Maquiling vs. Comelec, GR No.

195649, April 16, 2013

Issue: By using his foreign passport after renouncing his foreign citizenship, is a dual citizen divested of
his Filipino citizenship and thus disqualified to hold public office?

Ruling: YES. While the act of using a foreign passport is not one of the acts enumerated in
Commonwealth Act No. 63 constituting renunciation and loss of Philippine citizenship,35 it is
nevertheless an act which repudiates the very oath of renunciation required for a former Filipino citizen
who is also a citizen of another country to be qualified to run for a local elective position.

When Arnado used his US passport on 14 April 2009, or just eleven days after he renounced his
American citizenship, he recanted his Oath of Renunciation36 that he "absolutely and perpetually
renounce(s) all allegiance and fidelity to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"37 and that he "divest(s)
himself of full employment of all civil and political rights and privileges of the United States of
America."38

We agree with the COMELEC En Banc that such act of using a foreign passport does not divest Arnado of
his Filipino citizenship, which he acquired by repatriation. However, by representing himself as an
American citizen, Arnado voluntarily and effectively reverted to his earlier status as a dual citizen. Such
reversion was not retroactive; it took place the instant Arnado represented himself as an American
citizen by using his US passport.

This act of using a foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is fatal to Arnado’s bid for
public office, as it effectively imposed on him a disqualification to run for an elective local position.

Torres vs De Leon, GR No. 199440, Jan. 18, 2016

Issue: Does the CSC have appellate jurisdiction over dismissal orders of PNRC employees by its Board
since PNRC is sui generis?

Ruling: YES. The CSC has jurisdiction over the PNRC because the issue at hand is the enforcement of
labor laws and penal statutes, thus, in this particular matter, the PNRC can be treated as a GOCC, and as
such, it is within the ambit of Rule I, Section 1 of the Implementing Rules of Republic Act 6713, stating
that: Section 1. These Rules shall cover all officials and employees in the government, elective and
appointive, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including military and
police personnel, whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of amount. Under the Civil
Service Law and rules and jurisprudence, it has appellate jurisdiction only on administrative disciplinary
cases involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty (30) days, or fine in an
amount exceeding thirty (30) days' salary.

In the instant case, although the decision appealed from states that Torres was imposed the penalty of
"one month" suspension from the service, it is unequivocally spelled out therein that the period of her
suspension is from July 1-31, 2007." This specifically written period unmistakably indicates that Torres
was actually imposed the penalty of thirty-one (31) days and not merely thirty (30) days or one (1)
month.

Issue: Can CSC modify PNRC’s order of suspension to order of dismissal?

Ruling: YES. Having jurisdiction over the PNRC, the CSC had authority to modify the penalty and order
the dismissal of petitioner from the service. Under the Administrative Code of 1987, as well as decisions
of this Court, the CSC has appellate jurisdiction on administrative disciplinary cases involving the
imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty (30) days, or fine in an amount exceeding
thirty (30) days salary.

DEC. 6

Carolino vs. Gen. Senga, G.R. No. 189649, April 20, 2015

Issue: Does the AFP Chief of Staff have the ministerial duty to pay the retirement pay of Carolino
compellable by writ of mandamus?

Ruling: YES. Mandamus will issue only when the petitioner has a clear legal right to the performance of
the act sought to be compelled and the respondent has an imperative duty to perform the same. The
remedy of mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. Petitioner's husband had
complied with the conditions of eligibility to retirement benefits as he was then receiving his retirement
benefits on a monthly basis until it was terminated. Where the employee retires and meets the eligibility
requirements, he acquires a vested right to the benefits that is protected by the due process clause. It is
only upon retirement that military personnel acquire a vested right to retirement benefits. Retirees enjoy
a protected property interest whenever they acquire a right to immediate payment under pre-existing
law. The petition for mandamus filed by petitioner's husband with the RTC was for the payment of his
terminated retirement benefits, which has become vested, and being a ministerial duty on the part of
the respondents to pay such claim, mandamus is the proper remedy to compel such payment.

Issue: Was the termination of the retirement benefits of Carolino due to his subsequent loss of Filipino
citizenship justified?

Ruling: NO. Petitioner's husband acquired vested right to the payment of his retirement benefits which
must be respected and cannot be affected by the subsequent enactment of PD No. 1638 which provides
that loss of Filipino citizenship terminates retirement benefits. Vested rights include not only legal or
equitable title to the enforcement of a demand, but also an exemption from new obligations after the
right has vested.

Addtnl facts for recit: Sections 33 and 35 of PD No. 1638 recognize such vested right, to wit:
 Section 33. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed in any manner to reduce whatever retirement and
separation pay or gratuity or other monetary benefits which any person is heretofore receiving or is
entitled to receive under the provisions of existing law.

Section. 35. Except those necessary to give effect to the provisions of this Decree and to preserve the
rights granted to retired or separated military personnel, all laws, rules and regulations inconsistent with
the provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 33 of PD No. 1638 is clear that the law has no intention to reduce or to revoke whatever
retirement benefits being enjoyed by a retiree at the time of its passage. Hence, Section 35 provides for
an exception to what the decree repealed or modified, i.e., except those necessary to preserve the rights
granted to retired or separated military personnel.

Cawad vs. Abad GR 207145, July 28, 2015

Issue: is an official or employee who was granted longevity pay under an existing law ineligible for step
increment due to length of service?

Ruling: NO. While it was well within the authority of the respondents to issue rules regulating the grant
of step increments as provided by RA No. 6758, otherwise known as the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989, and while it was duly published in the Philippine Star, a newspaper of general
circulation, on September 15, 2012, the DBM-CSC Joint Circular remains unenforceable for the failure of
respondents to file the same with the UP Law Center - ONAR. Moreover, insofar as the DBM-DOH Joint
Circular similarly withholds the Step Increment due to length of service from those who are already
being granted Longevity Pay, the same must likewise be declared unenforceable.