A.

REGADO

RECIT She argued that the exclusive authority to discipline employees in

[For sec 5, see handwritten notes]
Ampong v. CSC (2008)
Section 5 (6)
Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with
the Civil Service Law.
FACTS:
1991, Professional Board of Examination of Teachers (PBET) held
in Davao City.
A certain Evelyn Junio-Deceir applied and took the examination
and eventually passed with a rating of 74.27%
At time of said examination, Petitioner Ampong and Decir were
public school teachers
Ampong transferred to RTC in Saranggani where she was
appointed as Court Interpreter 3.
1994, a woman representing herself as Decir went to the Civil
Service regional office to claim copy of PBET certificate of
eligibility.
Eventually, personnel was confirmed as different from the one who
have taken the exam.
CSCRO conducted a preliminary investigation and determined the
existence of prima facie evidence against Decir and Ampong for
Dishonesty , Grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial t the Best
interest of Service. They were formally charged.
Decir denied allegations agains her.
Ampong on the other hand, even before filing of answer, voluntarily
appeared at CSRO and admitted the wrong doing and even waived
right to counsel
Despite of such, CSC found petitioner decir guilty of dishonesty,
dismissing them from service.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration raising for the first time the
issue on jurisprudence.
judiciary lies with the SC, that CSC acted with abuse of discretion
when it continued to exercise jurisdiction despite her assumption of
duty as a judicial employee.
CSC denied motion for reconsideration.
According to CSC, to allow petitioner to evade administrative
liability would be a mockery of countrys administrative disciplinary
system.
It will open the floodgates for others to escape prosecution by the
mere expedient of joining another branch of government.
CSC differentiated between administrative supervision by SC and
administrative jurisdiction granted to Commission over all service
employees.
Fact that court personnel are under administrative supervision of
SC does not totally isolate them from the operations of civil service
law. (Sec 5(6) Art 8)
CA ruled that since petitioner never raised issue of jurisdiction until
after CSC ruled against her she was estopped from questioning
commissions jurisdiction. It further ruled that member of judiciary
may be under jurisdiction of to different bodies. As a public school
teacher and court interpreter, petitioner was part of civil service,
subject to its rules and regulations.
ISSUE:
Whether CSC has administrative jurisdiction over an employee of
judiciary for acts committed while said employee was still with the
executive or education requirement
HELD:
NO.
As defined in the Constitution and the administrative code, the
covo; service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision and
instrumentality of the government and GOCC.
CSC is granted the power to control, supervise and coordinate
civil service examinations.

1|Page

However the constitution provides that SC is given exclusive
administrative supervision over all courts and judicial personnel.
By virtue of such power, it is only the SC that can oversee the
judges and court personnels compliance with all laws, rule and
regulations.
It may take proper administrative action against them if they
commit any violation. No other branch of government may intrude
into this power without running afoul the doctrine of separaton of
powers. (sta.ana case and bartolata case)
BUT in this case, petitioner committed offence before her
appointment at judicial branch.
SC: that she committed dishonest act before she joined RTC
does not take her case out of administrative reach.
Administrative jurisdiction over court employee belongs to SC
regardless of wheter the offense was committed before or after
the employment in judiciary
Proper procedure is for CSC to bring complaint against judicial
employee before Office of Court Administrator. (which was not
observed in present case.m
However, we are constrained to uphold the ruling based on
principle of estoppel. Under principle of estoppel, party may not be
permitted to adopt a different theory on appeal to impugn courts
jurisdiction.
SEC 6 : THE SUPREMME COURT SHALL AVE ADMNISTRATIVE
SUPERVISION OVER ALL COURTS AND PERSONELL THEREOF.
ADMINISTRTIIVE SUPERVISION OF INFERIOR COURTS
- Innovation towards strengthening independence of judiciary
- 1973 consitution transferred administrative supervision of SC
and attempts in 1986 consti commission to return it to DOJ
failed.
- Includes (Sec 11) power sitting en banc to discipline judges
of lower courts or order their dismissal by vote of majority of
members who actually took part in the deliberations on issues
2|Page
A.REGADO
in the case and voted thereon
- Exclusivity of this power is jelousy guarded by court.
- Hence it is the SC that is tasked to oversee judges and court
personnel and take the proper administrative action against
them if they commit any violation of the laws of the land.
- No other branch of government may intrude into this power
without running afoul of independence of judiciary and
doctrine of separation of powers
- Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges
and court personnel filed before it, refered to SC for
determination as to whether an administrative aspect is
invoved therein.
- Rule holds true regardless of whether an administrative case
based on act subject of complaint before ombundsman is
already pending with court.
- Ombudsman cannot dictate to and bind the court to its
findings that a case before it does or does not have
administrative implications.
- To do so would deprive court of exercise of administrative
prerogatives and to arrogate unto itself power not
constitutionally sanctioned
MACEDA v. VASQUEZ
Section 6: Administrative supervision of inferior courts
(Falsification)
Facts:
Petitioner Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, Presiding Judge of RTC Antique
seeks to review the following orders of the Ombudsman
1. Order dated Sept 1991 denying ex parte motion to refer to SC
filed by petitioner
2. Order dated Nov 1991 denying petitioners motion for
reconsideration and directing petitioners motion for
reconsideration and directing petitioner to file his counter-
affidavit and other controverting evidences.

Respondent Abiera of PAO alleged that petitioner has falsified hs
Certificate of Service dated Feb 6, 1989 for civil and criminal cases
which the judge have not been rendered. All in all, such falsified
certificates of service totaled 17 months.
Petitioner contends that he had been granted by thi court an
extension of 90 days to decide the aforementioned cases.
Likewise petitioner contends that ombudsman has no jurisdiction
over said case, such constitutes as an encroachment into SCs
constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts.
ISSUE: Whether office of the ombudsman could entertain a
criminal complain for alleged falsification of a judges certification
submitted to the SC and assuming hat it can, whether the referral
should be made first to SC
HELD:
Absence of any administrative action taken against him by this
court with regard to his certificates of service, the investigation
being conducted by Ombudsman encroaches into the Courts
power of administrative supervision over all courts and its
personnel, in violation of doctrine of separation of powers.
Art 8, Sec 6 of the 1987 constitution exclusively vests in the SC
supervision over all courts and court personnel.
By virtue of this power, it is only the SC that can oversee judge and
court personnels compliance with all laws, and take the
administrative action against them if they commit any violation
thereof.
No branch of government may intrude into this power without
running afoul of doctrine of separation of powers.
Thus ombudsman should first refer the matter to petitioners
certificates of service to this court to determine whether said
certificates reflected the true status of pending case load as the
court has necessary records to make such determination.
3|Page
A.REGADO
SEC 7 :Qualifications of Member of Judiciary
(1) No person shall be appointed member of SC or any lower
collegiate court unless he is a natural born citizen of PH. A
member of SC must be at least 40 years of age and must have
been for 15 years or more a judge of lower court or engaged in
practice of law in PH
(2) Congress shall proscribe the qualifications of judges of lower
courts, but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless
he is a citizen of PH and a member of PH bar
(3) Ember of judiciary must bee a person of proven competence.
Supreme Court Lower Courts
Natural Born Citizen of PH Natural Born Citizen of PH
At least 40 years of age ----
15 years or more : Judge of Member of Philippine bar
lower court or engaged in
practice of law in PH
------ Such other qualifications as may
be prescribed by congress
Proven competence integrity, probity and independence
*** Judges of single-member courts : either natural born or naturalized.
Congress cannot require judges of courts lower than collegiate courts
to be natural born citizens
*** duty of every prospective appointee to judiciary to appraise
appointing authority of every matter bearing on his fitness for judicial
office (regardless if moo/academic/dismissed, resigned etc)
SEC 8 : JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL
(1) JBC is hereby created under supervision of SC composed
of Chief Justice as ex-officio chairman, the secretary of
justice and a representative from congress as ex-offcio
members
(2) Regular members of Concil shall be appointed by
 A.REGADO

ST
President for term of 4 years with consent of COA. Of DOES 1 PAR OF SEC 8, ART 8 OF 1987 CONSTI ALLOW
members first appointed, the rep of IBP shall serve for 4 MORE THAN 1 MEMBER OF CONGRESS TO SIT IN JBC? IS
years, Professor of law for 3 years and retired justice for THE PRACTICE OF HAVING 2 REPRESENATIVES FROM EACH
2 years and representative of private sector for 1 year. HOUSE WITH ONE VOTE EACH SANCTIONED BY CONSTI?
(3) The clerk of SC shall be the Secretary ex-officio of the Congress from moment of creation of JBCdesignated one
council and shall keep a record of its proceedings representative, alternate reps to JBC (1 rep)
1994, instead of having only 7 members, 8 member was added as
th
(4) The regular members of Council shall receive such
emoluments as may be determined by SC. SC shall 2 representatives from congress began sitting in JBC.
provide in its annual budget the appropriations for 2000 and 2001, JBC en banc decided to allow reps from Senate
council and House of Rep to have one full vote each.
(5) Council shall have principal functions of recommending At present, (2012) Sen Escudero and Cong. Tupas simultaneously
appointees to judiciary. It may exercise such other sit in JBC as rep of legislature. It is this practice that petitioner has
functions ad duties as SC may assign to it. questioned.
OSG FOR JBC
Theory that two houses, are permanent and mandatory
STRUCTURE VISUALIZATION: components of congress, such that absence of either divests the
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL term of its substantive meaning expressed in the constitution.
EX OFFICIO CHAIRMAN : CJ Thus when Sec 8 (1) Art 8 speaks of representative from congress
Secretary of Justice Representative from Congress it should mean one representative each from both houses
REGULAR MEMBERS (REPRESENTATIVES) X TERMS Respondents urge court to look beyond the letter of disputed
IBP PROFESSOR OF RETIRED PRIVATE provision because literal adherence to its language would produce
LAW JUSTICE SECTOR absurdity and incongruity in bicameral nature of congress.
4 YRS 3 YRS 2 YRS 1 YR Allowance of 2 reps to JBC does not render the latters purpose
code : (IPRP) nugatory.
Presence of 2 members of congress will most likely provide
balance as against the other 6 ,members who are undeniably
CHAVEZ v. JBC presidential appointees
Sec 8: interpretation representative of congress ISSUE:
WON current practice of JBC to perform its functions with 8 members ,
FACTS: 2 of whom are members of congress runs counter to the letter and
Issue at hand: in hibernation until the unexpected departure of CJ spirit of 1987 constitution
Coronal and nomination of former Sol Gen Chavez as his potential HELD:
successor. Above provision clear and ambiguous.
regular member: a representative from congress.
Use of singular letter a : no room for construction.

4|Page

One of the primary and basic rules of statutory construction that :
where words of a statute are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it
must be given its leiteral meaning and applied without attempted
interpretation.
Raison d ester for the rule is essentially 2 fold
1. Words in which consti provisions are couched express
objective sought to be attained
2. Constitution is not primarily a lawyers document, but
essentially that of the people in whose consciousness it should
ever be present as an important condition for the rule of law to
prevail.
Even if court should proceed to look into minds of members of cnsti
commission, it is undeniable from records thereof that it was
intended that JBC be composed of 7 members only
Xxx Mr. Rodrigo : 7 members of JBC, president appoints 4 of them
At this juncture, it is worthy to note that 7 member composition of
JBC serves a practical purpose should there be a stalemate in
voting
Single vote may not be divided into 1/2 . This unsanctioned
practice can possibly cause disorder and eventually muddl the
JBCs voting process especially when tie has been reached.
Respondents insist that owing to bicameral nature of congress :--
framers initially intended unicameral form of congress. : oversight
No parallelism can be drawn between representative of congress in
JBC and the exercise of Congress of its legislative powers under
Art 6 and constituent powers under Art 17.
While latter justifies and in fact, necessitates separateness of two
houses, no such dichotomy need be made when congress interacts
with other two co-equal branches
It is more in keeping with co-equal nature of 3 co-equal nature of
government branches and to assign same weight to
considerations.
The representatives of Senate and HR act as one branch and
should not have any more quantitative influence as other branches
in exercise of prerogative.
5|Page
A.REGADO
Therefore to allow legislature to have more quantitative influence in
JBC by having more than 1 voice to speak, whether 1 full vote or
vote each, negate principle of equality among members of 3
branches enshrined in consti.
Doctrine of operative fact : actions prior to declaration of
unconstitutionality legally recognized.
Court not in position to determine who shall remain as solo
representative of congress in JBC
JARDALEZA v. SERENO
Section 8 : JBC
FACTS
Genesis : compulsory retirement of Associate Justice Abad last
May 2014. Before his retirement, JBC announced the opening for
application or recommendation for said vacated position
Jardaleza, incumbent Soicitor General was nominated for said
position
Upon acceptance of nomination, Jardeleza was included in names
of candidates as well as in the schedule of interviews.
However, Jardeleza received telephone calls from CA Assoc.
Justice and incumbent JBC member Justice Lagman informing him
that CJ and ex officio member, CJ Sereno manifested that she
wuld be invoking Sec 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 against him
(objections to his integrity)
Jardeleza filed letter petition praying that court exercise its
jurisdiction over JBC to issue order
1. Issue order directing JBC give him at least 5 working days
written notice of any hearing of JBC which includes
specifications of charges against him
2. Allowing him o cross-examine his oppositors and supporting
witnesses
3. Directing JBC to reset hearing
4. Directing JBC to disallow CJ Sereno from participating in
voting.

Associate Justice Carpio appeared as resource person to shed
light on classified legal memorandum that would clarify objection to
Jardelezas integrity.
According to JBC, CJ Sereno questioned Jardelezas capability to
discharge duties of office as shown in a confidential legal
memorandum over his handling of international arbitration case
against the government.
Secretary De Lima informed him that Associate Justice Capruo
appeared before JBC and disclosed confidential information to CJ
Sereno characterized his integrity as dubious.
JBC continued its deliberations and proceeded to vote for
nominees to be included in short list, 4 nominees were included.
A newspaper article was later ublished in online portal of Philippine
Daily Inquirer stating that Courts spokesman Atty. Theodore Te,
revealed that there were actually 5 nominees who made it to JBC
shortlist but 1 nominee would not be included because of
invocation of JBC rules.
Jardeleza filed a case before court seeking to compel JBC to
include him in list of nominees of SC on the ground that JBC and
CJ Sereno acted in GADLEJ despite having garnered a sufficient
number of votes.
Alleged illegality of his exclusion in short list
Deprivation of due process
JBCs errorneous application, if no direct violation of its own rules.
Comment of JBC
Certiorari is only available against tribunal,board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. JBC does not
exercise any of these functions.
Mandamus does not lie to compel discretionary act. For it to
prosper, petition for mandamus must show that petitioner has clear
legal right to the act demanded. Jardeleza has no legal right
Jardeleza was given ample opportunity to be heard and to
enlighten each member of JBC on issues raised against him prior
to voting.
6|Page
A.REGADO
Members are not concerned with determination of his guilt or
innocence.
Sec 3 and 4, Rule 10 JBC-0009 are merely directory as shown by
use of word may.
Each member of JBC relies on his/her own appreciation of
circumstances and qualifications of applicants
When Sec 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 wasinvoked, unanimous vot is
required. He only got 4 affirmative votes. He needed votes of 5
remaining members.
Sued private respondents to pursue a purely private interest while
retaining office of SG.In violation of CPR and CPE. By retaining his
tile as SG and suing in the said capacity Jardeleza filed suit against
his own clients being a legal defender of the govt.
COMMNT OF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Exec. Sec Ocoa raised possible unconstitutionality of Sec 2, Rule
10 of JBC-009
Member who invokes the said rovision is given a veto power that
undermines the equal and full participation of other members in the
nomination process. Lone objector may then override will of
majority rendering illusory collegial rule of HBC and the very
purpose for which it has been created
ISSUES x HELD
PROCEDURAL
Whether or not court can assume jurisdiction and give due coure to the
subject petition for certiorari and mandamus
By virtue of Sec 8, Art 8: Court was given supervisory power over
it. Based on this, the supervisory authority of court over JBC covers
the overseeing of compliance wit its rules. In this case, Jardelezas
principal allegation in his position merit exercise of this supervisory
authority
Mandamus lies to compel the performance when refused of
ministerial duty but not compel performance of discretionary duty.

There is no question that JBCs duty to nominate its discretionary
and it may not be compelled to do something
Court is in position that it can exercise the expanded judicial power
of review vested upon it by 1987. Petition for certiorari is a proper
remedy to question any branch of government even if the latter
does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial function.
SUBSTANTIAL
Examining the Unanimity rue of JBC in cases where an applicants
integrity is challenged
A set of uniform criteria to be established in the ascertainment of
whether one meets the minimum constitutional qualifications and
possess qualities of mind and heart expected of him and his office
True enough, guidelines have been in the determination of
competence, probity and independence, soundness of physical and
mental conditions and integrity.
Guidelines and lists of recognized evidence of qualification lad
down in JBC-009 , integrity is closely related to or if not
approximately equated to an applicants good reputation for
honesty, incorruptibility, irreproachable conduct and fidelity to
sound moral and ethical standards.
Does Rule 2, Sec 10 of JBC-009, in imposing unanimity rule
contemplate a doubt on moral character of an applicant
Sec 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 provides:
Votes required when integrity of qualified applicant is challenged. : AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF
ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL MUST BE OBTAINED FOR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF
HIS NOMINATION.
Higher vote requirement is absolute where integrity of applicant is
questioned.
Unanimity rule only comes into operation when moral character of
person is put in issue. It finds no application where queston is
essentially unrelated to applicants moral uprightness.
EXAMINING QUESTIONS OF INTEGRITY MADE AGAINST
JARDELEZA
Questions
1. Actuations in handling cases
2. Extra-marital affairs
7|Page
A.REGADO
3. Alleged acts of insider trading
DOES ORGINAL INVOCATION OF SEC 2, RULE 10 OF JBC-009
INVOLVE A QUESTION ON JARDELEZAS INTEGRITY? DOES HIS
ADPTION OF SPECIFIC LEGAL STRATEGY IN HANDLING OF
CASE BRIN FORTH A RELAVANT AND LOGICAL CHALENGE
AGAIST HIS MORAL CHARACTER? DOES UNANIMITY RULE
APPLY IN CASES WHERE MAIN PONT OF CONTENTION IS
PROFESSONAL JUDGMENT SANS CHARGES OR IMPLICATIONS
OF IMMORAL OR CORRUPT BEHEVIOR?
Basis of invocation remains that basis of her invocation of rule was
disagreement in legal stratey as expressed by group of
international lawyers. The invocation of unanimity rule on integrity
traces its roots to the exercise of his discretion as a lawyer and
nothing else.
Disagreement in legal opinion is but a normal if not, an
essential form of interaction among members of a legal
community. Constantly, lawyer is not an insurer of victory for
clients he represents.
Court cannot consider such conformably within contemplation
of the rule.
To fall under Section 2, Rule 10, JBC-009, there must be
showing that act complained of, at least linked to moral
character of person and not his judgment as a professional
DOES THESE ISSUES FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF
QUESTIONS ON INTEGRITY UNDER SEC 2, RULE 10 OF JBC-0009
YES.
Lawyer who engages in extra-marital affairs is deemed to have
failed to adhere to exacting standards of morality and decency
which every member of Judiciary is expected to observe.
Immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes
conduct inconsistent with rectitude, indicative of corruption,
indecenscy, depravity and dissoluteness or is willful, flagrant or
shameless conduct showing moral indifference t opinions of
respectable members of community and an inconsiderate attitude
toward good order and public welfare

Two questions can fall within the unanimity rule.
AVAILABILITY OF UE PROCESS IN PROCEEDINGS WITH JBC
Court however could not accept, lock, stock and barrel the
argumentthat an applicants access to rights afforded under the due
process clause is discretionary on part of JBC.
Fact that proceeding is sui generis and is impressed with discretion
however does not automatically denigrate an applicants entitlement
to due process.
Notwithstanding being a class of its own., the right to be herard and
explain ones self is availing. This ruling is not an encroachment of
the nomination process.
Application of unanimity rule on integrity resulted in Jardelezas
deprivation of his rights to due process.
Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of charge against
him and given an opportunity t explain and defend himself.
Had he been privately informed of allegations against him based on
document and had he been ordered to respond thereto in same
manner, Jardelezas right to be informed and to explain himself
would have been satisfied.
What precisely set off protest of lack of due process was the
circumstance of requiring Jardeleza to appear before the council
and instantaneously provide those who are wiling to listen an
intelligent defence.
He was merely asked to appear in meeting where he would be, righ
then and there be subject of inquiry.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Missaplication of unanimity rule in Jardelezas legal strategy in handling a case
for government
2. While Jardelezas alleged extra-maritaal affair and acts of insider trading fall
within contemplation of question of ntegrity he was not afforded due process
3. Sui generis character of JBC proceedings however, is not a blanket authority to
disregard due process under JBC-010
4. Jardeleza was deprived of his right to due process when he was neither
formally informed nor was provided a reasonable opportunity to prepare his
defense.
5. Need to revisit JBCs internal rules (unanimity, define integrity, who can invoke
ground, proceeding absence of due process)
8|Page
A.REGADO
VILLANUEVA v. JBC
FACTS:
Petitioner Villanueva was appointed on 2012 as a presiding judge
in MTC which is a first level court
2013, he applied for a vacant position of Presiding Judge in RTC
JBCs Office of Recruitment, Selection and Nomination informed
the petitioner that he was no included.
Villanueva judge for more than a year
Policy of JBC- opening chance for promotion to 2 level courts to
nd
incumbent judges in current position for at least 5 years.
Allegation : UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
1.) Cant add to constitutionally prescribed qualifications
2.) Violates equal protection and due process
3.) Violates social Justice and Human rights for equal opportunity
of employment
He further alleged that he has all the qualificationsfor the position
prescribed by consti and by congress since he has already
complied with requirement of 10 years of practice of law.
ISSUE:
WON policy of JBC requiring 5 years of service as judge of first level
courts before they can qualify as applicat to second-level court is
constitutional
HELD:
YES
JBC is burdened with a great responsibility that is imbued with
public interest as it determines the men and women who will sit n
the judicial bench. While 1987 Consti has provided the
qualifications of members of the judiciary, this does not preclude
JBC from having its own set of rules and procedures and providing
policies to effectively ensure its mandate.
In carrying out its main function JBC has the authority to set
standards or criteria in choosing its nominees for every vacancy in
the judiciary subject only to the minimum qualifications required by
the constitution and law for every position.

The search for these long held qualities necessarily requires a
degree of flexibility in order to determine who is most fit among the
applicants. Thus, JBC has sufficient but not unbridled license to act
in performing its duties.
JBCs ultimate goal is to recommend nominees and not simply to
fill up judicial vacancies in order to promote an efficient and
effective administration of justice.
Given this pragmatic situation, JBC had to establish a set of
uniform criteria in rder to ascertain whether n applicant meets the
minimum constitutional qualifications and possess qualities
expected of him and in his office.
ADOPTION OF 5 YEAR REQUIREMENT IS NECESSARY AND
INCIDENTAL TO THE FUNCTION CONFERRED BY CONSTI TO
JBC.
JBC merely exercised its discretion in accordance with consti
requirement and its rules that member of judiciary must be of
proven competence, integrity and probity and independence.
NITAFAN v. CIR
Sec 10: Diminution of Salary || No Tax Exemption
FACTS:
Petitioners duly appointed and qualified judges presiding over RTC
in NCR seek to prohibit and/or perpetually enjoin respondents CIR
and Financial Officer of SC from making deduction f withholding
taxes from their salaries.
They submit that any tax withheld from their emoluments or
compensation as judicial officers constitute a decrease of
diminution of their salaries, contrary to Sec 10, Art 8 : mandating
that during their continuance in office their salary shall not be
decreased even as it is anathema to the ideal of an independent
judiciary envisioned in constitution.
July 1987 Court enbanc :
9|Page
A.REGADO
Clear intent of Consti commission was ro delete proposed taxe
exemption from paymet of income tax to members of judiciary so
as to give equality among 3 branches of government
Such intent was somehow and iadvertenly not clearly set forth in
final text of Consti as approved ad ratified in Feb 1987.
However despite of such failure, court since then has authorized
continuation of deduction of withholding tax from salaries of
members of SC as well as from salaries of all other members of
judiciary.
The court hereby reiterates that salaries of justices and judges are
properly subject of such general income tax law applicable to all
income earners.
Debates, interpellations and opinions expressed regarding
constitutional provision in question until it was finally approved by
commission disclosed true intent of framers of 1987 consti.
It is plain that constitution authorizes congress to pass a law fixing
another rate of compensation of justices and judges but such rate
must be given higher than that which they are receiving at time of
enactment or if lower after its approval.
The imposition of income tax upon salary of judges is diminution
thereof and so violates constitution in Perfeto v. Meer as affirmed in
Endencia v. David must be discarded.
VARGAS v. RILLORAZA
Sec 11: Security of Tenure || Temporary replacement ;
Uninterrupted Security of Tenure
FACTS:
Constitutionality of Sec 14 of peoples court act
(Commonwealth Act No. 682)
Art 8, sec 4 of Constitution ordains that SC shall be composed
of CH and 10 associate justices and may sit either in banc or in
two divisions unless otherwise provided by law.

Art 8, sec 5 : members of SC shall be appointed by President
with consent of COA.
Art 8, sec 6 : no person may be appointed as member of SC
unless he has been 5 years a citizen of PH, at least 40 years of
age, and has 10 years or more been a judge of a court record
or engaged in practice of law.
Art 8, Sec 9: hold office in good behavior until they reach age
of 70 years or become incapacitated to discharge their duties
of their office.
By virtue of eiter Art 8, Sec 13 or Art 16 sec 2 of Consti,
grounds for disqualifying judges has been held to include
justies of SC.
Such question of unconstitutionality or repugnancy to
constitution however arises in relation to disqualification of
certain members of SC provided in Sec 14 of Peoples court
act
Any justice of SC who held office or position under Philippine Exec.
Commission or under the government called PH republic may not
sit and vote in which accused is a person who held any office or
position in either or both or any branch, instrumentality or agency
thereof.
If, on account of such disqualification, or becase of any ground of
disqualify uner Rule 126, Sec 1 of ROC, or on account of illness,
absence or temporary disability the requisite number necessary to
constitute quorum Pres may designate such number of Judges of
First Instance, Judges at large of F. or Cadastral jdges having none
of disqualifications as may be necessary to sit temporarily as
justices of said cour in order to form a quorm or until judgment in
said case is reached.
It is self-evident that before enactment of PCA, it was not only a
power but a bounden duty of all members of SC to sit in judgment
in all treason cases. (Art 8, Sec 4) how courts may sit, (Art
8,Sec9) hold office in good behavior until 70 or become
incapacitated to discharge duties of office.
ISSUE: Constitutionality of Sec 14 PCA
10 | P a g e
A.REGADO
HELD:
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
What constitution directs, the section prohibits
A clear case of repugnancy of fundamental law. For repugnancy to
result it is not necessary that there should be actual removal of
disqualified judge from his office
Were it not for challenged sec 14, there would be an uninterrupted
continuity in the denure of displaced hustice and in his exercise of
powers and fulfillment of the duties appertaining to his office, save
only proper cases or disqualify under Rule 126
What atters here is not only that justice affected continue to be a
member of court and enjoy emoluments as well as to exercise the
other powers and fulfill the other duties of his office but that he be
left unhampered to exercise all the powers and fulfill all duties and
responsibilities of said office in ALL CASES PROPERLY COMING
BEFORE HIS CODE without prejudice to proper cases of isqualif
under Rule 126.
To disqualify any of these consti component of members of Court,
particularly majority of them in a treason case, is noting short of pro
tanto depriving court itself of its jurisdiction as established by the
fundamental law.
Disqualification of judge s a deprivation of his judicial power which
is equivalent to deprivation of power of court itself. Strikes the very
heart of judicial independence.
Legislature may regulate exercise of, but cannot abrogate the
express and necessarily implied powers grnated to this court by the
constitution. = Encroachment
Court is the same only membership being different --- NO :
Because Art 8, Sec 4 and 5 of Constitution do not admit any
composition of SC other than by CJ and associate justices therein
mentioned appointed as therein provided.
Infringement enhanced and aggravated where majority of members
of court are replaced by judges of first instance
It is distinctly another SC in addition to this.
And the constitution provides only one supreme court.

No person not so appointed may act as justice of SC and that
designation authorized in Sec 14 of PCA to be made by Pres of
any Judge of first instance, Judge at Largge of First instance or
Cadastral judge can not possibly be in complance with provision
requiring appointment
An additional disqualifying circumstance of designee is the lack of
confirmation b or consent of COA.
Judges mentioned need not more than 40 years of age, nor have
10 or more years judge of court of record or practice of law in PH :
so it may happen that designee sitting as substitute does not
possess required const qualif of regular member of court.
And if we consider the actual fact that only 4 of present justices are
not adversely affected, designees constitute majority when sitting
with said 4 justices (4-6) ,
In principle, what really matters I not the length or shortness of
alteration of constitutional composition but the very permanence
and unalterability of composition so long as constitution remains
permanent and unaltered.
Legislature not empowered to alter qualif of justices and mode of
their appointment unless otherwise provided by law. - manner
of its sitting + initia nuber ofjustices who were to compose court
upon its initial organization
PEOPLE v. GACOTT Jr.
Sec 11: Security of Tenue || En Banc Decision to Disipline
FACTS:
For failure to check the citations of the prosecution, the order of
respondent RTC Judge Eustaquio Gacott, Jr. dismissing a criminal
case was annulled by the SC.
Respondent judge did not evne bother to read text cited in Letter of
instruction
The respondent judge was also sanctioned with a reprimand and a
fine of P10,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law. The judgment
was made by the Second Division of the SC.
11 | P a g e
A.REGADO
The court is fully aware that not every error or mistake of judge in
performance of duties s subject to censure.
But where as In present case, error could have been entirely
avoided were it not for public respondents irresponsibility in
performance of his duties, it is but proper that respondent judge be
reprimanded and his order of dismissal set aside for gross
ignorance of law
Court regrets that respondent judge appears unaware that he is
actually a recipient of uncommon sympathetic consideration in this
case.
Finally shifting to what he obviously fancies to be higher gear on a
constitutional basis, respondent judge questions competence of
Second division of this court to administratively discipline them
Relies on Sec 11, Art 8 the supreme court en banc shall have the
power to discipline judges of lower courts or order their dismissal
by vote of a majority of members who actually took part in the
deliberations
Issue: Whether or not the Second Division of the SC has the
competence to administratively discipline respondent judge
Held: YES
To support the Courts ruling, Justice Regalado relied on his
recollection of a conversation with former Chief Justice Roberto
Concepcion who was the Chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary of the 1986 Constitutional Commission of which Regalado
was also a member.
The very text of the present Sec. 11, Art. VIII of the Constitution
clearly shows that there are actually two situations envisaged
therein.
The first clause which states that the SC en banc shall have the
power to discipline judges of lower courts, is a declaration of the

grant of that disciplinary power to, and the determination of the
procedure in the exercise thereof by, the Court en banc.
It was not therein intended that all administrative disciplinary cases
should be heard and decided by the whole Court since it would
result in an absurdity.
The second clause, which refers to the second situation
contemplated therein and is intentionally separated from the first by
a comma, declares on the other hand that the Court en banc can
order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted therein. In this instance, the administrative case must be
deliberated upon and decided by the full Court itself.
Pursuant to the first clause which confers administrative
disciplinary power to the Court en banc, a decision en banc is
needed only where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a
judge, officer or employee of the Judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer,
or either the suspension of any of them for a period of more than 1
year or a fine exceeding P10, 000.00 or both.
Indeed, to require the entire Court to deliberate upon and
participate in all administrative matters or cases regardless of the
sanctions, imposable or imposed, would result in a congested
docket and undue delay in the adjudication
Yet, although as thus demonstrated, only cases involving dismissal
of judges of lower courts are specifically required to be decided by
cour en banc in cognizance of need for a through and judicious
evaluation of serious charges against members of judiciary, it is
only when penaltu mposed does not exceed suspension of more
than 1 year or fine of 100 k or both that administrative matter may
be decided in a division
AIR FRANCE V. CARRASCO
SEC 14: CONTENTS OF DECISION||APPELAE CONCLUSIONS
ULTIMATE FACTS
FACTS :
12 | P a g e
A.REGADO
CFI Manila sentenced petitionr to pay respondent Carrascoso
Php 25,000.00 moral damages
Php 10,000 exemplary damages
Php 393.20 representing difference between fare of 1st class and
tourist class for portion of trip from Bangkok to Rome
With interest in legal rate from date of filing
Php 3,000 attorneys fees
Cost of suit
On appeal, CA slightly reduced amount of refund for a few pesos
and voted to affirm appealed decision in all other respects
Facts declared by CA
Plaintiff ember of group of 48 Filipino pilgrims that left Manila.
st
Defendant Air France through authorized agent PAL issued 1
class round trip ticket from Manila to Rome.
st
Manila to Bangkok (1 class)
At Bangkok, manager of defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate
first class seat he was occupying, because there was a white
man who manager alleged, had a better right to eat.
Plaintiff initially refused but eventually people pacified him to give
the seat to white man
Petitioner now seek that we review all the findings of respondent
CA . Charges that respondent court failed to make complete
findings of facts on all issues properly laid before it
No decision shall be rendered by any court of record without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facs and law on which
it is based
Every decision of CA shall contain complete findings of facts on all
issues properly raised before it.
The law, however, solely insists that a decision state the "essential
ultimate facts" upon which the court's conclusion is drawn.
A court of justice is not hidebound to write in its decision every bit
and piece of evidence presented by one party and the other upon
the issues raised.
Neither is it to be burdened with the obligation "to specify in the
sentence the facts" which a party "considered as proved".

This is but a part of the mental process from which the Court draws
the essential ultimate facts.
A decision is not to be so clogged with details such that prolixity, if
not confusion, may result.
So long as the decision of the Court of Appeals contains the
necessary facts to warrant its conclusions, it is no error for said
court to withhold therefrom "any specific finding of facts with
respect to the evidence for the defense".
Indeed, "the mere failure to specify (in the decision) the contentions
of the appellant and the reasons for refusing to believe them is not
sufficient to hold the same contrary to the requirements of the
provisions of law and the Constitution".
At any rate, the legal presumptions are that official duty has been
regularly performed, and that all the matters within an issue in a
case were laid before the court and passed upon by it
Findings of fact, which the Court of Appeals is required to make,
maybe defined as "the written statement of the ultimate facts as
found by the court ... and essential to support the decision and
judgment rendered thereon".
They consist of the court's "conclusions" with respect to the
determinative facts in issue". A question of law, upon the other
hand, has been declared as "one which does not call for an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by
the parties."
We have heretofore adverted to the fact that except for a slight
difference of a few pesos in the amount refunded on Carrascoso's
ticket, the decision of the Court of First Instance was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals in all other respects.
We hold the view that such a judgment of affirmance has merged
the judgment of the lower court.
Implicit in that affirmance is a determination by the Court of
Appeals that the proceeding in the Court of First Instance was free
from prejudicial error and "all questions raised by the assignments
of error and all questions that might have been raised are to be
regarded as finally adjudicated against the appellant".
13 | P a g e
A.REGADO
So also, the judgment affirmed "must be regarded as free from all
error".
We reached this policy construction because nothing in the
decision of the Court of Appeals on this point would suggest that its
findings of fact are in any way at war with those of the trial court.
Nor was said affirmance by the Court of Appeals upon a ground or
grounds different from those which were made the basis of the
conclusions of the trial court.
FRANCISCO v. PERMSKUL
Sec 14: contents of decisions (memorandum decision)
FACTS:
Permskul, lessee of an apartment, deposited Php 9,000 to lessor
Francisco. After a year, and 10 days he vacated the property and
requested the refund of his deposit minus Php 1,000 for the 10
days occupancy after the expiration of the lease.
Francisco refused and alleged that Permskul still owed him for
electricity and water bills and Php 2,500 for the repainting of the
leased premises.
After a summary of judgement, Metropolitan Trial Coouttr ordered
Francisco to return Php 7,750 after deducting only the water and
electricity bills. RTC affirmed this by a memorandum decision
reading in full as follows:
After a careful and thorough perusal, evaluation and study of the
records of this case, this Court hereby adopts by reference the
findings of facts and conclusions of law in the decision of METTC
of Makati, Br. 63 and finds that there is no cogent reason to disturb
the same.
Wherefore the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto.
Francisco challenged the constitutionality of memorandum
decisions.
Defendant went to CA- denied (even his motion for reconsideration
He is now before the SC to fault respondent court, prinsipally for
sustaining memorandum deision of RTC

Contention it violates Art 8, Sec 14 of constitution
No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing
clearly and distinctly the facts and laws on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of decision of
court shall be refused due course or denied without stating legal
basis therefor.
SCthe purpose has always been to inform persons reading
decision and especially the parties of how it was reached by court
after consideration of pertinent facts and examination of applicable
laws
Parties are entitled to no less than this explanation to assure them
that the court rendering decision actually studied case before
pronouncing judgment.
Substantial reasons [L.O-C.A.C.F]
(1) Losing party must be given an opportunity to analyze decision
so that if permitted, he may elevate what he may consider its errors
for review by higher tribunal.
(2) Decision, if well-presented and reasoned may convince losing
party and persuade it to accept the verdict in good grace instead of
prolonging litigation.
(3) Decisions with a full exposition of facts and the law on which
they are based, especially those shortcoming of SC will constitute a
valuable body of case law that may serve useful references and
even as precedents in resolution of further controversies
Petitioner asks that case be remanded to RTC for a full blown
hearing on the merits followed by a decision stating theren clearly
and distinctly the facts and law on which it is based.
Private respondent justifies memorandum decision as authorized
by BP Blg.129
Sc 40 BP Blg 129
Form of decision on appealed cases every decision or final
resolution of court in appealed cases shall clearly and distinctly
state finding of facts and conclusion of law on which it is based
which may be contained in the decision or final resolution itself or
14 | P a g e
A.REGADO
adopted by reference from those set forth in decision or resolution
appealed from.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the memorandum decisions are valid.
2. Whether the incorporation by reference was a valid act that
effectively elevated the decision of METTC for examination by the CA.
HELD:
I.
YES. Viewed in light of these practical considerations,
memorandum decision can be welcomed indeed as an acceptable
method of dealing expeditiously with case load of courts of justice.
But expediency alone, no matter how compelling cannot excuse
non compliance with constitution, the end does not justify the
means.
Expediency alone, no matter how compelling cannot excuse non-
compliance with constitution; or to put it more familiarly, end does
not justify the means.
In the case at bar judgment made by MTC is in compliance with the
rule on summary procedure. It was a concise and well written
decision and correct one for boot for which Judge Balita is to be
commended
Problem : In affirming this judgmenent, RTC of Makati rendered
mere memorandum decision that simply adopted by reference
findings of fact and law made by Judge Balita and then concluded
without saying there was no reason to disturb same
II.
YES. When Judge dela Rama availed himself of convenience
offered by Sec 40, BP Blg 129 he was merely acting in accordance
with ruling announced in the Romero Case permitting use of
memorandum decision. Though merely incorporated by reference
in the memorandum decision of the RTC, RTC judges decision
was available to the CA.

Sec 40 BP Blg 129 is not unconstitutional
What is questioned about law is it gives appellate court permission
to adopt by reference in its own decision the judgment of lower
court on appeal
The same circumstance moved the SC to lay down a requirement
as a condition for the proper application of Sec. 40, which is: The
memo decision to be valid, cannot incorporate the findings of facts
and conclusions of law of the lower court only by remote
(challenged decision not immediately available to the person
reading the memo decision) reference.
Incorporation by reference must provide for direct access to the
facts and the law being adopted, which must be contained in the
statement attached to the said decision.
Despite convenience afforded by memorandum decisions, it is still
desirable that appellate judge exert some effort in restating in his
own words finding of facts of the lower court and presenting his
own interpretation of the law instead of merely parroting language
of court a quo.
There was substantial compliance with Sec 40 because of direct
availability ad actual review of decision of judge balita incorporated
by reference in memorandum decision of Judge de la Rama.
DEUTSCHE BANK AG MANILA BRANCH v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE
Sec 14: contents of decision || Applies only to decision not minute
||resolutions|| Art 2, Sec 2 GAPOIL
FACTS:
Pursuant to the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, on
October 21, 2003, the petitioner remitted to the respondent the
amount of Php 67,688,553.51, representing fifteen (15) percent of
the branch profit remittance tax (BPRT) on its regular banking unit
(RBU) net income remitted to the Deutsche Bank of Germany (DB
Germany) for 2002 and prior taxable years.
15 | P a g e
A.REGADO
Believing that they made an overpayment of the BPRT, on October
4, 2005, the petitioner filed with the BIR Large Taxpayers
Assessment and Investigation Division an administrative claim for
refund or a tax credit certificate representing the alleged excess
BPRT paid (amount of Php 22,562,851.17).
The petitioners also requested from the International Tax Affairs
Division (ITAD) for a confirmation of its entitlement to a preferential
tax rate of 10% under the RP-Germany Tax Treaty.
Because of the alleged inaction of the BIR on the administrative
claim, on October 18, 2005, the petitioner filed a petition for review
with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), reiterating its claim for refund
or tax credit certificate representing the alleged excess BPRT paid.
The claim was denied on the ground that application for tax treaty
relief was not filed with ITAD prior to the payment of BPRT, thereby
violating the fifteen-day period mandated under Section III,
paragraph 2 of the Revenue Memorandum Order No. 1-2000.
Also, the CTA Second Division relied on an en banc decision of
the CTA that before the benefits of a tax treaty may be
extended to a foreign corporation, the latter should first
invoke the provisions of the tax treaty and prove that they
indeed apply to the corporation. (Mirant Operations
Corporation v Commissioner of Internal Revenue).
Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
I. Whether or not minute resolution on Mirant is a binding
precedent
II. Whether the failure to strictly comply with RMO-No 1-2000
HELD:
I. Courts minute resolution on Migrant is not binding
precedent. The court has clarified this matter in Philippine
Heath Care Providers Inc. v. CIR

With respect to the same subject matter and the same issues
concerning parties, it constitutes as res judicata
However if other parties or another subject matter (even with same
parties and issue is involved, minute resolution is not a binding
precedent .
Even if we had affirmed the CTA in Migrant, doctrine laid down in
that decision cannot bind his court in cases of a similar in nature
There are differences in parties, taxes, taxable periods, treaties
involved; ore importantly the disposition of that case was only
made through a minute resolution
II. No. The constitution provides for the adherence to the
general principles of international law as part of the law of
the land (Article II, Section 2). Every treaty is binding upon
the parties, and obligations must be performed (Article 26,
Vienna Convention on the Law on Treaties). There is
nothing in RMO 1-2000 indicating a deprivation of
entitlement to a tax treaty for failure to comply with the
fifteen-day period. The denial of availment of tax relief for
the failure to apply within the prescribed period (under the
administrative issuance) would impair the value of the tax
treaty. Also, the obligation to comply with the tax treaty
must take precedence over the objective of RMO 1-2000
because the non-compliance with tax treaties would have
negative implications on international affairs and would
discourage foreign investments.
SALAZAR V. MARIGONEM
SEC 14: CONTENTS OF DECISION || INSUFFICIENT
FACTS:
Zenaida Salazar, wife of complainant and mayoralty candidate
in Municipality of Madridejos, Cey in May 2001 elections filed
an election protest against Lety Manacio before RTC Cebu
16 | P a g e
A.REGADO
Election case was first heard by then Acting Judge De La
Pena who issued order irecting revision of contested ballots in
premises of HRET were ballot boxes were being kept
Respondent took over and started presiding over case,
respondent dismissed election protest and declared Mancio as
duly elected municipal mayor of Cebu.
On appeal, COMELEC 1 division reversed and set aside
st
decision of respondent and declared complainants wife as duly
elected mayor
By complainants claim,
- Respondent violated COMELEC rules of procedure as
well as constitution for not clearly and distinctly stating
the facts and law o which his decision was based
Respondents claim
- His decision clearly stated facts and the law on whih it
is based and if there are errors therein, they are
correctible by judicial remedies and not by
administrative proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Marigomen is gulty for gross
ignorance of the law
HELD: YES
Invalidation of 90 votes against Salazar was made without
indicating in the decision the factual and legal bases therefore.
Respondent failed to state decision why he invalidated 90 ballots in
favor of protestant and to specify the ballots being set aside,
thereby violating the constitution
Time and again, court had instructed judge to exert effort to ensure
the decsions would present a comprehensive analysis or account
of factual and legal findings that would substantially address the
issues raised by parties. Respondent failed in this respect.
SAN JUAN V. CSC
ART 10 SEC 2: LOCAL AUTONOMY

FACTS:
Position of Provincial Budget Officer was left vacant by it former
holder
Petitioner informed Director Abella of DBM that Ms.Dalisay Santos
assumed office as acting PBO
Petitioner further requested Director Abella to endorse appointment
of Ms.Dalisay Santos to contested position
DMB secretary Cabuquit Jr. signed the appointment papers of
private respondent Almajose PBO Rizal upon recommendation of
Abella
DBM Regional Director Galvez wrote to petitioner that Dalisay
Santos and other recomendees did not meet the minimum
requirements under Local Budget Circular.
Petitioner after having been informed of private respondents
appointment wrote Secretary Carague protesting against said
appointment on grounds that
- Cabuquit as DBM undersecretary was not legally
authorized to appoint the PBO.
- Private responden lacks 3 years working experience as
provided in Local budget circular
- It is provincial governor and not the Regional Diretor or
congressman who has power to recommend
nominees.
- Petitioners arguments rest on his contention that he
has sole right and privilege to recommend nominees to
position of PBO and appointees should come only from
his nominees.
Respondent DBM
- DBM validly exercised its prerogative in filling up
contested position since none of petitioner nominees
met proscribed requirements.
17 | P a g e
A.REGADO
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDNT IS LAWFULLY
ENTITLED TO DISCHARGE FUNCTIONS OF PBO OF RIZAL
pursuant to appointments made by public respondent DBMs USEC
upon recommendation of then Director Abella.
HELD: NO
No question that under Sec 1 of EO 112 the petitioners power to
recommend is subject to the qualifications prescribed by exiting
laws for position of PBO.
We have to obey the clear mandate on local autonomy. Where law
is capable of two interpretations, one in favor of centralized power
in Malacanang and Other beneficial to local autonomy, scales must
be weighed in favor of autonomy
The exercise by local government of meaningful poer has been a
national goal since the turn of the century. And yet, inspite of
constitutional provisions,, legislation mandating greater autonomy
or local officials, national officers, cannot seem to let go of
centralized powers.
Hebron case
Control of all departments, bureas or offices, exercise general
supervision over all local governments as may be provided by law,
and take care that laws be faithfully executed. (Art 7,Sec 11)
Presidential Control Presidential Supervision
- executive departments -local governments
- Power of an officer to alter or modiy -goes no further than overseeing or power
or nullify or set aside what a or authority of an officer to see that
subordinate had done in performance subordinate officers perform their duties. If
of their duties and to substitute for latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, former
their judgment may take such action or step as prescribed
by law to make them perform their duties.
It is called for local government code, defining more responsive
and accountable local government structures.
When civil service commission interpreted the recommending
power of provincial governor as purely directory, it went against
letter and spirit of constitutional provisions on local autonomy.

If DBM Secretary jealously hoards entirety of budget powers and
ignores right of local gov to develop self-reliance, and resoluteness
in handling of their own funds, goal of meaningful local autonomy is
frustrated and set back.
DBM may appoint only from list of ualified recommendees
nominated by Governor.
If none is qualified, he must return list of nominees to governor
explaining why no one meets the legal requirements and ask for
new recommendees who have necessary eligibilities and
qualifications
CITY OF GENERAL SANTOS V. COA
ART 10, SEC 2: LOCAL AUTONOMY
FACTS:
City of Gensan asks us to find GAD on part of COA
COA affirmed findings of Legal Services Sector in Opinion no
20100-021 declarin ordinance no 08. As illegal,
Ordinance Noo. Series 2009 Ordinance establishing GenSan
Scheme n Early Retirement for Valued Employees Security
(Gensan SERVES)
Mayor of Genan Acharon issued EO 40 creating management
teams pursuant to its organization development program.
Ordinance No 08 was passed, designed to entice those employees
who were unproductive due to health reasons to avail of incentives
being offered therein by way of early retirement package.
39/ 1,361 employeees qualified to avail said ordinance. First tranhe
of benefits was released in January 2010.
February 2010, citys audit team leader though supervising auditor
sent a query on legality of ordinace to respondent COA director for
Regional Office
Regional drector agreed that grant lacked legal basis and was
contrary to GSIS Act. He forwarded the matter to Commissions
office of general counsel, legal services sector for a more
authoritative opinion.
18 | P a g e
A.REGADO
Office of General counsel issued COA-LSS Opinion. In its view,
Sec 28, par b of Commonwealh Act No 186 prohibits government
agencies from establishing supplementary retirement or pension
plans from the time GSIS charter took effect while those plans
already existing when charter was enacted were declared
abolished.
Petitioner city, requested for reconsideration of COA-LSSOpinion
Respondent Commission denied appeal and affirmed COA-Opinion
COA observed that GenSan SERVES was not based on law
passed by congress but on ordinances and resolutions passed and
approved by Sangguniang Panlungsod and EO by City Mayor.
Nowhere in the Local Government Code does it provide a specific
power for LGY to establish an early retirement program.
Hence, this petition
ISSUE:
WON RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON AUDIT COMMITTED GAD
WHEN IT CONSIDERED ORDINANCE NO. 08 SERIES OF 2009 IN
NATURE OF AN EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM REQUIRING A
LAW AUTHORIZING IT FOR ITS VALIDITY.
HELD:
Incentives are independent and distict from GSIS retirement
package.
Sec 5 of ordinace was even amended to exclude GSIS and PAG-
IBIG benefits, the payment of which are passed o to employer this
was to remove any doubt as to coverage and applicability and too
ensure that n employee will be paid twice
Its a one time offer: available only to qualified employees who
applied within 2 months from ordinances effectivity.
GenSan Serve : initial step pursuant to its organization
development masterplan.
Constitutional mandate for local autonomy supports petitioner citys
issuance of E.O 40 series of 2008, ccreatingg change management
teams.
 A.REGADO

Local autonomy also grants local govt the power to streamline and
reorganize
Designing and implementing a local government units own
organizational structure and staffing patters also implies the power
to revise and reorganize. Without such power, LGU will lose ability
to adjust to the needs of its constituents.
Said ordinace passed the test of good faith
Only those who have rendered service to city govt for at least 15
years may apply. Consequently, provision falls under definition of
retirement benefit.
Benefits was only given to a selected few, the sickly and the
unproductive due to health reasons
Certainly this negates the position that benefts provide for
supplementary retirement benefits that augment existing retirement
laws.
Petitioner city is authorized by Local Government Code to approve
ordinances to provide for care of the sick
Constitutional mandate for comprehensive approach to health
development : with priority of need of sick .
Partially granted

19 | P a g e