirmation
Who exercises:
Commission of Appointments composed of the Senate President as ex officio
chair, twelve senators and twelve representatives
C: Kabantaymoani? Mag hearing pod if you are appointed by the
President. Kaningsi Chairman Bautista karon he appeared there and he
was grilled there about the reliance of the PICULS machine. The one
that grilled him even was Enrile, who was released because of failing
health.
Nominees of the President whose positions need confirmation by the
Commission of appointments:
Heads of executive departments
Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls
Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain
Other officers whose appointments are vested with the President
under the Constitution
Congressional investigation
Who exercises: Senate or House of Representatives or any of its committees

(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
C: This happened to Jun JunBinay right. He was served summons. But

walaxani obey so gipadakopcya.
Refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation;
Refuses to answer any relevant inquiry;
Refuses to produce any books, papers, documents or records that are
relevant to the inquiry and are in his/her possession;
Acts in an disrespectful manner towards any member of the committee
or commits misbehaviour in the presence of the Committee;
C: Remember Chief Justice Corona during his impeachment trial he was
given the privilege to say something the way he liked it. He was not
subjected to Q and A. He made a long speech. Nindotnakaayu but in
the end he committed a blooper. Because towards the end, he said
that I am the Chief Justice of the PH and I should be excused. Then he
went out without asking permission that is very disrespectful.
Unduly interferes in the conduct of proceedings during meetings.
(House of Rules and Procedures Governing Inquiries in Aid of
Legislation)
These provisions require the President or an agency to present the proposed

regulations to Congress, which retains the right to approve or disapprove any
regulation before it takes effect.
It allows Congress to participate prospectively in the approval or disapproval
of subordinate law or those enacted by the executive branch pursuant to a
delegation of authority by Congress.
Section 17.1 of Rep. Act No. 9189 provides:
Sec. 17. Voting by mail. 17.1 For the May 2004 elections, the Commission shall authorize voting by
mail in not more than three (3) countries, subject to the approval of the
Congressional Oversight Committee. Voting by mail may be allowed in
countries that satisfy the following conditions:
(d) Where the mailing system is fairly well-developed and secure to
prevent occasion of fraud;
(e) Where there exists a technically established identification system
that would preclude multiple or proxy voting;
(f) Where the system of reception and custody of mailed ballots in the
embassies, consulates and other Foreign Service establishments
concerned are adequate and well-secured.
Thereafter, voting by mail in any country shall be allowed only upon
review and approval of the Joint Oversight Committee.
It is clear that Congress has already set the necessary standards to guide the
Comelec in identifying the countries where voting my mail may be allowed.
Since the standards have been defined, all that is left is their enforcement.
The Constitution has given the Comelec power to enforce & administer all
laws & regulations relative to the conduct of an election.
The power is exclusive. As such, it cannot be subject to review and revision or
veto by Congress in the exercise of its oversight power.
The legislative veto power or congressional oversight power over the
authority of the Comelec to issue rules and regulations in order to enforce
election laws is unconstitutional.
The power of the Comelec to promulgate implementing rules and regulations
can only be struck down if it is illegal or constitute grave abuse of discretion.
(Macalintal v. Comelec)
Legislative Supervision
It allows Congress to scrutinize the exercise of delegated law-making
authority, and permits Congress to retain part of that delegated authority.
C: There is that veto right? Who exercises that veto power? President.
Is that exclusive to the President? Can Congress exercise the veto
power? Yes. There is this particular instance where the Congress
enacts a law and that law is incomplete. It delegates subordinate
legislation to administrative agencies. That administrative agency will
then formulate a subordinate law which is required to send it back to
Congress for congressional hearing and if they dont like that, it vetoes
the subordinate legislation. So Congress in that instance has veto
power. It is not exclusive to the President.
How exercised: Through its veto power when granting the President or an
executive agency the power to promulgate regulations with the force of law.
C: Kanilangtiman-i. Congress enacts a source law, it is incomplete then
it asks an administrative body to make an IRR (Implementing Rules and
Regulations). That is subordinate legislation, subordinate law. It comes
back to Congress for approval. Then if they dont like it, it vetoes the
proposal.
C: Oversight is supervisory.
Take note of the conditions for the implementation.

Rule: The congress cannot exercise the veto power against the COMELEC, and
in the event the rules and regulations are illegal or constitutes grave abuse of
discretion, it is the court that strikes it down, not the Congress.
(c) Providing by the department general policies to serve as framework for

the internal policies of the attached agency. (Section 38(3), Chapter 7,
Book IV, Administrative Code of 1987)
C: Attachment is only intended for policy and program coordination.
Again, lateral relationship. You do not lose your individuality as an
agency.
Administrative Relationships among agencies

Supervision
Control
Attachment
Policy and program coordination, illustrated.

Representation of the department in the governing board of the attached
agency.
The Career Executive Service Board is attached to the Civil Service Commission
composed of the CSC Chair as Presiding Officer.
Providing by the department general policies to serve as framework for the
general policies of the attached agency.
The functions of the board include promulgation of rules, standards and
procedures on the selection, classification, compensation and career
development of CES members. (Eugenio v. CSC)
C:Muragigoragudmoug monitoring, coordination. Walagudmo maabsorbed
Beja v. CA, 207 SCRA 689

Facts: An employee of an agency was charged administratively before the
department it is attached.
Held: The department is without jurisdiction over personnel action involving
employees of an agency attached to it.
Attachment is a mere lateral relationship between the department and the
agency attached to it for program and policy coordination. As such, the
attached agency retains independence insofar as personnel action and
management are concerned.
C: Attachment like DOLE, it is attached to NLRC. But when you are
attached in a particular agency your officer agency does not lose its
identity. Mere attachment. And since we are talking here about
relationships, if you are attached, muraramoug mutual understanding. No
commitment.
Personal action is retained in the agency, it is not transferred to the
agency to where it is attached. It cannot absolved (di ko sure if
absorbed or absolved)
Administrative agencies, reasons for.

To help unclog court dockets.
They have the special knowledge, experience, and capability to hear
and determine promptly disputes on technical matters or essentially
factual matters that are essential. (Abejo v. Dela Cruz, GR No. L-63558,
May 19, 1987)
C:If all controversies the jurisdiction pertains to the regular courts, they
will run out of time and manpower sakadaghanug controversies.
Dilimaato o maatiman. As a matter of fact, there are certain
controversies that requires certain level of expertise. So not all regular
courts are experts on any field. Mahimoibalhinnatosa administrative
agencies.
To cope with the growing complexities of modern society.
They can deal with problems in their particular fields with more
expertise and dispatch than the legislature or courts of justice. (Solid
Homes, Inc v. Payawal)
Policy and program coordination, how accomplished.

(a) Representation of the department in the governing board of the
attached agency either as chairman or member, with or without voting
rights, if permitted by the charter.
C: Mahimog attached agency ka during policy determination. The
representative of the agency, participates in the agency to which it is
attached.
(b) Periodic reporting by attached agency to the department about the
progress of programs and projects.
C: Meaning for monitoring

C: Bottomline, d kaya sa regular courts to accommodate or to act upon matters
only for them. That is why there is administrative delegation.
C:Thats an old case. Today, the jurisdiction pertains to the HLURB.

Kanangmga away sasilingansa subdivision, you go there.
Administrative agencies, manner of creation
Petranco v. PSC
Facts: The Public Service Commission approved application of a transportation
company to operate additional trucks but subject to conditions that it is valid
for 25 years only and may be acquired by the government which were argued
as total abdication of legislative functions.
Held: This is valid subordinate legislation warranted by complexities of modern
governments. The multiplication of subjects of government regulation, and
the increased difficulty in administering the laws, there is growing tendency
to delegate legislative power.
C: Take note here that Public Service Commission is an administrative agency.
Then it sets a standard. It says, okay, your permit to operate is valid only for
25 years. So it was challenged. Muragbanagbuotbuot man ka. You are trying
to legislate now.So dili kaya sa Congress ug regular courts naiyahatanan.
DOTC Secretary v. Mabalot

Facts: By authority of the President, the DOTC Secretary transferred the
functions of the DOTC-CAR to the LTFRB-CAR. It was argued it is a purely
legislative act hence not even the president much less the secretary can do
so.
Held: A public office may be created by the Constitution, by law or by
authority of law.
By authority of law: The creation of the LTFRB-CAR falls under the third
category which may be decreed through Executive Order issued by the
President or by an administrative agency like the Civil Service Commission.
By law: Presidential decrees expressly grant the president continuing authority
to reorganize the national government. It includes the power to group,
consolidate bureaus and agencies, to abolish offices, create, transfer and
classify functions.
Sec. 62 of the General Appropriations Act authorizes the President and Congress
to reorganize the department of agency including the power to create an
office.
Sec. 20, Book III of the Administrative Code grants the president residual powers
to reorganize the national government.
C: Do not be confused because in the law of public officers we said that the
president in the exercise of its powers to reorganize its office does not have
the power to create office but that is insofar as the office of the president is
concerned. Here we are talking about the national government. The power to
reorganize there includes that power to create.
Solid Homes v. Payawal

Facts: A buyer of subdivision lot sued the real estate developer before the trial
court after it failed to deliver certificate of title despite full payment.
Held: It is the National Housing Authority, and not the trial court, that has
jurisdiction over unsound real estate business practices.
As an administrative body specialized in the particular field assigned to it, it can
deal with problems with more expertise and dispatch than Congress or the
courts. Thus, the increasing vesture of quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative
powers on administrative bodies.
Larin v. Executive Secretary

Facts: The President streamlined the Bureau of Internal Revenue and abolished
the Excise Tax Service resulting in the termination of the Asst. Commissioner.
It was argued that there is no law authorizing the President to reorganize
executive agencies particularly the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Held: Sec. 48 of RA 7645 directs department heads to identify activities no
longer essential in the delivery of public services which may be the basis of
the president to scale down, phase out or abolish. This appears not to include
the power to create.
Eugenio v. CSC
Facts: The Career Executive Service Board is attached to the Civil Service
Commission which later absorbed it through reorganization.
Held:An attached agency conceived to be autonomous does not lose its
independent character by mere attachment. The CESB is not one of the
offices listed under the Civil Service Commission. As such, the CSC cannot
absorb it because its authority to reorganize is limited to the offices under its
control as enumerated.

rd
Sec. 62. Unauthorized Organizational Charges.Unless otherwise created by

law or directed by the President of the Philippines, no organizational unit or
changes in key positions in any department or agency shall be authorized in
their respective organization structures and be funded from appropriations by
this Act. (legal basis ; so by implication, the president can reorganize)
It now grants power to create aside from the residual powers. Likewise,
presidential decrees expressly grant the president continuing authority to
reorganize the national government.
C: Streamline - simplify
and 3 vice president. Murag you just want to give positions to these people.
Whats the relevance.
Held: There is no undue delegation of legislative power as no less than the Local
Government Code authorizes theliga board to create such other positions as
it may deem necessary for the management of the chapter which is
deemed a sufficient standard.
C:Balik ta so you can have a full grasp. Congress enacts a law and it requires an
IRR for its full implementation. But prior to Congress telling the Administrative
agencies to make an IRR, there has to be a sufficient standard that will guide the
agency to create the IRR. And here it was a sufficient standard when it said as it
may deem necessary for the management of the chapter. That is the basis.
Even if they are not in the law but because of this, they are allowed to do that.
Pwde sad sa Doctrine of Necessary Implication.
Cebu United Enterprises v. Gallofin

Facts: the Import Control Commission issued import licenses subject to
conditions. But later its term of existence expired.
Held: The conditions set forth in the import licenses remain in force and effect
even if the administrative agency that issued it has expired. The valid act of
an administrative agency survive its own death.
C: Contemplates of the effect of the orders and regulations by an
administrative officer who died - valid
Examples of sufficient standard:

To maintain monetary stability in the Philippines
To promote a rising level of production and real income in the Philippines
(R.A 265)
Promotion of public safety (Edu v Ericta)
public interest (People v. Rosenthal, Pantranco v. PSC)
justice and equity (Antamok Gold v CIR)
simplicity, economy and efficiency (Cervantes v Auditor General)
sense and experience of men (Mutual Firm Corp. v Industrial Commission)
national security (Hirabayashi v US)
Fair and equitable employment practices (Eastern v. POEA)
along the guidelines (De la Llana v Alba)
Crisostomo v. CA
Facts: The President of the Philippine College of Commerce was suspended. But
later he was ordered reinstated but the PCC has already converted it into the
Polytechnic University of the Philippines by the President of the Republic.
Held: Conversion is not equal to abolition. It merely changed the academic
status of the educational institution and not is corporate life.
C: What happned here, gisuspendang President sausaka-college. Now after
the suspension, pagbalikniyawalanaang college it was already converted to
university. So pwedesiyamabalik but to where and what position, we dont
know. Bastamabaliksiya because it was mere conversion, not abolition.
Insufficient standards:
The seized property shall be distributed to charitable institutions and other
institutions as the Chair of the National Meal Inspection Commission may see
fit, in the case of carabaos.
The phrase may see fit is a generous and dangerous condition. It is laden
with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even corruption.
There is no standard, guidelines or limitations on how to distribute, the
options are boundless.
Who are the beneficiaries? What is the criteria by which they are chosen?
Viola v. Alunan
Facts: The Ligangmga Barangay elected its first, second, third vice-presidents
and auditors for all chapters. It was challenged as unconstitutional for being
an undue delegation of legislative power.
C:The challenge here was it created positions nawala man ganinasabalaod.
And you know, you might wonder unsa man gudkadakosa responsibilities
saLigangmga Barangay that you need first president, second vice president

Only the officers can answer and they have the sole discretion. This is a roving
commission, a wide and sweeping authority which is not canalized within the
banks that keep it from overflowing. It is an invalid delegation of legislative
powers.
But compare this with create such other positions as it may deem necessary
for the management of its affairs which was considered sufficient standard.
(Viola v Alunan)
C:may see fit insufficient because there is now unbridled discretion,
encompassing kaayo. BUT compare this as when it says may deem necessary.
It is sufficient because you can establish the need and justify.
But regardless of length of service, those in the same category enumerated

above who are least qualified in terms of performance and merit shall be laid
first.
Thus, the order of separation after abolition through reorganization is
dictated not only by length of service, but also by performance and merit, all
things being equal.
Canonizado v. Aguirre
Facts: the PNP was reorganized. It expired the terms of office of the incumbent
commissioners of the Napolcom on the basis that it was already abolished.
Held:Minor changes that do not substantially affect composition, powers and
functions of an agency does not amount to abolition. As such, the terms of
office of the incumbent commissioners are not expired, aside from the fact
that they are members of the civil service who can only be removed by cause
and after due process pursuant to the security of tenure.
Without a valid reorganization, termination in the form term expiration is
unconstitutional.
C: Abolition must be express and intention must be wholly and permanently
get rid of the position
Abolition of administrative agency, when valid.

It is carried out by a legitimate body
It is done in good faith
Who or what is that legitimate body?
Congress by legislation
President by decree (NALTDRA v. CSC)
C:During the time niMarcos but as we all learned that PDs are still alive
and in force
When is it done in good faith?
Abolition pursuant to reorganization is in bad faith if any of the following is
present:
Significant increase in the number of positions
An office is abolished but another one created performing
substantially the same functions.
Incumbents are replaced by less qualified in terms of status of
appointment, performance and merit.
Reclassification where the classified offices perform substantially the
same functions as the original offices.
Removal violates order of separation.
Abolition of administrative agency by the President, basis of.

Facts: An executive order streamlined the National Tobacco Administration that
substantially reduced its personnel. The affected rank and file employees
argued an executive order cannot reorganize an office, bureau or agency
attached to a department, it being a legislative act.
Held: The legislative power to abolish does not extend to a bureau, office or
agency in the executive department which the President may reorganize
pursuant to the power of control.
Abolition of administrative agency, effect on security of tenure.
Termination arising out of a valid abolition does not offend security of tenure
because it is one mode of terminating official relations.
C:Pananglitnaagi-abolish, so katongmganangatangtang by virtue of
abolition, do they have the right to be appointed to the newly created
positions? Not necessarily. Theyre back to zero.
But preference of appointment in favor of affected employees merely entitle
them to priority in consideration, but not to automatic appointment.
What is that order of separation?

Casuals with less than 5 years of service
Casuals with 5 or more years of service
Employees holding temporary appointments
Employees holding permanent appointments

In case of abolition of one office and creation of another, outsiders may be
appointed to the newly created office provided they qualify and it is in the
best interest of public service. (Bagaoisan v NTC)
Kani, naghimora man silaug rules and regulations in so far as the billing is
concerned samga text and call. So that is quasi legislative power as such the
exhaustion of administrative liabilities is not available.
Powers of administrative agencies:

Quasi-legislative
Quasi-judicial
Implied powers
PART II
QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER: DOCTRINE OF SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION
C:This part of the administrative law will make us realize that the rules in
statutory construction will haunt us even if we become lawyers already because
that is actually the rule there, you need to understand the law. These are what
we will talk about:
LLDA v. CA
Facts: An administrative agency issued a cease and desist order against a local
government unit from operating an open dumpsite. But it was challenged as
without basis because he law merely says it has the power to make, alter,
modify orders requiring the discontinuance of pollution.
Held: While it is a fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only
such powers as are expressly granted, it has also implied powers necessary
to exercise its express powers. (Doctrine of necessary implication/ common
sense)
Nature and definition

Kinds of interpretative and legislative legislation
Valid regulation
Requisites of valid regulation
Penal regulations
Construction and interpretation
SMART v. NTC
Facts: Telecommunication companies challenged the billing rules and
regulations promulgated by the NTC. It was argued to be premature because
of the failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Held: The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply
when the administrative agency exercises quasi-legislative power. It only
applies when it exercises quasi-judicial power. In the same way, the doctrine
of primary jurisdiction applies only when the administrative agency exercises
quasi-judicial power.
C: Mao nikatongmutextrakaunya mu-reflect saimong bill. It was challenged
because it invades privacy.
C: Exhaustion of Administrative Agencies, it is required before you can go to
court. Exhaust first administrative agencies otherwise it will be premature.
But we must first distinguish because the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies does not apply when the administrative agency
exercises quasi-legislative power. It only applies when it exercises quasijudicial power.
Nature and Definition

Rizal v. NLRC
Facts: An insurance company terminated its employee on the ground of
tardiness and unexcused absences. But the Labor Arbiter reinstated him with
back wages. The insurance company moved to extend time to file Appeal
Memorandum on the last day. The motion to extend was denied by the Labor
Arbiter and the appeal was dismissed for being filed out of time.
C:This is a labor case and of course the insurance company there lost in the
labor case and because there was already a money judgment, it wanted to file
an appeal. However, it wanted to extend the time for the period on which to
file an appeal, which of course you know already that's not allowed. If there is
a case decided by the labor arbiter, it cannot file on motion for
reconsideration, that's a prohibited period in the same that it cannot ask
extension of time to file an appeal. So it was denied by the labor arbiter. But
the insurance company now says that:
The Revised Rules of the NLRC says decisions of the Arbiter become final and
executory unless appealed in 10 days and no motion for extension is
entertained.

Contention of the insurance company: The NLRC gravely abused its discretion
for dismissing the case out of technicality. It invoked the Rules of Court on
liberal construction in the interest of substantial justice.
Held: It may be true insofar as the Rules of Court is concerned whereas the
NLRC Rules of Procedure is clear and leave no room for interpretation.
Administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to
interpret the law they are entrusted to enforce have the force and effect of
law thus entitled to great respect.
C: Take note that it says great respect, in other words that cannot be
permanently binding. That is the mere interpretation of the administrative
body. However in the absence of nullification by the Supreme Court as to the
interpretation of the administrative body, that interpretation is valid and
entitled to great respect. In other words it is as good as it gets. VALID UNTIL
ANNULLED.
The Court of Appeals nullified the Memorandum Circular as there is nothing in

PD 27 that sanctions it. It is in conflict with PD 816 which says payment of
lease is to be made to the landowner. As a statute, PD 816 prevails over the
Memorandum Circular.
C: So again there is a conflict between the presidential decree which has the
force and effect of a law and the memorandum circular and so they are saying
that, that memorandum circular has no legal basis in so far as PD 186 is
concerned. However the Supreme Court said:
Held: The power of subordinate legislation allows administrative bodies to
implement the broad policies laid down in the statute by filling in the details
provided it is:
germane to the purpose of the law
conforms with the standard prescribed by law
C: What do you understand by germane? related as opposed to MUNDANE.
What do you understand about mundane? Ordinary. WORLDLY, mundane
mundo, makamundo.
PD 27 emancipates tenants from the bondage of the soil by transferring to them
ownership of the land they till.
C: So dibaang purpose there is to free the tenants, nakita man
sabalaodngamuraggidaog-daogkaauang farmer beneficiaries so there. What
happens here is, it was the intent of the law that prevailed over the fact that
the memorandum circular might have contradicted the presidential decree.
The Memorandum Circular is intended to avoid the situation where payments of
lease exceed the value of the land. It is to remedy the situation where lease
payments are not recorded or monitored because of the refusal of
landowners to issue receipts to the tenants.
In the exercise of the power of subordinate legislation, administrative bodies
are empowered to promulgate rules to fill in the gap of the statute to fully
implement the law.
C: Anginyung timan.an is this, congress enacts a law, and we say that law is
complete but not to complete as to provide the details of the
implementation, there are missing details that is now the administrative
agency that provides for the details in the form of IRR(Implementing Rules
and Regulations). But later we are going to realize that the law likewise said
that it cannot be too detailed ngasobrarapudnga di nanatokinahanglan.
Sigre v. CA
Facts: A land tenant has been paying rental to the landowner with 32
cavansevery agricultural year. But he stopped paying rentals to the landowner
and instead remitted it to LBP pursuant to the Memorandum Circular issued
by the Department of Agrarian Reform. It set guidelines in the payment of
lease rentals by farmer-beneficiaries under the land transfer program of PD
No. 27.
C: take note that the DAR is now the administrative agency tasked with the
duty to implement agrarian reform law of the government. And here what
happens is if you are a former tenant, naka-utangkasaimung land owner
naamoimunasiyangbayran right? Then dependenasa value sa land. Now,
pagbayadnimudunaynakitanaproblemaang DAR ngadili ma account
angpagbayadsa farmer-tenant because the landowner does not normally
issue receipt. Dilinamohatag or resibo. So what happens there is sometimes
molapasangbayadsa farmer so there was a memorandum circular which says
that:
It says payment of land rentals terminates on the date the value of the land is
established. Thereafter, the tenant-farmers pay their lease rentals to the LBP
or its authorized representative.
C: dilisa landowner kundisa LBP for monitoring or accounting. But of course
they said that it cannot be done because that is a mere memorandum
circular. It cannot amend the law, because it is not found in the law.
INTERPRETATIVE AND LEGISLATIVE REGULATION
10

C:Anginyu rang hinumdomandinhi is this, there is a law right? who interprets the
law? the Supreme Court of course, BUT did you not realize that it is not the
Supreme Court that first interprets the law, it is actually either the President or
the administrative agency that interprets the law first because you cannot
enforce the law without understanding the law, and you cannot understand the
law without construing the law as such it is actually the President or the
Administrative agency that first interprets the law. The interpretation by the
President or the administrative agency has actually have the force and effect of
the law UNTIL they are annulled by the Supreme Court
law and the sangguniangpanlalawigan cannot do that. As a matter of fact in Sec

11 it is not even required for them to justify the initial budget for the probation
officer as such it now is given entirely to the SangguniangPanlalawigan on
whether or not to have the probation officer. That is UNBRIDLED AUTHORITY,
UNDUE DELGATION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. As a matter of fact it was
challenged as UNCONSTITUTIONAL for offending equal protection clause
because probably this province has the money, ok let's give it to the probation
officer then we have probation officer. If this province will say wala mi money so
wala sad siya probation officer.
Eslao v. COA
Held: Administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies
to interpret the law have the force of law and are entitled to great respect.
People v. Vera
Held: the power to suspend laws pertains to Congress subject to the condition
that when it suspends, it cannot be suspended as to certain individuals only,
leaving the law to be enjoyed by others. The suspension must be general.
Thus, Section 11 is an improper and unlawful delegation of legislative authority
to the provincial boards and is therefore unconstitutional.
C: Anginyurajudhinumdumandinhi is this, when somehow the law says
administrative agency "ikawnaangbahala", that is invalid delegation of
authority kay there is UNBRIDLED DISCRETION, we discussed about sufficient
standard, there must be SUFFICIENT STANDARD. But where the law says:
"Ikawnaangbahala" that is invalid.
Peralta v. CSC
Held:When an administrative or executive agency renders an opinion or issues
a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law. It is at best
advisory, for it is the court that finally determines what the law means. It is
not binding upon the courts.
C: But again it is entitled to a great respect, not binding upon the courts but it
is only essential that question of law whether it is binding or not is that there
is a challenge. Without a challenge, they are presumed valid.
It may be set aside if there is error of law, abuse of power or lack of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion conflicting the letter or spirit of the
law.
As such, these interpretative regulations need not be published.
C: because they merely interpret the law.
Edu v. Ericta
Facts: The Reflector Law provides, lights on reflector when you park for
disabled. Appropriate parking lights flares visible 100 meters away shall be
displayed according to vehicle whenever such vehicle parks on highways or in
places that are not well-lighted or is such manner as to endanger passenger.
C: dibakanangmadautankasdalan you have that triangle. Early warning device
Furthermore, every motor vehicle.... ATTY: nevermind this kuno.... next slide
A motorists challenge this as UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it deprives
property without due process.
C: but of course the decision of the Supreme Court later is it is in the exercise
of POLICE POWER and if it is police power it can invade your private rights...
let's not discuss that let's move to the next slide because you know that
already.. There was a law in that case about that early warning device but
here there was administrative order that fully implements the law which says
that:
Administrative Order No. 2 says:
SOURCE, VALID DELEGATION

C: This is in applying probation under ACT No. 4221 however, SEC 11 of this Act
provides that "every provincial government must provide or appropriate funds
for the probation officer" If it cannot provide or appropriate funds for the
probation officer in effect there cannot be a probation officer in that place and
so the Supreme Court said that, that is UNBRIDLED DISCRETION because if you
do that the enforcement of the law now depends on the
Sangguniangpanlalawigan on whether or not it appropriates budget. So what if
the SangguniangPanlalawigan says now.. "Ok for this year this will be no budget
for the probation officer" the effect is they will suspend the enforcement of the
11

No motor vehicles of whatever style, kind, make, class or denomination shall
be registered if not equipped with reflectors. Such reflectors shall either be
factory built-in reflector commercial glass reflectors, reflection tape or
luminous paint. The luminosity shall have an intensity to be maintained visible
and clean at all times such that if struck by a beam of light shall be visible
100m away at night.
Another section prescribes dimension, placement and color.
C: so the challenge now is, they said it's too specific and there was no basis in
the reflector law
This was likewise challenged for being an undue delegation of legislative power.
Held: Generally, legislative power cannot be delegated except to local
governments that participate in its exercise. What cannot be delegated is the
authority of Congress to enact laws, alter and repeal them. If it involves
discretion as to what the law shall be, it cannot be delegated.
C: So if the question is WHAT THE LAW SHOULD BE, you cannot delegate that
because that pertains to the province of congress. But if the question is how
the law should be implemented or enforced. That can be delegated
If it involves authority to execute pursuant to the law, it can be delegated.
The law must be complete in all its terms and conditions. There must be
sufficient standard that defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its
boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it.
The standard may either be express or implied. If implied, it need not be
spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the purpose and policy of the
act considered as a whole.
In the Reflector Law, the objective of the law is public safety.
C: so remember that we said, public safety is sufficient standard, even if it is
couched in general terms but the Supreme Court said that is sufficient
standard, you can make implementing rules and regulations out of that
guiding principle on public safety.
The principle of non-delegation has been constrained to adapt to the growing
complexities of modern life thus the birth of the principle of subordinate
legislation.
While law-making is non-delegable, the authority to promulgate rules and
regulations to implement the law is allowed provided it is germane to the
purpose and conforms with the standard of the law.
Authority to fix the details in the execution or enforcement of legislative

policy.
C: because the reason behind there is impracticable for the congress to
anticipate each and every situation while the law is being implemented
so that is why there is that administrative agency which has the
expertise to implement the law
Rationale: it is impracticable to anticipate multifarious and complex situations
during enforcement of the law.
Eastern v. POEA
Facts: An overseas worker was killed in an accident in Japan by virtue of which
his widow was awarded death benefits and burial expenses by the POEA
pursuant to EO No. 797 and MC No. 2.
C: of course the employer complained under the POEA it has no jurisdiction
nganungmo award man og damages karun or benefits to the beneficiary
But the employer argued that POEA has no jurisdiction as it pertains to the SSS
against the State Insurance Fund.
EO 797 says the POEA governing board shall promulgate the necessary rules and
regulations to govern its exercise of adjudicatory functions pursuant to its
mandate to protect the rights of overseas Filipino workers to fair and
equitable employment practices.
C: again, we said already that fair and equitable employment practices is
sufficient standard but the question is can the POEA repeal or lay down
certain
amounts
of
money
to
award
to
the
beneficiaries?kanimaoniiyangproblema cause he says that POEA has no
jurisdiction to issue a memorandum circular to this effect:
MC No. 2, Sec. C. Compensation & Benefits.1. In case of death of the seamen during the term of his contract, the employer
pays his beneficiaries the ff:
a. P222,000.00 for master and chief engineer
b. P180,000.00 for other officers, including radio operators and master
electrician
c. P130,000 for ratings.
C: So again the employer said, there is no liability, there is no basis.
Contention of the employer: This Memorandum Circular violates non-delegation
of legislative power. There is no statutory authority given to POEA to
promulgate it. Even if there is, the regulations represent exercise of discretion
which cannot be delegated.
Two categories of legislative powers:

Determine what the law should be.
12

Held: It is true that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the
law cannot be delegated.
C: take note ha, we are talking here about substantive contents of the law,
which cannot be delegated because somehow if you say, murabasiyaog fine
100k, 180k so is there a legal basis to it for it to be valid in a memorandum
circular, but what the Supreme Court said:
What can be delegated is the discretion on how the law is to be enforced and
not what the law shall be.
PRACTICES so, that is allowed by the Supreme Court even if under the letter of
the law d judkakakitaog any provision that will say that POEA can require
employers to give something to the beneficiaries of somebody who died while
the contract of employment is still subsisting. It is not there in the law but the
intent of the law is this "FAIR AND EQUITABLE EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES".
Again statutory construction.
C: This one is an example of unbridled authority given to the president:
Shechter v. US
Facts: the National Industrial Recovery Act authorizes the President to approve
codes of fair competition for the live poultry industry. It may be approved
upon application by one or more trade or industrial association if the
President finds that:
The applicant imposes no inequitable restrictions on admission to
membership and that it is truly representative.
The code is not designed to promote monopolies or eliminate or
oppress small enterprises or will not discriminate.
Thus, the birth of the Live Poultry Code.
C: Take note ha, murag somehow it would appear that dunay guidelines
ngagihatagsa president.
Issue: Is it a valid delegation of legislative power?
Held: This is an unfettered discretion to make whatever laws the President
thinks may be needed or advisable for the rehabilitation and expansion of the
trade and industry.
In approving the Code, the President may impose his own conditions, adding to
or taking from what is being proposed, as in his discretion he thinks
necessary to effectuate the policy declared in the law.
C: In his discretion sabinisaya pa ikaw nay bahala. That is unbridled
discretion. That cannot be allowed.
It likewise authorizes the President to create administrative agencies to assist
him. But their findings or recommendations in the making of the code is
subject to the discretion of the President who may either accept, modify or
reject them as he pleases.
The authority relates to a host of different trades and industries thereby
extending presidential discretion to all varieties of laws. It is a sweeping
delegation of legislative power.
Two tests to determine valid delegation of legislative power:

Completeness test
Sufficient standard test
Completeness test- the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions
such that when it leaves Congress, there is nothing else left for the delegate to
do but enforce it.
Sufficient Standard test- there must be adequate guidelines in the law to define
the boundaries of the delegated authority.
The increasing demand for delegation of legislative authority has made it the
rule rather than the exception.
This justification for delegation of legislative power is applicable to
administrative bodies. With the proliferation of specialized activities and their
attendant peculiar problems, Congress found it more and more necessary to
entrust to administrative agencies the authority to promulgate rules to carry
out the general provisions of the law.
C: In other words congress is saying that, diliniya kaya, it has its limitations, it
cannot accommodate everything, it cannot perform everything thus there is
that need to delegate the power to administrative agencies and that is called:
This is the power of subordinate legislation.
C: remember ha, it all boils down to subordinate legislation
With this power, administrative bodies are authorized to fill in the details
which Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide. This
is effected by promulgation of implementing rules known as supplementary
regulations.
Memorandum Circular No. 2 is one such administrative regulation guided by the
mandate to protect the rights of overseas workers to fair and equitable
employment practices which is deemed a sufficient standard.
C: maskinwalay basis katong 180k 220k etc. the Supreme court liberalize
because unsa man iyang guidelines? it is FAIR AND EQUITABLE EMPLOYMENT
13

Aside from the general statement of rehabilitation, correction and expansion, it
has no standard for any trade, industry or activity. Instead of prescribing rules
of conduct, it authorizes the making of codes to prescribe them.
The code-making authority is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative
power.
C: Here, it is actually said that youre the president, ikaw nay bahala, you
make that Code. So it was an undue delegation. In effect, muragang Congress
somehow abdicated its duty to legislate. Muragnagtinapulanang Congress ba
since the President knows better, ikaw nay bahala, you make the Code. That
is UNDUE DELEGATION because there is NO LIMITATION, there is NO
GUIDELINES.
Effectivity of Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).

Penal or non-penal It needs to be published.
Publication
Filing with the UP Law Center
Except: when the law dispenses with filing.
But it cannot dispense with publication.
C: We CAN DISPENSE with the Filing with the UP Law Center IF THE LAW
PROVIDES THAT IT MAY BE DISPENSED WITH. But we CANNOT DISPENSE with
the PUBLICATION. Publication is mandatory Taada vs. Tuvera.
Nature of administrative rules and regulations.
They have the force and effect of a law
Partake of a nature of a statute
Effectivity of presidential issuances, rules and regulations.

Publication is required before they take effect.
Except: interpretative or internal in nature not concerning the general public.
Rule-making power of a public administrative agency:

Delegated legislative power
C:Osahay theres a law, then in the field, if you are going to implement that,
somehow there might be some confusion there and what you do in the field is
you seek written guidelines from the Central Office. When the Central Office
issues a written guidelines which is what we call a LETTER OF INSTRUCTION.
That is internal in nature, only for the understanding and guidelines to those
people involved in the organization. That NEED NOT BE PUBLISHED because IT
DOES NOT INVOLVE THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL. Murag ato2x langni, this is how
we are going to enforce the law.
Test of validity of delegation of rule-making power.

The law must be: Complete in itself In other words, Congress makes a law,
kompletonacya. As it leaves the hands of Congress, there is nothing left to do for
the Administrative Agency but to implement the law. But not too complete, that
is incomplete because there might be some missing details there that can be
filled-in by the Administrative Agency and that is what we call Subordinate
Legislation. But then again, it need not be too specific because if it is too
specific, that is no longer necessary, that is not needed.
Fix a standard, the limits are sufficiently determinate or determinable
Otherwise stated, there must be that sufficient standard.
In case of discrepancy between statute and IRR, the statute prevails.
Presidential issuances, basis.

C: You may think nuh that the rule-making power belongs to the Congress alone.
But sometimes the President issues Presidential Issuances, Executive Order, and
Administrative Order. They have the force and effect of a law. Is there a legal
basis there for the President to have law-making authority? That legal basis is
actually what we call as ORDINANCE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT.
Types of administrative rules and regulations:

Enforces the law- IRR If theres an IRR, it enforces the law.
Interprets the rule- LOI or the Letter of Instruction, it interprets the rule.
C: If LOI, NO NEED FOR PUBLICATION. If IRR, it MUST BE PUBLISHED because it
involves the public.
Ordinance power of the President

Authority to issue executive orders, proclamations, administrative orders,
memorandum, circulars, general or special orders.
C: During the time of Marcos, he was even more powerful because he was
allowed to issue Presidential Decrees which have the force and effect of a law,
murajudugbalaod, muracyaug Congress the President.
Test of validity of administrative rules and regulations.

Germane to the object of the law
14

th
Conforms to standards prescribed by law

Sole purpose of carrying into effect general provisions of the law
th
C: It talks about the 13 month pay. What is the basis of the 13 month pay,
in the computation? The basic salary. But here the Labor Secretary somehow
liberalized and said that the basic salary for purposes of computation of the
th
13 month pay must also include the commissions earned by the salesman,
so nidako. Is that allowed?
Requisites of valid regulation:

Authorized by law
Promulgated within the scope of authority
Promulgated in accordance with prescribed procedure
Reasonable and fair
Duly published
Filed with UP Law Center
Facts: Sales commissions of medical representatives were ordered included in

th
the computation of 13 month pay. But the employer refused to pay because
th
commissions do not form part of the basic salary as basis of the 13 month
pay.
th
PD 851 says the 13 month pay is based on basic salary which should be defined
in its common and generally accepted meaning.
A rate of pay for standard work period is exclusive of such additional payments
as bonuses and overtime. But the Labor Secretary revised the guidelines on
th
the implementation of the 13 month pay law.
th
Held: The inclusion of commission in the computation of the 13 month pay
th
unduly expands the concept of basic salary defined in the 13 month pay law.
Implementing rules cannot add or detract from the provision of law it is
designed to implement. It must be in harmony with the provisions of the laws
they are intended to carry into effect. They cannot widen its scope, much less
amend an act of Congress.
C: So bottom line is basic salary is basic salary ragyud, ayawnaiapilang
commissions. Probably in this case, the SC limited its application on the
concept of basic salary and not because it is a piece of social legislation. As a
matter of fact, it is not even a piece of social legislation because it is an
implementing rule promulgated by the Labor Secretary.
Authorized by law
Tayug Rural Bank v. Central Bank
Facts: Central Bank imposed 10% penalty on past overdue loans of rural banks.
But the law does not authorize it thru the Monetary Board to add penalty for
past due accounts.
C: Take note, the difference there is, the source law does not authorize a
penalty. But heres a memorandum circular from the Central Bank saying that
it imposed 10% penalty. Is the imposition of the 10% penalty a Subordinate
Legislation? And if it is, is it valid?
Held: When an administrative agency promulgates rules, it must be in
pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred by law. When this is
complied, it partakes the nature of a statute, and its compliance may be
enforced by a penal sanction provided by law.
Hence, an administrative agency cannot impose a penalty not provided by law,
much less one that applies retroactively.
C: If you notice, somehow, the SC would liberalize, it says that for as long as it
gives life to the purpose and intent of the law, that Subordinate Legislation
could be considered valid. However, if you think about it, kani, if it penalizes,
if theres a sanction, the attitude of the SC is it construes against that
regulation that penalizes. If it provides a penalty, chances are the SC will strike
it down IF THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE SOURCE LAW, basta penalty. But
katongganihasa Overseas Contract Workers, it was not a penalty, it was a
benefit to be given to the beneficiaries.
Its actually a case-to-case basis. Here, the SC said that the basis which is basic
salary is already established under law so there is no basis for you to expand
it. Its a case-to-case basis. Sometimes, the SC would liberalize. Sometimes, it
will not.
Republic v. CA
Facts: In 1985, the BIR assessed and demanded payment of tax deficiency from
a company which did not pay after it availed tax amnesty under an EO. BIR
insisted because the implementing memorandum limits tax amnesty to
assessments made after EO took effect in 1986.
Promulgated within the scope of authority

Boie-Takeda v. Dela Serna & Philippine Fuji Xerox v. Trajano
15

Held: The executive order merely provided for a general statement covering all
tax liabilities from 1981-1985. It did no limit its applicability as it is designed to
be in the nature of a general grant of tax amnesty.
Administrative issuances to enforce the law must be in harmony with it, not
modify or supplant it.
when read in conjunction with the law, says the death sentence is carried out
not earlier than 1 year nor later than 18 months from the time the death
penalty became final and executory, subject to executive clemency.Theres
actually a date but it is not certain when, theres a range, to afford the
President to grant an executive clemency. During this time, President Estrada
did not extend executive clemency in favor of Echegaray.
Contention of the dead man walking: There is undue delegation of legislative
power because the power delegated to the Justice Secretary to promulgate
rules and regulations on the subject of lethal injection was likewise delegated
to the Prisons Director. Echegaraysays that you cannot delegate what has
been delegated to you, that is undue delegation.
Held: The rule is that what has been delegated cannot be delegated or
potestasdelegata non delegaripostest.
Exceptions are:
Delegation of tariff powers to the president under Section 28(2), Article VI,
1987 Constitution.
Delegation of emergency powers to the president under Section 23(2), Article
VI, 1987 Constitution.
Delegation to the people at large. refers to Peoples Initiative.
Delegation to local governments.
Delegation to administrative bodies.
Empowering the Justice Secretary in conjunction with the Health Secretary and
the Prisons Director to promulgate rules and regulations on the subject of
lethal injection is a form of delegation of legislative authority to
administrative bodies.
It is subject to the following requisites:
It must be complete in itself- it must set forth the policy to be executed,
carried out or implemented by the delegate.
It must fix a standard- the limits are sufficiently determinate or
determinable, to which the delegated must conform in the performance of
his functions.
Considering the scope and definiteness of the death penalty law, it sufficiently
describes what is the job to be done, who is to do it and what is the scope of
authority. It is executed under authority of the Prisons Director who shall take
steps to ensure the administration of lethal injection causes instantaneous
death by personnel trained prior to the performance of such task. Naa nay
guidelines butEchegaray is looking for something more specific, kinsajud. The
Supreme Court said:
People v. Maceren
Facts: The Fisheries Law prohibits the use of any poisonous or obnoxious
substance in fishing. But the administrative order prohibited and penalized
electro fishing.
C:Take note, the source law only prohibits the use of any poisonous or
obnoxious substance. But the administrative order said something else
because probably in order to protect the environment, it prohibited and
penalized electro fishing.
The trial court quashed the information on the ground that no law was violated
since electro fishing is not a poisonous or obnoxious substance contemplated
by law.
Held: The Fisheries Law does not expressly criminalized electro fishing hence the
administrative order cannot penalize it. The administrative agency cannot
transcend the bounds demarcated by statute to exercise that power.
C: So again theres a penalty there, that is a sanction with a penal in character.
What did I say? For as long as there is a penalty, the attitude of the SC is to
strike it down as unconstitutional because there is no basis in the source law.
So the Administrative Law cannot add something that was not there in the
first place penalty what did we say? It must be construed in favor of the
accused, in case of doubt.
Echegaray v. Justice Secretary
Fact: A dead man walking challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty
law for being cruel and inhuman, arbitrary and unreasonable, undue
delegation of legislative power and unlawful delegation of delegated powers
by the Justice Secretary to the Bureau of Corrections Director.
Contention of the dead man walking: The death penalty is cruel and inhuman
because it fails to provide drugs, dosage and procedure to be used for lethal
injection. The implementing rules are uncertain as to date of execution, time
of notification and the court which will fix the date of execution.
Held: The death penalty law says the court which designates the date of
execution is the trial court which convicted him. The implementing rules,
16

Requiring detail greater than that does not serve any useful purpose.
C: What did we say? Theres a source law, it is complete but missing details
then you fill in the gap, Subordinate Legislation, very specific but cannot be
too specific like this one.
A delegated legislative power is proper even if the standard appears general
provided it is capable of reasonable application.
C:Diba what did we say a Sufficient Standard? Public welfare, Public interest,
Public safety, even Sense and Experience of Men couched in general terms,
but if it is capable of reasonable application, that is Sufficient Standard
according to the SC.
There is no undue delegation of legislative power from the Justice Secretary to
the Prisons Director for the simple reason that under the Administrative
Code of 1987, the Bureau of Corrections is a mere constituent unit of the
Department of Justice. Nakakitauglusotang SC, waladiaygi delegate
kaykaubanramansila, you cannot delegate to somebody youre already
companion with.
The DoJ is tasked to take charge of the administration of the correctional
system. But the execution procedure that empowers the Director to prepare
the manual to detail procedure prior to, during and after administering the
lethal injection is invalid.
It virtually abdicates the power of the Justice Secretary to promulgate the
manual to the Prisons Director.(C: You prepare the manual, again,
bahalanaka, you do it. That is virtual abdication of the power to formulate
IRR.) It does not provide for a mode of review and approval by the Justice
Secretary who is the rule-making authority identified by the death penalty law
and the administrative superior who should stamp imprimatur of a manual
prepared by a constituent unit.
C: What were saying here is that pwedekamo prepare the manual,
bahalanaka. But submit it back to me for review and approval. That will cure
the defect. But if you say bahalanaka, then thats it, that is UNBRIDLED
AUTHORITY.
The suspension of execution of death sentence under the implementing rules is
likewise invalid.The Revised Penal Code suspends the death penalty while a
woman is pregnant or within a year after delivery. But the implementing rules
suspends the death penalty while a woman is pregnant or within 3 years
following the date of sentence.
C: The SC said that that 3-year period there has no basis in law under the
Revised Penal Code, nganonaa man kay 3 years, nikalit lang.
Since the 3-year reprieve does not find support in the Revised Penal Code, it
expanded the death penalty law.
C: But you know what I said? It is a case-to-case basis because here the 3-year
period is actually in favor of the accused. And if the SC would want it, it would
have liberalize that, it is ok, it is in favor of the accused. But then case-to-case
basis, dependelangsapagtan-aw sa SC.
These two provisions being invalid, respondents are enjoined from enforcing the
death penalty until the implementing rules and regulations are appropriately
amended, revised or corrected according to this decision.
C: Thats the reason why at the first instance, patyonnauntasiEchegaray, there
was a TRO issued by the SC, walamadayun. And actually the SC also said there
that diliosanatoidayun because there is actually a pending proposal in
Congress to abolish the death penalty. So SC mismonahadlok sad nga it might
commit a mistake, for death is irreversible, but later on nadayunrajud.
Question: Sir, kung executive clemency ramanangmakapawagtang sir nuh? (Yes)
But does that mean ngadilinapudsiyaprisohon?
ATTY: Prisogihapon, the death penalty would be (likened to imprisonment?
dilimaklaro)
Duly published
Republic v. Medina
Facts: The PSC approved the application of Meralco for rates adjustment which
was challenged for lack of notice of hearing. The Public Service Act grants it
discretion to approve rates proposed by public services provisionally without
need of hearing.
C: Take note ha, ngano without need of hearing man? Because it says that
provisionally temporary.
But it appears that the notice of hearing was published in 2 newspapers for 10
th
days but the hearing started ahead on the 6 day and the rates were
th
approved on the 11 day.
th
C: Take note ha, the notice should be 10 days but on the 6 day
th
kaynaghearingnasila and they approved on the 11 day. The issue is was
there substantial compliance here?
Held: If the PSC is empowered to approve provisional rates even without a
hearing, a fortiori it may act on such rates upon a 6-day notice.
C: A fortiori means with more reason. So kani, because it is under the topic
Duly Published, was there publication? Here, what we are saying is for as long
17

as there is substantial compliance, that is already compliance, substantial,
publication.
C: In other words, what if in one school, somebody proposed an increase and

it was submitted to the DepEd for adjudication and there is a decision, that is
Quasi-judicial.
As such, prior notice and hearing are essential to the validity of the rules.
Phil. Consumers Foundation v. Education Secretary

Facts: the Department of Education, Culture and Sports issued a Department
Order authorizing 15-20% increase in school fees. This was challenged as
unconstitutional on the grounds of lack of legal basis and violation of due
process.(C: DECS is the old name of DepEd.)
Contention: Lack of legal basis because the authority to regulate school fees
does not always include the power to increase them.
Held: The Education Act of 1982 vests the DECS with the power to promulgate
rules regulating the educational system of the country. It is also charged with
rule-making authority to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations.
C: Education Act of 1982 is the basis of increase of tuition fees.
The authority to prescribe school fees may not have been expressly granted to
it. But in the absence of a law stating otherwise, this power includes the
power to increase school fees.
C: The principle involved there is the Doctrine of Necessary Implication.
Since no other government agency is vested with the power to prescribe school
fees, it defaults to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports.
C: The argument there is that it has the authority to prescribe school fees but
it does not follow that you have the authority to increase. Meaning the
authority to increase must be lodged somewhere else, not the DepEd. But the
SC said that it doesnt make sense, it defaults to the DepEd.
Contention: Lack of due process because the Department Order was issued
without notice and hearing to the parents and students.Very common issue,
we are not consulted, why did the tuition fees increase.
Held: The power to prescribe fees is either quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial. It
is quasi-legislative when the rules are meant to apply to all enterprises of a
given kind throughout the country.
C: Because dilicya memorandum and if dilicya memorandum or a circular, it
must be applied equally to all, otherwise if you specify something, that
offends Equal Protection Clause.
As such, prior notice and hearing to affected parties is not a requirement of
due process.
C: SO IF IT IS QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THERE IS NO PRIOR NOTICE AND HEARING.
It is quasi-judicial when the rules apply exclusively to a particular party, based
upon finding of fact.
PART III
QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER
C:Of course like I said, this is just a reiteration on our discussion on the powers
of Commission on Elections. Remember that even the COMELEC has quasijudicial and quasi-administrative powers. We will discuss certain cases to
magnify the concepts.
Of course we know the definition right? So, no need to expound on that.
However, what do we understand by quasi? Dibamuraxaug mura-mura.
Because when we say judicial, normally we understand that as pertaining to the
judiciary. Only a judge can perform that. But there is a thing called quasi-judicial.
IOW, murakagHuwespero di kaHuwes. Thats what were saying here. Murag
semi.
Quasi-judicial power, defined.
The power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative
policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards to enforce and
administer the law.
Acts in the exercise of quasi-judicial power, enumerated.
It is required to:
Investigate and ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence
Draw conclusions from them as basis for their official function and exercise of
discretion in a judicial nature. (Smart v. NTC)
C: So, it determines facts then applies the law to the given set of facts? That is
quasi-judicial.
Quasi-judicial power, limitation.
But an administrative body cannot assume jurisdiction over a case pending in
the regular courts.
18

C: So, even if it was filed with the regular courts, but that is the wrong
venue, meaning it has no jurisdiction, the administrative agency cannot
just take it away from the Courts unless the Court dismisses it for lack
of jurisdiction or the Higher Court says you have no jurisdiction. Once
it is dismissed, that is the time when it may be filed with the
administrative agency. But the administrative agency cannot just
encroached or tell the Court that, you dont have jurisdiction! Give it
to us. It cannot be done.
Administrative agencies are neither part of the judicial system nor are they
deemed judicial tribunals.
Even if it performs quasi-judicial functions, it does not depart from its basic
nature as an administrative agency.
They remain with the executive branch. As such, they cannot impose the
judgment upon the judiciary. (United v. Coslap)
C: Bottom line here is this: if you are an administrative agency, know
your
place.
You
cannot
just
say
we
are
empowered..bllahhhhblahhhwe can now take the case from you
because you dont have jurisdiction..
C:So if you have a problem with the service given to you

byTelecommunications Company, the remedy then is not to file with the PSC
but with the Regular Courts.
The jurisdiction of administrative agencies is limited to those expressly
granted or necessarily implied by law.
C:But this is not the Globe that we know today. This is a case in 1987.
Mgatelegrama pa to.
Take note ha: Jurisdiction is either expressly granted or necessarily implied by
law. Again we are prompted/haunted here by the doctrine of necessary
implication.
Requirements for valid exercise
Due process
Utto v. Comelec
Facts: The Comelecen banc voided the proclamation of the mayor who argued
his right to due process was denied because the twin-notice requirement of
prior notice and hearing was not observed.
C: Because the COMELEC was too excited because void man judang
proclamation in the first place so they are going to void the proclamation and
it was upheld by the Supreme Court saying:
Held: Even if it was not observed, the twin-notice requirement does not apply
if the proclamation was void ab initio. In administrative proceedings, due
process simply means an opportunity to be heard and to reconsider or
explain either written or verbal.
C:Again because administrative proceeding is only summary in nature. Like I
said, I always say this, those procedural due process or steps that you see in
AngTibay Case, that does not necessarily hold true for all cases. Because
today what we are saying is for as long as there is an opportunity to be heard
given by respondent that should be enough. That is already substantial
compliance insofar as procedural due process is concerned. Because like I
said, summary ang nature sa administrative proceeding. So you cannot invoke
right to counsel, right to confront witness, bastadunalang opportunity to
present your side, that would be enough.
Remember that you are also a passive agency. You can only act when a
case is filed before you.
Requirements for valid exercise
Jurisdiction
Globe v. PSC
Facts: An international telecommunications company operates a franchise
granted by law which failed to deliver a message abroad. A case was filed
before the PSC which found it liable for unsatisfactory service.
C: Today this is not a problem anymore right? Before mg.telegramaka,
kinahanglannimoipadalasausaka
telecommunications
company
kayipadalasaasanimoiipadala. It is better than Morse code.Then because it
failed to arrive on time, a case was filed before Public Service Commission
which found it liable for unsatisfactory service. And so, because of the
decision of PSC, it was challenged as to WON it has jurisdiction.
Held: The law authorizing franchise limited the jurisdiction of the PSC only with
respect to the rates charged to the public and it does not include acts of
negligence.
C: It has regulatory powers in so far as the rates is concerned.
This rule applies a fortiori if the respondent chose not to avail of the
opportunity to answer charges because of the belief that the disciplining
authority is without jurisdiction.
C:When we say a fortiori, it means that with more reason diba?
19

Garcia v. Pajaro
Facts: An administrative case was filed by the treasurer against the revenue
collector who refused to attend the scheduled hearings despite notice because
he believes it is the mayor who has authority to discipline him.
Held: When a party refuses to answer the charges against him, he cannot invoke
denial of due process. The refusal to attend the scheduled hearings, despite
notice, is at his own peril.
C: So in other words, what they are saying here maybe is this: walayklaronga
basis sabalaodngamahimomomuhimoug rules on procedures. IOW, the law is
silent.
Held: The absence of rules of procedure does not diminish jurisdiction over the
subject matter. Where the law does not require any particular rule of
procedure to be followed by an administrative agency, it may adopt any
reasonable method to carry out its function.
C: In other words, if the law is silent, you cannot be crippled by the mere
silence of the law. You have to use your imagination. How do we carry on our
functions? Just use the reasonable method or other administrative agencies,
they actually adopt the rules of procedures of other administrative agencies.
Or they can also adopt by suppletory character, the Rules of Court. So if the
law is silent, Reasonable Method can be done to carry out the function.
Rivera v. CSC
Facts: The Merit Systems Protection Board (MPSB) ruled on the motion for
reconsideration filed by the manager who was found guilty of grave
misconduct and acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service of the LBP.
It was appealed to the CSC which sustained the original decision of the LBP.
C: The problem here is this, angkatong MPSB Chair that rendered the decision
is now a Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission. So the question is,
can he review his own finding?
The manager argued he was denied due process because the MPSB Chair that
ruled on the motion for reconsideration is now the CSC Commissioner who
ruled on the appeal.
Held: The reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose
decision is under review else there could be no different or real view.
C: So if you make a finding in the decision and is now elevated to higher office
or higher authority, you cannot be a part of that higher authority because it is
very un-procedural. It violates due process for you to review your finding. Of
course lahisaatong review study like you have first read, second read, third
read, review reviewreview. So if you decide, you cannot review. So if
adtokasataas, the most that you can do is to inhibit, you cannot review your
own findings. It violates due process.
Related powers
Subpoena and contempt power
Carmel v. Ramos
Facts: The mayor created a committee to investigate anomalies in licensing. The
committee subpoenaed a private citizen to appear before it but he refused
hence a case for contumacy was filed before the trial court.
Held: Subpoena and contempt powers must be granted by law. Whatever
power claimed by the committee comes from the power of the mayor to
investigate as implied from the power to suspend or remove employees.
There is no statutory grant of power to investigate.
C:So this one, it was just the Mayor doing the extra mile. Nagcreatexaug
Committee to investigate licensing anomalies. Now what happened there
was, dunasilaygi.subpoenana private individual but did not appear. So is that
contumacious? Not necessarily because there was no statutory grant on the
power to cite contempt in the first place. So you know, kung imungtan.awn,
dibasa Senate Investigation Committees, they have the power to cite you for
contumacy right? If you dont appear or if you appear and refuse to be put
under oath. Correct! But if it is the local legislative assemblies,
SangguniangPanlalawigan, SangguniangPanlungsod, they do not have the
power to cite you for contumacy because there is no such grant under the
law. So what they do, they invite you, it is not called subpoena, invitation.
Can you refuse? Yes. Is there a consequence? No. Because it is a mere
invitation. You can just snub that.
Related powers
C:Take Note ha that there is such a thing as Related Powers. What are we
saying? If could either be express Powers or Implied Powers. But remember,
theres also what we call as Related Powers.
Power to promulgate rules of procedure
Provident Tree Farm v. Batario
Facts: The BoC banned the importation of wood, wood products or woodderived products. But its jurisdiction was challenged because the Tariff &
Customs Code does not outline the enforcement of the import ban.
20

Hence, the Ombudsman has contempt power because Section 15(g) of the
Ombudsman Act gives it the power to punish for contempt, in accordance
with the Rules of Court and under the same procedure and the same
penalties provided therein.
C: So it is very clear insofar as the Ombudsman is concerned, it has the power
of contumacy.
And when it is supported by substantial evidence, even if not overwhelming or

preponderant, it must be respected, except when there is grave abuse of
discretion, fraud or error of law.
ERV v. CA
Facts: The ERB approved the application for a gasoline retail outlet in a trading
area but it was reversed by the Court of Appeals because it results in ruinous
competition and its feasibility study is already stale.
Held: The power to determine whether a gasoline station benefits the oil
industry and public interest lies with the ERB and not the appellate court.
C:Again, because the ERB has the specialized expertise insofar as the grant of
gasoline station franchise is concerned. If its about safety, public
convenience, the agency that is in the best position to determine that is the
ERB and not the Court of Appeals. But then again, except if theres grave
abuse of discretion. Kana ragyud.
Lastimosa v. Vasquez
Facts: The Ombudsman ordered a prosecutor to show cause why she should not
be punished for contempt after filing a case for acts of lasciviousness, instead
of attempted rape.
Held: It constitutes defiance, disobedience or resistance of a lawful process,
order or command of the Ombudsman thus making her liable for indirect
contempt.
C:Diba because one of her defenses was, you cannot cite me for contempt
because you do not have jurisdiction over me. But the Ombudsman
proceeded and cite her for contempt. And you know the story right? She
resigned as prosecutor and she prospered even more.
Substantial evidence, defined.

Rubberworld v. NLRC
Facts: An employee was dismissed due to stock cards discrepancies. But the
employee filed a case for unfair labor practice because the dismissal is a mere
result of his refusal to disaffiliate from the union.
C: So hes now crying unfair labor practice but we know that Unfair Labor
Practice can only be had if there is a Union. Correct. Now, what happened
there was this
Held: Unfair labor practice was belied by the fact that the employee pursued the
case alone where normally he is supported by the union.
C:So natingalaangKorte, nganu man, if your problem is you want to
disassociate yourself from the Union, IOW, you are presupposing that there is
a Union, how come that now you are alone? When supposedly you are to be
supported by the Union and..
There is likewise no proof of affiliation, much less existence of the union.
C: There was no Union in the first place. So
There is no substantial evidence which is defined as such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Quantum of proof
Lameyra v. Pangilinan
Facts: A janitor was dismissed from service by the mayor due to absence
without leave on the strength of the certification by a personnel officer that
the janitor did not report for work one month. This was affirmed by the CSC.
C: Now, is there substantial evidence as in this case?
Held: While findings of fact of administrative agency must be respected, it
must be supported by substantial evidence.
Certification of the personnel officer does not amount to substantial evidence,
especially against the allegations that the janitor was prevented from signing
the log book, replaced by another and forced to resign.
C:Bottom line here, Oppression. Gidaogdaogang Janitor. He wanted to work
but he was prevented to work, he cannot log in. So exactly ngawalaxay
evidence of attendance for work. Mao nay nahitabodiha. So take note that
substantial evidence, how do we determine that is a case to case basis. But in
this case, the Supreme Court said that there is substantial evidence. Take not
of this, grave oppression.
C:Take Note of the word reasonable mind, in other words, it must be within
reason for you to say that, that is adequate to support a conclusion. Mura
naxaugpwedenani. Kana ra, substantial evidence, pwedenani. Thats it.
21

innocent of the charge, you are entitled to salary. But if it is PURELY
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO SALARY.
Whereas the Administrative Code of 1987 says: An appeal shall not stop the
decision from being executory, and in case the penalty is suspension or
removal, the respondent shall be considered as having been under preventive
suspension during the pendency of the appeal in the event he wins the
appeal.
C:Now, it is silent as to WON you are entitled to salary in case you are
exonerated. So question, what should we do? My answer is this: Apply it by
analogy because it is silent. So, you can apply it by analogy.
But Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act says Any order, directive or decision
imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, suspension of not
more than one months salary shall be final and unappealable
C:Kung Public Censure, diba meaning, gikasab-an raka, suspension of not
more than one month salary, it is final and unappealable. Nganu man
kahanga final and unappelable? Kelangangma.imposejudxa. The reason is
simple, gamayraxa. Accept and Move on. Gamayra. Public Censure is
nakasalakaggamay and giingnankaug ayawnausba ha, theres no fine, no
suspension, kasabalanggamay. So accept. Let it go.
In all administrative disciplinary case, orders, directives or decisions, of the
Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a
petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice
of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration
in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman likewise says: In case of conviction
where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of
not more than one month, or a fine not equivalent to one month salary, the
decision shall be final and unappealable.
C: So automatic na.Ayawlanghagoky you know..are you familiar with Pyrrhic
Victory?nakadaogtoodka, peroimunggastodakora kayo. So let it go.
In all other cases, the decision shall become final after the expiration of ten (10)
days from receipt thereof by the respondent x xx.
Suspension for one year without pay is not enumerated as immediately final and
unappealable. That an appeal prevents finality and execution depends on
whether the law expressly says so.
Since the governor was charged before the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman Act
applies. If before the Office of the President, the LGC applies. If before the
CSC, the Administrative Code applies.
Enforcement and execution.

Lapid v. CA
Facts: A governor was suspended by the Ombudsman for 1 year after he was
found guilty of conspiracy with other officials for illegal quarrying and
collecting fees without the benefit of an ordinance.
The governor filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals and prayed
for injunctive relief but it did not act on it. Thus, the governor went to the SC
which likewise did not grant the injunctive relief and instead required parties
to comment.
On the same day, the CA acted and denied it. Thus, the DILG enforced the
decision.
Issue: Whether the one-year suspension is immediately executory.
C: This one ha, because this will answer your question insofar as preventive
suspension is concerned. Remember preventive suspension? When later on
you are exonerated from the charge. This will answer it. The answer is..
It depends. If the law creating the administrative agency states that its orders or
decisions are immediately final and executory, an appeal does not stay its
execution.
Sec. 68 of the LGC says: An appeal shall not prevent a decision from being
final and executory. The respondent shall be considered as having been
placed under preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal in the
event he wins such appeal. In the event the appeal results in his exoneration,
he shall be paid his salary and such other emoluments during the pendency of
the appeal.
C: But Take Note ha, when you say Preventive Suspension, for 60 days for
example, the rule for no pay for no work, applies. What we are talking here
about is Appeal and it says here that kung mudaogka, exonerated ka later,
kaydiba final naman and natangtangnkasapwesto right? Or nasuspendednaka,
consider the period that you are placed under preventive suspension but the
question is, if the first premise is if under preventive suspension you are not
entitled to salary, why are we saying here that you are entitled to salary in
cases where you are exonerated? Because here, you are not placed under
preventive suspension but you were considered to have been placed under
preventive suspension. Do you follow? Can you draw the line now? Klaro? You
were not placed under preventive suspension but merely considered to have
been preventively suspended. So in case you are exonerated, you are
22

C: Caveat: Because here ang Civil Service Commission, they say that it Is now
the Administrative Code of 1987 that governs Civil Service Rules and
Regulations. But to my mind, it does not necessarily follows that the Civil
Service Act of 1959 is already useless because the repealing clause of the
Administrative Code of 1987 does not expressly repeal the Civil Service Act of
1959.
public officials and employees for negligence resulting in a hotel fire that
killed 74 persons.
C:What happened here is we disregard safety.
Despite their appeal from their suspension and dismissal, the Ombudsman
enforced the decision. But they argued that the AO that amended the rule
does not apply to them because it took effect 3 months after the decision was
issued and 3 years after it was enforced. Hence, it cannot be applied
retroactively.
C: So the question here is this, can it be applied retroactively?
Held: While Art. 4 of the Civil Code provides that laws shall not have retroactive
effect, it does not apply to rules of procedure of the courts. Being retroactive
in nature, they apply to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their
passage.
C: So if it is a Rule of Procedure, it can be applied retroactively.
As a general rule, no vested right attaches or arises from procedural laws and
rules, hence retroactive application does not violate any right.
The Ombudsman Rules of Procedure are procedural in nature thus may be
applied retroactively to cases pending and unresolved at the time of
passage.
There is no such thing as vested right in an office except constitutional offices
which provide for special immunity as regards to tenure and salary.
Caveat: Administrative Order No. 17 dated September 15, 2003 amending

Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman
says the decision is final, executory and unappealable where the respondent
is:
Absolved of the charge
C: It is like your acquittal. If in the criminal case you are acquitted,
theres no more remedy. No more remedy for the prosecution. You
cannot anymore file an appeal over an acquittal. Probably, pwede pa
sa civil aspect but sa criminal aspect, once you are acquitted, that is
final unless there is Newly Discovered Evidence later on.
Convicted where the penalty is:
Public censure or reprimand
Suspension of not more than one month
Or a fine equivalent to one month salary
In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the CA under Rule 43
C: But that is not our issue. You can appeal, Yes. But can the decision
be enforced against you? The answer is this.
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction or doctrine of prior resort, definition and

nature of.
PSUMW v. Samar Mining, cited in Abejo v. dela Cruz
Under the sense-making and expeditious doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the
courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which
is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal where the question
demands exercise of sound discretion requiring the special knowledge,
experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine
technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential
to comply with the purpose of the regulatory statute administered.
C: But let me clarify this, if the case is filed in the regular courts for example
and seemingly the regular courts has no jurisdiction because it pertains to an
administrative agency because they have the expertise, it does not necessarily
follow that it will be transferred right away to that administrative agency. As a
litigant, your remedy is to file a MOTION TO DISMISS on the ground of lack of
But such appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory.
C:So what will stop the decision from being executory? If the Court of Appeals
issues a Temporary Restraining Order. But can the CA issue a TRO against a
decision of the Ombudsman? That is one of the assignments(junjunbinay case)
In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such
appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and
shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by
reason of the suspension or removal.
Villasenor v. Ombudsman
Facts: Two electrical inspectors were dismissed and suspended for one year by
the Ombudsman for violation of code of conduct and ethical standards for
23

jurisdiction, if it is dismissed, then probably your opponent can transfer the
case to the administrative agency.
C: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction or prior resort, when you think about it
is actually a remedy available in favor of a regular court. So when a regular
court accepts, you file a complaint before them, then it says we have no
jurisdiction because of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction it pertains to a
specialized agency, it can dismiss right away on its own for lack of jurisdiction.
Thus, jurisdiction over unsound real estate practices pertains to the National
Housing Authority, and not the courts, the former having been granted
regulatory authority with quasi-judicial functions.
an administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending

referral to such issues to the administrative body for its review.
C: Again, this is not a hard and fast rule, it could either be the court dismisses for
lack of jurisdiction or suspends the proceedings and refer the matter to the
commissioners.
Exhaustion of administrative remedies
Garcia v. CA
Facts: A complaint was filed against an administrator of the Philippine Coconut
Authority (PCA) for alleged irregularities.
The PCA Governing Board created an Investigation Committee which
recommended administrative charges against and preventively suspending
the administrator. But the administrator filed several motions and pleadings
that unduly delayed the case hence the Investigation Committee ruled that
the delay be not counted in the period of preventive suspension. He went to
the court for injunctive relief.
Held: The immediate recourse to the court is premature and precipitate. Apart
from the fact that the investigation was still ongoing, there is still an
administrative remedy from the decision of the PCA Governing Board, that is,
an appeal to the CSC.
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, direct recourse to
courts does not prosper until after all administrative remedies are first
exhausted.
C: So it can also be a ground for dismissal because of prematurity. You have to
exhaust all available administrative remedies before going to court. The
reason there is to screen filing of cases before the court because of clogged
court dockets
The remedy is not to halt the proceedings but to take part, assert and vindicate
the rights in administrative proceedings.
Antipolo Realty v. NHA

Facts: A buyer of a subdivision unit stopped paying after the developer failed to
beautify the subdivision per contract to sell. After the buyer refused to pay,
the developer rescinded the contract to sell but it was reinstated by the NHA
which jurisdiction is now assailed by the developer.
Held: NHA is vested by statute exclusive jurisdiction over certain disputes falling
within its expertise.
C: That is now your HLURB.
But the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not necessarily divest the court of
jurisdiction, it merely suspends the proceedings pending referral to the
administrative body.
C: It depends, sometimes the court will dismiss sometimes it does not. And
here, within this context it actually means that it could be referred to
commissioners. There are questions there that cannot be resolved by the court
on the simple basis that the court has no expertise. For example, land dispute,
encroachment, there are technical descriptions there, the judge is clueless
about that technical descriptions, so what they do is they require to litigants to
choose a commissioner, then the judge will approve the nomination of the
commissioners. It is now the commissioners who will make the findings of fact
and make recommendations to the court. And the court, will either approve of
reject the recommendation.
Villaflor v. CA
Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, exceptions.

Due process is violated
Issue involves pure question of law
Administrative Action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction
Estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned
C: in other words, pagadtoniyasa court niapil sad ang administrative
agency didto, if you participate in the judicial proceedings. In other
where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play
whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of the issues which,
under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of
24

words, you are estopped to question the result of the proceedings, in
the event that the decision is adverse to you.
There is irreparable injury
C: In other words, injury is allowed provided it is not irreparable.
Respondent is a department secretary whose acts, as an alter ego of the
president, bears implied and assumed approval of the latter.
Exhaustion is unreasonable.
Exhaustion amounts to nullification of claim
Subject matter is a private land in land case proceeding
The rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy
There are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention. (Paat
v. CA)
When strong public interest is involved
In quo warranto proceedings (Sunville v. Abad)
When the claim involved is small (Castro v. Gloria)
C: I wonder why this is an exception, since if you say that the claim
involved is small, supposedly it should stay with the administrative
agency, why isakanato pa s korte? Anyway, its there.
C: So here there is still a debate as to whether the facts are true or

false. This one is the example:
Castro v. Gloria
Facts: A public school teacher was dismissed for disgraceful and immoral
conduct. But he argues it warrants suspension only for first time offenders.
Held: When the issue asks what is the applicable law, it is a pure question of
law. As such, it is an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
C: In other words, the respondent did not anymore question the findings of
fact, he is actually trying to say, ok sigenakasalako, pero first time offender ra
man ko, so it merits only suspension not dismissal. That is a pure question of
law. Here we are trying to discern what is the applicable penalty on the given
set of facts.
Failure to exhaust administrative remedies, effects of.
It renders the action premature, meaning the claimed cause of action is not
ripe for judicial determination hence there is no cause of action to ventilate in
court. (Carale v. Abarintos)
C:So just like the cases between your neighbors, muagijudkaug barangay. If you
go directly to the court, it will be dismissed right away kay it is premature.
Results in lack of cause of action. (Sunville v. Abad & Castro v. Gloria)
It results in dismissal for failure to comply with a condition precedent. (Sec. 1,
Rule 16, Revised Rules of Court)
When is there strong public interest?

C: Remember ha? Public interest is not clearly defined under law and
jurisprudence. So its a case to case basis.
When it involves question relating to the status and existence of a public
office, it must be settled without delay. (BuklodngKawaning EIIB v. Zamora)
C: Because what did we say, law on public officers, we cannot subject a
public office into an UNCERTAINTY.
When it involves question relating to validity of reorganization, its serious
implications in the administration of civil service and rights of public servants,
which resolution is needed for stability in public service. (Dario v. Mison)
C:Public interest gani, it involves a common good.
PART IV
CHECKS ON ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
By the:
President
Congress
Confirmation of appointments
Creation and abolition
Appropriation
Legislative investigation
Ombudsman
Courts
When is there pure question of law?

When doubt or differences arise as to what the law is on a certain state of
facts.
C: In other words, wala nay bangisa facts. Facts are already established.
Only the applicable law is being questioned.
There is question of fact when the doubt or differences arise as to the truth or
falsity of the alleged facts.
Check by the President on Administrative Agencies.
25

Buklod v. Zamora
Facts: The Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) was created to
investigate and help prosecute illegal acts affecting the national economy
such as economic sabotage, smuggling, tax evasion and dollar salting, among
others.
It has the primary responsibility for anti-smuggling operations. Due to its
redundant and overlapping functions with other existing agencies however,
the President deactivated the EIIB and transferred its functions to the BoC&
NBI.
C: So question here is deactivation equivalent to abolition?
Thus, the EIIB personnel were deemed separated from service under
reorganization.But the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Task Force was likewise
created performing similar functions.
Contention of the employees:It violates their security of tenure. It is in bad faith
because it is intended to give way to the Task Force performing essentially
identical functions.It usurps power of Congress to abolish an administrative
agency.
Contention of the Solicitor General: Reorganization is part of the totality of
executive power under the Constitution. It is in the interest of national
economy to avoid duplicity of work and to streamline the bureaucracy. It is
not abolished, it is merely deactivated.
Held: Abolition and deactivation are both reorganization measures. To abolish
means to do away with, annul, abrogate or destroy completely. To deactivate
means to render inactive or ineffective or to break up by discharging or
reassigning personnel.
Section 78 of RA 8760 mandates that the actual streamlining and productivity
improvement in agency organization and operation shall be effected pursuant
to Circulars or Orders issued for the purpose by the Office of the President.
The President may reorganize for simplicity, economy and efficiency.The
ultimate purpose of deactivation is economy.The creation of task force does
not entail additional cost to the government.
No new employees are appointed. Employees from other agencies are merely
detailed or assigned to it temporarily. It is to maximize use of personnel,
facilities and resources of existing agencies.
The amount of appropriation for the EIIB ranged from 128m to 238m as
opposed to the maximum of 50m for Task Force.
C: So, nagkaeconomizeang government.
The Task Force is empowered to effect searches, seizures and arrests.
The deactivation is a valid measure of reorganization, as part of the executive

check on the economy and efficiency of an administrative agency.
C:So take note, the president has the power to deactivate a government
agency. So muraxag circumvention, kay its only Congress who can abolish but
here the President can deactivate, which in effect is abolition. You know,
thats how the SC accommodates.
Congressional check on administrative agencies
Confirmation of appointments, basis.
The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission of
Appointments, appoint the heads of executive departments, ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank
of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in
him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the
Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and
those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.
The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank
in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies,
commissions, or boards.
C:There is a big difference in so far that period which separates by the two
sentences.
The first sentence speaks of a 3-step process:
Nomination
Consent
Appointment
The second sentence speaks only of appointment.
What is the significance of the separation of the first and second sentences?
It means only those enumerated in the first sentence need the consent of the
Commission on Appointments:
Heads of the executive departments
Ambassadors
Other public ministers and consuls
Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain
C: Take note of this, only those higher in rank
And other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution.
26

The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess
of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointment shall
be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until
the next adjournment of the Congress. (Section 16, Article VII)
Is this list exclusive?

NLRC Chair, Commissioner. (Calderon v. Carale)
Central Bank Governor. (Tarosa v. Singson)
Who are the other officers?
Chairs & Commissioner of the CSC, Comelec and CoA
Regular members of the Judicial and Bar Council
Representative of the Integrated Bar
A professor of law
A retired Member of the Supreme Court
A representative of the private sector
Sectoral representatives (Art. XVIII, Sec. 7)
Recess- period when it is not in session.(Definition does not come from the
Constitution. It comes from textbooks)
Voluntary recess- Neither House during sessions of the Congress shall,
without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than 3 days, not to any
other place than that to which the 2 Houses shall be in sitting. (Art. VI, Sec. 16)
Compulsory recess- period when, even if in existence, Congress is not allowed
by the Constitution to be in session either:
th
30-day period between sessions, 30 days before the 4 Monday of
July. (Art. VI, Sec. 15)
The period between the beginning of a new term and the beginning
th
of a regular session on the 4 Monday of July. (Art. VI, Secs. 7 & 15)
What about Justices, Judges, Ombudsman and deputies?

C: Do their appointments need confirmation of the CoA? Lets try to find out.
Who are all other officers of the government whose appointments are not
otherwise provided by law?
These are officers whose appointing authority is not specified by law.
Like?
Chair and Members of the Commission on Human Rights.
Who appoints them?
The President
What is the significance then?
Their appointments do not need confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments.
C: Because it (CHR) is not a constitutional body, it is a national commission.
When does an ad-interim appointment become effective?

If it does not require consent, when it is accepted by the appointee.
If it requires consent, only until disapproval and adjournment prior to action
by CoA.
Two modes and entities which can terminate ad-interim appointments:
Disapproval by the CoA
Adjournment prior to action by the CoA
How is it different from appointment in an acting capacity?
Both are effective upon acceptance
Ad-interim appointment is extended only during recess and to appointments
reviewable by the CoA whereas acting appointment is extended anytime there
is a vacancy.
Ad-interim is subject to action by CoA whereas ad interim appointment is not.
C: But if appointed temporarily, not subject to approval by CoA.
Ad interim- during recess. When one House is not in session, the other is also
not in session because they are bicameral.
What does the phrase in the President alone mean?

It means to the exclusion of the courts, the heads of departments, agencies,
commissions or boards.
But Congress has authority to decide whether the appointment of officers
lower in rank should be preserved to the President alone or shared with the
courts, department heads, agencies, commissions or boards.
Check on administrative agencies by the Ombudsman

Uy v. Sandiganbayan
Ad-interim appointments, basis.
27

Facts: The Court ruled that the prosecutor power of the Ombudsman is limited
to cases under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, to the exclusion of cases
under the jurisdiction of regular courts.
RA 6670 vests the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan and the Special Prosecutor to conduct preliminary
investigation and prosecute criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
Held: The grant of primary jurisdiction merely authorized the Ombudsman to
take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the government, the
investigation of such cases. It does not exclude authority to investigate and
prosecute over cases against public officers and employees cognizable by the
regular courts.
The primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by theSandiganbayan is not
incompatible with the duty to investigate and prosecute other offenses
committed by public officers and employees cognizable by regular courts.
The Ombudsman is empowered to investigate and prosecute any act or
omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper and inefficient. This power to
investigate and prosecute is plenary and unqualified.
C: Take note, it says appears to be, so even by mere perception, it now
merits investigation by the Ombudsman.
Thus, the power of the Ombudsman to check on administrative agencies
through investigation and prosecution of illegal, unjust, improper, and
inefficient acts is broad and encompass all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance
and nonfeasance.
And such power is not only recommendatory but mandatory.
C: Because of the word recommend, it is the source of confusion. It is not
really mandatory kay recommend gud. The SC said, statutory construction, do
not limit yourself to recommend but it must be in tandem with the last phrase
which says and ensure compliance therewith, it now becomes mandatory.
Held: Section 13(3), Article of the 1987 Constitution empowers the Ombudsman
to:Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public
official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension,
demotion, fine, censure, and prosecution, and ensure compliance
therewith.
It does not usurp because the power to investigate and prosecute any illegal
act or omission of any public official is not an exclusive authority. It is shared
and concurrent with other investigative and prosecutorial arms of the
government with respect to the offense charged. (Ledesma v. CA)
The power of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute is not exclusive,
it has concurrent jurisdiction with other investigative agencies of the
government. (Honasan v. DOJ)
C:But there are cases where the Ombudsman because of its power of primary
jurisdiction can take over anytime the investigation of other agencies when it
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper and inefficient.
QUESTIONS:
Sir, there is deactivation is there also a case of reactivation?
A: Yeah, I think so. If you deactivate, it is not really abolished, it is still there, and
it is only dormant. It depends on the president. The President has no power to
abolish only the power to deactivate.
PART V
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Chung Fu v. CA
Facts: Two entities entered into a construction agreement but one party
violated its terms and conditions by virtue of which a case was filed in court.
During the pendency of the case however, they submitted the dispute to
arbitration where they mutually agreed that the decision of the arbitrator
shall be final and unappealable. Thus, there is no further judicial recourse if
either party disagrees with the whole or any part of the arbitrators award
except to enforce it.
Thus, the arbitrator awarded a substantial amount to one party. But the other
party disagreed and cited several instances of grave error on the part of the
arbitrator who departed from the terms of the contract and misapplied the
law in excess of the delegated power and authority.
But the trial court confirmed the award and issued a writ of execution. The
aggrieved party went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari but was denied on
the ground of estoppel.
Issue: Is the arbitration award agreed by the parties final and unappealable
beyond judicial review?
The Ombudsmans power to recommend is not merely advisory, but

mandatory in nature within the bounds of the law.
28

Held: Under Article 2044 of the Civil Code, the finality of the arbitration award is
not absolute. It is subject to exceptions where it is clearly shown that the
arbitrator:
gravely abused discretion
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction
Thus, the remedy is certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As a special
civil action, the court neither reviews the facts nor the interpretation of law.
Unless, errors of facts or of law are so patent or gross and prejudicial amounting
to grave abuse of discretion. In the same way, decisions of administrative
agencies declared final by law are not exempt from judicial review when so
warranted. Final decisions of administrative agencies may still be subject to
judicial review for:
Lack of jurisdiction
Grave abuse of discretion
Violation of due process
Denial of substantial justice
Erroneous interpretation of law
The arbitrator gravely abused his discretion when he failed to apply the terms
and conditions of the construction agreement. He exceeded his power when
he awarded unjustified extra compensation. The trial court likewise gravely
abused its discretion when it refused to review despite showing of prima facie
evidence of grounds warranting judicial review.
The CA likewise gravely abused its discretion when it denied due course to the
petition despite clear showing of grounds to annul, vacate or modify the
award.
C: What we are saying here is if the authority is exceeded, it is not precluded
to have a judicial review even if there is an agreement that the decision shall
be final and executory.
adequate to support a conclusion. It should not be disturbed, even if not

overwhelming or preponderant.
Except clear showing of:
Denial of due process
Mistake of law or fraud
Collusion or arbitrary action in the administrative proceedings
Procedure leading to factual finding is irregular
Palpable errors are committed
Manifest arbitrariness or capriciousness.
C: So tanawonninyo it merits judicial review if it exceeds something.
Amigo v. Cluett
Facts: A foreign corporation owned the trademark for its socks GOLD TOE. It
went to the Bureau of Patents to cancel the trademark of a domestic
corporation GOLD TOP.
After considering the totality of similarities between the two sets of marks, the
Bureau of Patents found they are of such degree, number and quality as to
give the overall impression they are confusingly and deceptively the same.
The CA sustained the Bureau of Patents after it noted that there is no variance
in the appearance of GOLD TOP and GOLD TOE since both represent a mans
foot wearing a sock and the marks are printed in identical font.
Contention of the domestic corporation: It first used the trademark in 1956
whereas the foreign corporation used it in 1962.
But the Bureau of Patents found that the foreign corporation registered it in
1954.
Held: The findings of fact of administrative agencies in matters falling under
their jurisdiction are generally accorded great respect, if not finality.
By reason of the special knowledge and expertise of the administrative agencies,
they are in the better position to pass judgment. The court cannot once more
weigh evidence to substitute judgment.
C: Again in the absence of grave abuse of discretion it must be afforded with
great respect.
Atlas v. Factoran
Facts: Mining claims overlapped. Thus, it was awarded to the entity which
registered it first.
Held: Whether or not there is a valid location and discovery of the disputed
mining claims is a question of fact best left to the determination of
administrative agency charged with the implementation of the law.
All that is required is such finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence
which is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
PART VI
NATIONAL COMMISSIONS
Commission on Human Rights
29

Chair and four members
Qualifications
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines
Majority shall be members of the Bar
Term of office, other qualifications and disabilities
Provided by law
Sec. 2(c), EO No. 163, set the term of office of the Chair and members to 7
years without reappointment.
Fiscal autonomy
C: it does not require that the chair should be a lawyer.
The Education Secretary ordered them to return to work in 24 hours or fact

dismissal. But they defied the order. Instead, more teachers joined the mass
action. Some were either dismissed or suspended or replaced.
Invoking the lack of due process, they filed a case with the Commission on
Human Rights which enjoined the Education Secretary to appear and bring
necessary documents. The Education Secretary moved to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.
But the CHR denied and instead ordered the Education Secretary to answer the
charges, showing its intent to hear and decide the case.
Held: This is adjudicatory, a power not granted to the Commission on Human
Rights. The most that can be conceded to it in the way of adjudication is the
power to investigate which is limited to receive and find facts.
Fact finding is not adjudication. It must be accompanied by the authority to
apply the law to those factual conclusions to the end that it may be decided
subject to review.
Investigate commonly means to examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe
into, research on, study.
Adjudicate commonly means to adjudge, arbitrate, judge, decide, determine,
resolve, rule on, settle.
In legal sense, adjudicate means to settle in the exercise of judicial authority.
Thus, the jurisdiction of the Commission on Human Rights is limited to
investigation of all forms of human rights violations involving civil and
political rights.
Case:
Facts: In 1988, the President designated Mary, Concepcion Bautista as Acting
Chair of the Commission on Human Rights. She took oath of, qualified to,
assumed and discharged functions of her office.
But in 1989, the President extended her a permanent appointment. The
Commission of Appointments requested her to submit credentials and attend
hearing and deliberations in support of the confirmation of her appointment.
But she refused on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Issue: Can the President still issue another appointment, this time in a
permanent capacity?
Held: No, the first appointment is a completed act of the President.
C: Temporary capacity then later permanent capacity na. So the President
somehow placed her under probation. Because when she was satisfied now of
her performance, there was permanent appointment na.
Issue: Can the CoA review appointment if the President submits?
Held: Even if the President voluntarily submits for confirmation to the
Commission on Appointments an appointment outside its jurisdiction, it is still
not subject to confirmation as the President and Congress cannot from time
to time move constitutional boundaries of power.
C: So bottom line, they do not need the confirmation of the COA even if the
President voluntarily submits. Because they cannot move constitutional
boundaries of power.
If the CHR is without authority to hear and decide a case for human rights
violations, a fortiori that it is without authority to issue injunctive relief, it
being an ancillary remedy.
C: This is a very emotional case. So bottom-line CHR, fact finding only. It may
recommend filing case but it cannot adjudicate. Carinio was a DepEd secretary
at that time. All sectors asked him to reconsider to list to the teachers but he
never decided for humanitarian considerations.
EPZA v. CHR
Facts: Farmers occupied and planted agricultural products on a parcel of land
owned by the Export Processing Zone Authority which project manager,
together with an entire PNP company bulldozed the area, despite showing a
copy of a letter from the Office of the President postponing it.
Carino v. CHR
Facts: Some 800 public school teachers left their classes to dramatize their
plight resulting from failure and disregard by authorities of their grievances.
30

Violence ensued and media men were beaten up and their cameras snatched by
the police. Hence the case for human rights violations.
The CHR issued an order of injunction against the EPZA, the PNP and the
Governor to desist from committing further acts of demolition, terrorism and
other acts of harassment. The CHR argued its power is not limited to
investigation. As such it can issue injunctive relief based on the constitutional
provision provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the
underprivileged.
Held: It cannot be construed to confer jurisdiction on the CHR to issue a
restraining order or writ of injunction. If it were the intention, the
Constitution would have expressly said so. Jurisdiction is expressly conferred
by law, it is never driven by implication. It merely refers to the extra-judicial
or judicial remedies which the CHR may seek from the proper courts on
behalf of the victims of the human rights violations.
It follows then that the CHR likewise has no power of contumacy.
Butthere is a constitutional authority for the CHR to adopt its operational
guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations
thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court.
Simon Jr. v. CHR

Thus, the defiance of the order to desist from demolishing stalls, carenderias,
sari-sari stores and temporary shanties is not contumacious. As a matter of
fact, the Constitution envisioned the CHR to focus on more severe cases on
human rights violations such as:
Protection of rights of political detainees
Treatment of prisoners, prevention of tortures
Fair and public trials
Cases of disappearances
Salvaging &hamletting
C: Hamletting - like for example during martial law kaninga village nag suspect
silanganaay NPAs or supporters of NPAs ibalhinsila
Other crimes committed against the religious.
C: Essentially the creation of this human rights is a reaction to the Marcos
regime.
Civil rights are those that belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in
wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization
or administration of the government. They include the rights of property,
marriage, equal protection of the laws, freedom of contract, etc. Or, as
otherwise defined civil rights are rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his
citizenship in a state or community. Such term may also refer, in its general
sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action.
The power of contumacy applies only to violations of its adopted operational

guidelines and rules of procedure essential to carry out its investigatorial
powers.
It can only be used against persons who:
Refuse to cooperate with it
Unduly withhold relevant information
Decline to honor summons and the like.
Political rights on the other hand, refer to the right to participate, directly or
indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, the right of
suffrage, the right to hold public office, the right of petition and, in general, the
rights appurtenant to citizenship vis--vis the management of government.
The demolition of stalls, carenderias, sari-sari stores and temporary shanties
does not fall under the compartment of human rights violations involving civil
and political rights, especially where it is intended to avoid danger to life and
limb.
Since it has no adjudicatory power from where the power to issue injunctive
relief is derived, defiance of issued injunction does not constitute violation.
Where there is no contumacy, there is not power to cite it.
C: Again the power to contumacy must be expressly provided by law. Factfinding investigatorial powers, in so far as that is concerned the CHR can cite you
for contempt when you refuse to abide with them. Klarohonnako ha, it has no
adjudicatory power. And based on the lack of adjudicatory power, it cannot
issue an injunctive relief because that is ancillary remedy. Also it cannot cite you
for contempt BUT in the exercise of their investigatory powers of the CHR it can
cite you for contempt if you will not abide with them because that is part of
their fact finding power.
C: It is for your own safety that we demolish. Pwederaghaponsa CHR ngasilaang

mu demolition but if we revisit the Constitution it should not be their priority.
31

Law On Public Officers and Administrative Law Selfless Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Law On Public Officers and Administrative Law Selfless Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTIONS LAW

PRE-FINALSTRANSCRIPTAtty. Ferdinand Gujilde EH 403 2015-2016

LAWS ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

C: highlighted at all times be accountable to the people - what were saying is

After the course, you are expected to know:

Public office is a public trust.

What is a public office

all times be accountable to the people

Public Office and public officers

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTIONS LAW

utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency (RILE)

Thus, an employee may be dismissed for being notoriously undesirable

Dishonesty as ground for dismissal need not be committed in the

Conviction of criminal offenses is not even necessary for removal

Whether he had contracted the habit for any of the

It is error to interpret CSC MC No. 38 that administrative case may be

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTIONS LAW

enduring at the pleasure of the creating power

The point of the command is that, even if the public officer is

C: So what if he says why do u blame me if I drive my Ferrari? What if prior to

Public office as defined by Mechem

sovereign functions to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public

Chairmanship of the National Centennial Commission to take charge of

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTIONS LAW

Take note that private sector representative. SC said purpose

2) No one has a vested right to a public office.

Elements of a public office

It must be created by law or an ordinance authorized by law;

Characteristics of a public office

It is created in the interest and for the benefit of the public.

Public office is public trust.

Except: if the terms of the law that takes it away is unclear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTIONS LAW

Facts:During pendency of an election protest, the protestee died. He

Public office is not a property.

Definition of a public officer.

Public Officer includes elective and appointive officials and

4) Public office cannot be inherited.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTIONS LAW

An individual with a public office.(Mechem)

To be a public officer, one must be-

Section 2, Administrative Code of 1987

1) Taking part in the performance of public functions in the government,

(14) Officer as distinguished from clerk or employee, refers to a

Delegation of sovereign functions is the most important characteristic of

Article 203, Revised Penal Code

any person who, by direct provision of law, popular election or

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTIONS LAW

you are charged in conspiracy with another public

Exception to the exception:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTIONS LAW

The one who is really entitled to the office is the officer de

Facts:Sampayan and other residents sought to disqualify Daza as Congressman

Requisites to be considered a de facto officer:

C: acquiescence there is because pananglit, dba you were proclaimed the

The de facto officer is entitled to compensation

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTIONS LAW

C: Remember kadtongnaghisgot ta about presidential vacancy at the start of

Who prescribes qualification?

Congress prescribes eligibility, qualifications, disqualifications and provide for

ELIGIBILITY AND QUALIFICATIONS

Who may prescribe qualifications