A.

Public Office and Public Officers 1. Public offices are created for effecting the need for which
1. Definitions government has been instituted, which is the common good, and not
(Mechem, Floyd. A Treatise on the Law of Public Officer and Offices) for the profit, honor, or private interest of any person, family or class
A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by of persons.
law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the 2. A public office is a public trust created in the interest and for the
pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion benefit of the people and belongs to them. The nature of a public
of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for office is inconsistent with either a property or contract right. It is
the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public officer. conceived of as a responsibility and not a right.

(De Leon) 3. Elements
In its broad sense, a public office is a charge, station or employment (Cruz)
conferred by appointment or election by a government. The elements of a public office are as follows:
1. It must be created by law or by authority of law
A public office is never conferred by contract, but finds its source and 2. It must possess a delegation of a portion of the sovereign
limitations in some act or expression of the governmental power. Where powers of government, to be exercised for the benefit of the
the authority in question was conferred by a contract, it must be regarded public.
as an employment and not as a public office. 3. The powers conferred and the duties to be discharged must be
defined, directly or impliedly, by the legislature or through
(Agpalo) legislative authority
Public Office refers to the right, authority and duty, created and conferred 4. The duties must be performed independently and without
by law, by which, for a given period either fixed by law or enduring at the control of a superior power other than the law unless they be
pleasure of the appointing power, an individual is invested with some those of an inferior or subordinate office created or authorized
portion of the sovereign functions of government, to be exercised by that by the legislature, and by it placed under the general control of a
individual for the benefit of the public. superior office or body.
5. It must have some permanence and continuity and not be only
A public office refers to either of two concepts, as a functional unit of temporary or occasional.
government, such as department or bureau, or as a position held or
occupied by individual persons, whose functions are defined by law or 4. Creation of Public Office
regulation
(Cruz)
A public office is a public trust or responsibility, and embraces the idea of A public office may be created by the Constitution (President, Legislature,
term, duration, emoluments, powers and duties. All of them taken SC, Constitutional Commissions), by statute (Bureau of Mines, SEC, local
together constitute a public office. offices) or by authority of law.

2. Purpose & Nature (Agpalo)
Except such offices as are created by the Constitution, the creation of
(Cruz) public offices is primarily a legislative function. In so far as the legislative
A public office is a public trust. This simply means that it must be power in this respect is not restricted by the constitutional provision, it is
discharged by the incumbent not for his own personal aggrandizement but supreme and the legislature may decide for itself what offices are suitable,
for the benefit of the public for whom it is held by him in trust. necessary or convenient.

(De Leon) 5. Kinds/Classifications
The purpose and nature of a public office is grounded on it being a public
trust. A public officer may be
 • constitutional or statutory
• national or local
• legislative, executive or judicial
• lucrative or honorary
• discretionary or ministerial
• appointive or elective
• civil or military
• de jure or de facto

6. De Facto Officers
An officer de jure is one who is, in all respects, legally appointed and
qualified to exercise the office. The distinction between an officer de jure,
an officer de facto and a mere intruder, is one of great importance and will
be fully considered hereafter.

An officer de facto is one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer,

the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they

involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of

the office were exercised:
i. Without a known appointment or election, but under such

circumstances of reputation or acquiescence as to induce people
to submit to or invoke his action
ii. Under color of a known and valid appointment but the officer
failed to conform to some requirement or condition
iii. Under color of a known election or appointment, void because
of eligibility or there was a want of power in the electing or
appointing body
iv. Under color of an election or appointment by or pursuant to a
public unconstitutional law, before the same is adjudged to be
such













National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NLT) vs. • EO 649, authorizing the reorganization of the LRC to the NALDTRA,
Civil Service Commission abolished all the positions in the LRC and required new appointments to
Purpose and Nature be issued to all employees of the NALTDRA.
Campos o Section 8 expressly states that there is an abolition – “all
• Private Respondent Violeta Garcia, who is a Bachelor of Laws graduate positions therein shall cease to exist”.
and who is first grade civil service eligible was appointed “Deputy o Abolition =/= removal. Removal implies that the post subsists
Register of Deeds” VII under permanent status. This position was and one is merely removed therefrom. After abolition, there is
reclassified to Deputy Register III to which private respondent Garcia was neither occupant nor anything to occupy. Thus, there is no
again appointed. tenure. Since there is no tenure, no question of impairment of
• EO 649 took effect, restructuring the Land Registration Commission to tenure arises.
the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration. Garcia • Abolition is within the competence of a legitimate body if done in good
was issued an appointment as Deputy Register II on temporary status on faith and suffers no infirmity. Thus the questions to answer are
the ground that she was not a member of the Philippine Bar. o #1 – W/N it was carried out by a legitimate body? YES.
o Garcia appealed to the SOJ but to her motion remained unacted. § Under Section 9, Article 17 of the 1973 Constitution,
• Meanwhile, Garcia was charged with Conduct Prejudicial to the Best then in effect, states that all officials … shall continue in
Interest of the Service (an admin charge). While the case was pending office until otherwise provided by law or decreed by
decision, her temporary appointment as Deputy Register II was the incumbent President
renewed! o #2 – W/N it was in good faith and suffers from no infirmity? YES
• A year later after the renewal of her temporary appointment, the § Good faith – substantially new, different or additional
Minister of Justice informed her of the termination of her services for functions, duties or powers, so that it may be said in
receiving bribe money. fact to create an office different from the one
o The MOJ’s memorandum was appealed to the Merit Systems abolished, even though it embraces all or some of the
Protection Board (MSPB) duties of the old office
o The MSPB dropped the appeal since “the termination of her § EO 649 – purpose of new requirement was to meet the
services was due to the expiration of her temporary changing circumstances and new development of the
appointment” times.
• The Civil Service Commission disagreed – in ordered the reinstatement
of Garcia to the position of Deputy Register II under the “vested right There is no Vested Rights theory in office
theory” the CSC said that the new requirement of Bar membership • “Except constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as
would apply prospectively from the time the law was enacted. Since regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in
Garcia was already Deputy Register II (1977) prior to its effectivity an office or its salary.”
(1981), it shouldn’t apply now (1984)
• NALDTRA is now arguing - Sections 8 and 10 of Executive Order No. 649
abolished all existing positions in the LRC and transferred their
functions to the appropriate new offices created by said Executive
Order, which newly created offices required the issuance of new
appointments to qualified office holders.

Issue #1 – W/N the requirement applies to Garcia, despite having held the post
since prior to the law being passed? YES IT APPLIES.

Secretary of the DOTC vs. Mabalot • The personality of Department Secretaries are but the projection of the
Kinds/Classifications of Public Officers and Office president. Their acts, performed in the regular course of business, and
Buena unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, are
• DOTC Secretary Garcia issued a Memorandum Order addressed to the presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.
LTFRB Chairman Lantin. Garcia ordered Lantin to effect the transfer of • The president’s source of power is legislative enactment. As was clarified
regional functions of LTFRB to the DOTC-CAR Regional Office pending in the case of Larin vs Executive Secretary:
the creation of a regular Regional Franchising and Regulatory Office o “What law then gives him the power to reorganize? It is
thereat. Presidential Decree No. 1772 which amended Presidential
• PR Mabalot filed before the RTC a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for Decree No. 1416. These decrees expressly grant the President
TRO against the DOTC Memorandum. A writ of preliminary injunction of the Philippines the continuing authority to reorganize the
was issued. national government, which includes the power to group,
• Meanwhile, DOTC Secretary Lagdameo then issued Department Order consolidate bureaus and agencies, to abolish offices, to transfer
97-1025 which made the DOTC-CAR regional office the regional office of functions, to create and classify functions, services and activities
the LTFRB. The RTC hearing was reopened and the DO was filed in court. and to standardize salaries and materials.”
• The RTC thereafter declared the Memorandum Orders null and void for • The pertinent provisions of PD 1416 as amended by 1772 – The president
being an encroachment of legislative powers and for infringing the shall have continuing authority to reorganize the national government…
constitutional ban against appointive officials holding any other office o “c) Transfer functions, appropriations, equipment, properties,
in the government. records and personnel from one department, bureau, office,
Arguments agency or instrumentality to another;”
• Mabalot principally argues that the transfer of powers and functions of o “f) Create, abolish, group, consolidate, merge or integrate
the LTFRB Regioanl Office to the DOTC-CAR Regional Office is an exercise entities, agencies, instrumentalities, and units of the National
of legislative power which a department secretary cannot do. Government, as well as expand, amend, change, or otherwise
modify their powers, functions, and authorities, including, with
Issue #1 – W/N the orders are null and void? NO. respect to government-owned or controlled corporations, their
• The president and his alter egos may decree the reorganization of the corporate life, capitalization, and other relevant aspects of their
Department. A Public Office may be created by the Constitution, Law, or charters. (As added by P.D. 1772)”
Authority of Law.
• Congress can delegate the power to create positions (Authority of Law). Reorg is valid if done in good faith
This is the case here – the DOTC Secretary issued the memorandums • In this case, the fact that it was for the interest of the service and for
pursuant to Administrative Orders No. 36 of the President (1987) – “The purposes of economy and more effective coordination of the DOTC
various departments and other agencies of the National Government rendered it in good faith and valid. Reorganization carried out in good
that are currently authorized to maintain regional offices are hereby faith if for the purpose of economy
directed to establish forthwith their respective regional offices In the
Cordillera Administrative Region” Sections 7 and 8 of IX-B are not violated since the personnel are merely
o The president therefore did not merely authorize but directed designated to perform an additional duty and function subject to supervision of
the various departments to immediately undertake the creation the LTFRB Central Office, P E N D I N G the creation of a regular LTFRB Office.
and establishment of the regional offices in the CAR. • Designation – give additional duties while continuing to perform duties
o Pair this with the fact that VII-17 – President shall have control of permanent office. Besides, an office or employment held in the
of all executive departments, bureaus, and offices. This control exercise of the primary functions of one’s principal office is an
includes the authority to order the doing of an act by a exception to, or not within the contemplation, of the prohibition
subordinate embodied in Section 7, Article IX-B.
Dario vs. Mison more employees. Commissioner Mison challenged the Civil Service
Kinds/Classifications of Public Officers and Office Commission's Resolution.
• On March 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino promulgated Proclamation • On June 10, 1988, Republic Act No. 6656, "AN ACT TO PROTECT THE
No. 3, "DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT THE REFORMS SECURITY OF TENURE OF CIVIL SERVICE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE
MANDATED BY THE PEOPLE...”, the mandate of the people to Completely IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION," was signed into
reorganize the government xxx transition to a government under a new law:
constitution.
o Proclamation No. 3 provided that all elective and appointive Sec. 9. All officers and employees who are found by the Civil Service Commission
officials and employees under the 1973 Constitution shall to have been separated in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall be ordered
continue in office until otherwise provided by proclamation or reinstated or reappointed as the case may be without loss of seniority and shall
executive order or upon the appointment and qualification of be entitled to full pay for the period of separation. Unless also separated for
their successors, if such is made within 1 year from February 25, cause, all officers and employees, including casuals and temporary employees,
1986. who have been separated pursuant to reorganization shall, if entitled thereto, be
o Since Feb 25, 1986, President Aquino had been asking for the paid the appropriate separation pay and retirement and other benefits...
courtesy resignations of appointive public officials, such as SC
justices. Case for the Employees:
• January 30, 1987, the President promulgated Executive Order No. 127, • Cesar Dario was one of the Deputy Commissioners of the Bureau of Customs
"REORGANIZING THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE". until his relief on orders of Commissioner Mison on January 26, 1988. In
o Provided a new Staffing pattern for the BOC essence, he questions the legality of his dismissal, which he alleges was upon
• January 6, 1988, incumbent Commissioner of Customs Salvador Mison the authority of Section 59 of Executive Order No. 127 (MOF Reorg)
issued a Memorandum, in the nature of "Guidelines on the Implementation
of Reorganization Executive Orders," prescribing the procedure in personnel (SEC. 59. New Structure and Pattern. Upon approval of this Executive Order, the
placement. It also provided that by February 28, 1988, all employees covered officers and employees of the Ministry shall, in a holdover capacity, continue to
by Executive Order 127 and the grace period extended to the Bureau of perform their respective duties and responsibilities and receive the
Customs by the President of the Philippines on reorganization shall be: a) corresponding salaries and benefits unless in the meantime they are separated
informed of their re-appointment, or b) offered another position in the same from government service pursuant to Executive Order No. 17 (1986) or Article III
department or agency, or c) informed of their termination. of the Freedom Constitution. Incumbents whose positions are not included
• On January 26, 1988, Commissioner Mison addressed several notices to therein or who are not reappointed shall be deemed separated from the
various Customs officials stating that they shall continue to perform their service. Those separated from the service shall receive the retirement benefits
respective duties and responsibilities in a hold-over capacity, and that those to which they may be entitled)
incumbents whose positions are not carried in the new reorganization
pattern, or who are not re-appointed, shall be deemed separated from the • A provision he claims the Commissioner could not have legally invoked. He
service. A total of 394 officials and employees of the Bureau of Customs were avers that he could not have been legally deemed to be an "incumbent
given individual notices of separation. whose position is not included therein or who is not reappointed” to justify
• Mison constituted a Reorganization Appeals Board in charge of adjudicating his separation from the service. He contends that neither the Executive
removals. Meanwhile, CSC ordered the reinstatement of the 279 employees, Order (under the second paragraph of the section) nor the staffing pattern
the 279 private respondents in G.R. No. 85310 proposed by the Secretary of Finance abolished the office of Deputy
o More denied. Certiorari. Commissioner of Customs, but, rather, increased it to three. Nor can it be
• On November 16, 1988, the Civil Service Commission further disposed the said, so he further maintains, that he had not been "reappointed" (under the
appeal (from the resolution of the Reorganization Appeals Board) of five second paragraph of the section) because "reappointment therein
presupposes that the position to which it refers is a new one in lieu of that
 which has been abolished or although an existing one, has absorbed that Held/Ratio
which has been abolished." He claims, finally, that under the Provisional NO. Section 16 Article XVIII, of the 1987 Constitution:
Constitution, the power to dismiss public officials without cause ended on • “Sec. 16. Career civil service employees separated from the service not
February 25, 1987, and that thereafter, public officials enjoyed security of for cause but as a result of the reorganization pursuant to Proclamation
tenure under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 and the reorganization following the
• - Like Dario, Vicente Feria asserts his security of tenure and that he cannot ratification of this Constitution shall be entitled to appropriate
be said to be covered by Section 59 of Executive Order No. 127, having been separation pay and to retirement and other benefits accruing to them
appointed on April 22, 1986 - during the effectivity of the Provisional under the laws of general application in force at the time of their
Constitution. He adds that under Executive Order No. 39, "ENLARGING THE separation. In lieu thereof, at the option of the employees, they may be
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS," the considered for employment in the Government or in any of its
Commissioner of Customs has the power "to appoint all Bureau personnel, subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-
except those appointed by the President," and that his position, which is owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. This provision
that of a Presidential appointee, is beyond the control of Commissioner also applies to career officers whose resignation, tendered in line with
Mison for purposes of reorganization. the existing policy”
The above provision comes as a mere recognition of the right of the Government
Case for Commissioner Mison: to reorganize its offices, bureaus, and instrumentalities. Under Section 4, Article
• Provisions of Section 16, Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) explicitly XVI, of the 1935 Constitution: Invariably, transition periods are characterized by
authorize the removal of career civil service employees "not for cause but as provisions for "automatic" vacancies. They are dictated by the need to hasten the
a result of the reorganization pursuant to Proclamation No. 3 dated March passage from the old to the new Constitution free from the "fetters" of due
25, 1986 and the reorganization following the ratification of this process and security of tenure.
Constitution. For this reason, Mison posits, claims of violation of security of • As we have seen, since 1935, transition periods have been characterized by
tenure are allegedly no defense. provisions for "automatic" vacancies. We take the silence of the 1987
• That contrary to the employees' argument, Section 59 of Executive Order No. Constitution on this matter as a restraint upon the Government to dismiss
127 is applicable (in particular, to Dario and Feria), in the sense that retention public servants at a moment's notice. If the present Charter envisioned an
in the Bureau, under the Executive Order, depends on either retention of the "automatic" vacancy, it should have said so in clearer terms. Plainly the
position in the new staffing pattern or reappointment of the incumbent, and concern of Section 16 is to ensure compensation for "victims" of
since the dismissed employees had not been reappointed, they had been constitutional revamps - whether under the Freedom or existing Constitution
considered legally separated. Moreover, Mison proffers that under Section - and only secondarily and impliedly, to allow reorganization.
59 incumbents are considered on holdover status, "which means that all
those positions were considered vacant." Furtermore, by its terms, the authority to remove public officials under the
• The Commissioner's twin petitions are direct challenges to three rulings of Provisional Constitution ended on February 25, 1987, advanced by jurisprudence
the Civil Service Commission: (1) the Resolution, dated June 30, 1988, to February 2, 1987. It can only mean, then, that whatever reorganization is
reinstating the 265 customs employees above-stated; (2) the Resolution, taking place is upon the authority of the present Charter, and necessarily, upon
dated September 20, 1988, denying reconsideration; and (3) the Resolution, the mantle of its provisions and safeguards. Hence, it cannot be legitimately
dated November 16, 1988, reinstating five employees stated that we are merely continuing what the revolutionary Constitution of
the Revolutionary Government had started. We are through with reorganization
Issue #1 under the Freedom Constitution - the first stage. We are on the second stage -
W/N Section 16 of Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution is a grant of a license that inferred from the provisions of Section 16 of Article XVIII of the permanent
upon the Government to remove career public officials it could have validly done basic document.
under an "automatic"-vacancy-authority and to remove them without rhyme or • After February 2, 1987, incumbent officials and employees have acquired
reason. security of tenure.
The present organic act requires that removals "not for cause" must be as a 2. In such a case, dismissed employees shall be paid separation and retirement
result of reorganization. benefits or upon their option be given reemployment opportunities
• As we observed, the Constitution does not provide for "automatic" 3. From February 2, 1987, the State does not lose the right to reorganize the
vacancies. It must also pass the test of good faith. As a general rule, a Government resulting in the separation of career civil service employees
reorganization is carried out in "good faith" if it is for the purpose of provided, that such a reorganization is made in good faith.
economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. In that event, no dismissal
(in case of a dismissal) or separation actually occurs because the position
itself ceases to exist. And in that case, security of tenure would not be a
Chinese wall. Be that as it may, if the "abolition," which is nothing else but
a separation or removal, is done for political reasons or purposely to defeat
security of tenure, or otherwise not in good faith, no valid "abolition" takes
place and whatever "abolition" is done, is void ab initio. There is an invalid
"abolition" as where there is merely a change of nomenclature of positions,
or where claims of economy are belied by the existence of ample funds.
• Bad Faith. The Court finds that Commissioner Mison did not act in good faith
since after February 2, 1987 no perceptible restructuring of the Customs
hierarchy - except for the change of personnel - has occurred, which would
have justified (all things being equal) the contested dismissals. There is also
no showing that legitimate structural changes have been made - or a
reorganization actually undertaken, for that matter - at the Bureau since
Commissioner Mison assumed office, which would have validly prompted
him to hire and fire employees.
Besides – Dario and Feria are presidential appointees. The Commissioner's
appointing power is subject to the provisions of Executive Order No. 39. Under
Executive Order No. 39, the Commissioner of Customs may "appoint all Bureau
personnels except those appointed by the President." Thus, with respect to
Deputy Commissioners Cesar Dario and Vicente Feria, Jr., Commissioner Mison
could not have validly terminated them, they being Presidential appointees.
• That Customs employees, under Section 59 of Executive Order No. 127 had
been on a mere holdover status cannot mean that the positions held by
them had become vacant. The occupancy of a position in a holdover capacity
was conceived to facilitate reorganization and would have lapsed on 25
February 1987 (under the Provisional Constitution), but advanced to
February 2, 1987 when the 1987 Constitution became effective. After the
said date the provisions of the latter on security of tenure govern
Main Points:
1. The President could have validly removed government employees, elected or
appointed, without cause but only before the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution
on February 2, 1987. Section 59 (on non-reappointment of incumbents) of
Executive Order No. 127 cannot be a basis for termination.


Mathay vs. CA • The order to reinstate is effectively an order to issue a new appointment.
Kinds/Classifications of Public Officers and Office Appointment should be discretionary in character and connot be
Ynares-Santiago controlled even by the courts as long as it is properly and not arbitrarily
• QC Mayor Simon appointed private respondents to positions in the Civil exercised by the appointing authority.
Service Unit (CSU) of Quezon City. CSUs were created pursuant to PD 51
signed in 1972. Issue #3 – W/N absorption was valid? NO.
• The Supreme Court in Tanada vs. Tuvera held that PD 51 was never • Since the CSU never legally came into existence, the private respondents
published in the Official Gazette, and is deemed never in force or effect. never held permanent positions. Thus they could not be absorbed or
Because of this, the CSC issued a Memorandum Circular directing Civil reappointed authomatically, and there should be an original
Service Regional Offices to revoke/recall/disapprove CSU appointment extended to them.
appointments on the ground that PD 51 never became law. • Since PD 51 never became a law, it cannot be the source of rights
• QC then passed an ordinance. The ordinance created the Department of (tenure?), and neither can it impose any duties nor make any protection.
Public Order and Safety (DPOS) and the ordinance provided that the
incumbent appointees of the CSU be absorbed by the DPOS. Besides, it was impossible as there were only two slots for the position of Security
o The DPOS, however, never really began operations due to lack Officer at the DPOS!
of funds and personnel.
• QC Mayor Simon, and later on QC Mayor Mathay, remedied the situation The acceptance by the petitioner of a temporary appointment resulted in the
by offering contractual appointments to the private respondents. Upon termination of official relationship with his former permanent position. When
the expiry of Mathay’s first extension. the temporary appointment was not renewed, the petitioner had no cause to
• After the non-renewal of their appointments, private respondents demand reinstatement thereto.
appealed to the CSC which issued separate resolutions holding that the
reappointment to the DPOS was automatic pursuant to the QC
Ordinance, and the CSC thereafter ordered their reinstatement.
o Mathay appealed, arguing that the CSC had no authority to
order him to renew their appointment.

Issue #1 – W/N the QC Ordinance creating the DPOS to absorb the CSU
appointees is valid? NO.
• The ordinance causes the absorption not just of the positions of the CSU
but of the personnel. Thus, the ordinance is in effect dictating who shall
occupy the newly-created DPOS positions.
o This is invalid, because it is the Local Chief Executive which has
the authority to appoint, and not the sanggunian as per the
LGC.
o Under the LFC, the power of the sangguanians is limited to
creating, consolidating, and reorganizing city offices and
positions. They have no power to appoint.
• Power to appoint is a discretionary power.

Issue #2 – W/N CSC can order mayor to reinstate appointive officials? NO.

Preclaro vs. Sandiganbayan shall exceed one year, and performs or accomplishes the
Kinds / Classifications of Public Officers and Offices specific work or job, under his own responsibility with a
Kapunan minimum of direction and supervision from the hiring agency;
• Preclaro, who was the Project Manager/Consultant of the Chemical • The fact that he was not required to record his working hours via bndy
Mineral Division, Industrial Development Institute (ITDI) of the DOST was clock nor did not take an oath of office are immaterial in light of the
charged with violating Section 3(b) of RA 3019 – above.
o Contract with Jaime Sta Maria Construction for the construction • Among petitioner's duties as project manager is to evaluate the
of a building in Bicutan, with a total cost of 17 million, then contractor's accomplishment reports/billings hence, as correctly ruled
Preclaro asked for 200,000 out of the expected 400,000 profit. by the Sandiganbayan he has the "privilege and authority to make a
o He was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan. favorable recommendation and act favorably in behalf of the
• During the construction of the building, Preclaro approached the Project government," signing acceptance papers and approving deductives and
Engineer of Sta Maria Construction – Resoso. Preclaro intimated that additives are some examples. All of the elements of Sec. 3(b) of the Anti-
some charges against the contractor would instead be charged against Graft & Corrupt Practices Act are, therefore, present.
the DOST, if Resoso agreed to give half (200k) of the profits to Preclaro. o “Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present,
• Resoso and Preclaro agreed. However, Resoso and the construction share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other
company decided to snitch on Preclaro, informing the NBI of the plot. An person, in connection with any contract or transaction
entrapment plan was concocted and marked money was used. between the Government and any other part, wherein the
o Resoso, Sta Maria and Preclaro met at a Wendy’s, wherein there public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the
were already NBI agents. law.”
o Resoso passed two envelopes to Preclaro who had been
informed na these contain the money. From the moment Side Issue #2 – W/N Guilty beyond reasonable doubt established? YES
Preclaro received them, he was accosted by NBI men. • Largeness of the amount of money (scare the goose that lays the golden
§ Precaro received them with his right hand, then placed egg) doesn’t change the fact na the demand or request for the
them on his left armpit. It fell after being accosted. At percentage was made. Moreover, his refusal to see Sta Maria does not
the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section, his right palm was weaken the cause against him as it does not prove that he did not ask
positive for fluorescent powder. But there was none on for money.
his tshirt and pants. • The fact that no photo was taken of the moment of transfer is immaterial
• Preclaro argues that he is not a public official, being neither appointive (meron after the fact), because of the large number of witnesses whose
nor elective. testimonies are consistent, logical, and credible.
o Avoided taking pics at exact moment so as not to spook Preclaro
Main Issue #1 – W/N Preclaro is a public officer subject to RA 3019? YES • Defense na framed daw for not recommending it prior is contrary to
• The fact that Section 2(b) of RA 3019, in defining public officers, says that human experience – too much na magmamalicious prosecution pa ang
it includes elective and appointive officials and employees doesn’t mean company just cause someone else was chosen over it.
that the definition is restrictive.
• PD 807 provides two classifications of service – Career and Non-Career. Annex
o Annex Non-career service in particular is characterized by —
o Preclaro falls under the fourth - Contractual personnel or those
whose employment in the government is in accordance with a (1) entrance on bases other than those of the usual test of merit and fitness
special contract to undertake a specific work or job, requiring utilized for the career service; and (2) tenure which is limited to a period specified
special or technical skills not available in the employing agency, by law, or which is coterminous with that of the appointing authority or subject
to be accomplished within a specific period, which in no case
to his pleasure, or which is limited to the duration of a particular project for which
purpose employment was made.

The Non-Career Service shall include:

(1) Elective officials and their personal or confidential staff;

(2) Secretaries and other officials of Cabinet rank who hold their positions
at the pleasure of the President and their personal or confidential staff(s);

(3) Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of
office and their personal or confidential staff;

(4) Contractual personnel or those whose employment in the government
is in accordance with a special contract to undertake a specific work or job,
requiring special or technical skills not available in the employing agency, to be
accomplished within a specific period, which in no case shall exceed one year,
and performs or accomplishes the specific work or job, under his own
responsibility with a minimum of direction and supervision from the hiring
agency; and

(5) Emergency and seasonal personnel. (Emphasis ours.)




















Maniego vs. People
Kinds/Classifications of Public Officers and Office
Bengzon
• Maniego was placed in charge of issuing summons and subpoenas for
traffic violations in the sala of Judge Aragon of MTC-Manila. Maniego
was permitted to write motions for dismissal of traffic cases in behalf of
violators without counsel, to submit them to the court for action without
passing through the regular clerk.
o He had been originally hired as a laborer.
• On one such instance, Maniego told Rabia, who was fined 15 pesos, that
he was fined as such. Maniego offered to fix the case for 10 pesos. Rabia
agreed but Maniego ran away with the 10 pesos.
• Maniego is now charged with violating RPC-210 Direct Bribery.
Petitioner argues that the lower courts erred in regarding him as a public
officer or employee. Maniego argues:
o The doctrine of “the temporary performance of public functions
by a laborer” should not apply in defendant’s case
o The overt act imputed on the accused does not constitute a
circumstance by which he may be considered a public official.
o His appointment as laborer came from one source, while the
designation and delimitation of the functions of his
appointment came from another source.

Issue #1 – W/N Maniego is guilty of Direct Bribery?
• There are four essential elements to the crime.
o Public Officer under 203
o Received by himself or thru another, some gift or present, offer
or promise
o Such is given in consideration of his commission of some crime
or any act not constituting a crime
o That the crime or act relates to the exercise of the functions of
the public officer.
• The law is clear and we perceive no valid reason to deny the validity to
the view of the Spanish SC that the temporary performance of public
functions is sufficient to constitute a person a public official. This
opinion, it must be stated, was followed and applied by the Court of
Appeals because the accused, although originally assigned to the
preparation of summons and subpoenas, had been allowed in some
instance to prepare motions for dismissal of traffic cases.



Laurel vs. Desierto Issue # 1 – W/N the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over Laurel? YES.
Kinds/Classifications of Public Officers and Office • The case cited had been overturned – “The power to investigate and to
Kapunan prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified.
• In 1991, Pres. Cory Aquino issued AO 223 creating a Committee for the It pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or employee
preparation of the National Centennial Celebration in 1998. The when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
Committee was to take charge of nationwide preparations. (100 years inefficient. The law does not make a distinction between cases
since declaration of Philippine Independence) cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts.
• Subsequently, Pres. Ramos reconstituted the same, naming it the It has been held that the clause any illegal act or omission of any public
National Centennial Commission, chaired by petitioner VP Laurel and official is broad enough to embrace any crime committed by a public
presidents Macapagal and Aquino. officer or employee.”
o Committee à Commission • While Section 15 of RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction
o As an ad hoc body, its existence shall terminate upon the over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The grant of this authority
completion of all activities related to the centennial does not necessarily imply the exclusion from its jurisdiction of cases
celebrations. involving public officers and employees by other courts.
• A corporation named the Philippine Centennial Expo 98 Corporation o NB - The law defines such primary jurisdiction as authorizing the
(Expocorp) was created. Petitioner Laurel was among the 9 Ombudsman to take over, at any stage, from any investigatory
incorporators, 9 directors. Laurel was the CEO. agency of the government, the investigation of such cases.
• On August 5, 1998, Senator Coseteng delivered a privileged speech • Special Prosec is the one with limited authoiry, not the Ombudsman.
denouncing anomalies in the construction and operation of the Special prosec is limited to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the
Centennial Exposition Project (CEP) at Clark Sandiganbayan.
o The matter was referred to the Blue Ribbon Committee.
o Meanwhile, Pres. Estrada created an Ad Hoc body chaired by Issue #2 – W/N Laurel is a public officer? YES
Rene Saguisag (Saguisag Committee) The Ombudsman has the power to investigate any malfeasance, misfeasance and
• Both investigative bodies (Blue Ribbon and the Saguisag Committee) non-feasance by a public officer or employee of the government, or of any
recommended the prosecution of Laurel for violating subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
o Public Bidding relative to award to Asia Construction controlled corporations.
o Manifest Bias in the issuance of Notice to Proceed despite • However, neither the Constitution nor the Ombudsman Act provide for
absence of a valid contract. a definition of Public Officers. So we use that of Mechem, a recognized
o Avoidance of COA audit. authority on the subject - A public office is the right, authority and duty,
• These bodies referred their reports to the Investigative Division of the created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed
Ombudsman. Petitioner – VP Laurel filed a Motion to Dismiss on the by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is
ground of lack of Jurisdiction with the Ombudsman which was denied invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the
o Certiorari to SC. government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The
o The Preliminary Investigation Bureau of the Ombudsman individual so invested is a public officer.
eventually issued a resolution finding probable cause to indict o Created by Law and not contract
Laurel and Pea for violations of RA 3019 (3e) (giving o Delegation of Sovereign Functions
unwarranted benefits, advantages, or preference) o Oath, Salary, Continuance, Scope, Designation as an office
• Laurel now argues that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction since its JD • Laurel claims that there is no delegation of sovereign functions, no
is limited to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan – Grade 27 or salary, and no continuance
higher.

Contrary to Laurel’s Claims, he exercised executive function (power to enforce
and administer law), particularly, the enforcement of Article XIV of the
Constitution, AO 223 (Cory), and EO 128 (Ramos)
• The NCC was created to execute the policies and objectives of such laws.
The Commission, through the AO and EO, was vested with the power to
implement programs and projects on the utilization of culture, arts,
literature, and media.
• Salary/Continuation – usual criteria but not essential.

Re: Torio v. Fontanilla
• Can’t Compare national celebration with a town fiesta. At any rate, the
court in that case was careful to explain that it did not intend to lay down
an all-encompassing doctrine.
• The Centennial Celebrations was meant to commemorate the birth of
our nation after centuries of struggle against our former colonial master,
to memorialize the liberation of our people from oppression by a foreign
power.
o Foster Nationhood
o Strong sense of Filipino identity
o Reinvigorate patriotism.

Re: RA 3019 not being applicable since he doesn’t receive compensation
• Doesn’t mean na Ombudsman has no JD. Remember that there are other
laws which may apply!
o i.e. RPC, Admin Code, RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards)
• NB “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”

Since we’re unsure which definition should apply, and other factual matters, lets
just go to trial!









Fernandez vs. Desierto • Even assuming that legislative authority was necessary to carry out the
Kinds / Classifications of Public Office and Officers kinds off changes, such legislative authority was validly delegated to the
Feliciano Commission by Section 17 earlier quoted.
• Fernandez was the Director of the Office of Personnel Inspection and o The legislative standards to be observed and respected in the
Audit (Director of OPIA) while petitioner de Lima was the director of the exercise of such delegated authority are set out not only in
Office of Personnel Relations (Director of OPR) of the CSC Section 17 itself (i.e., "as the need arises"),
o The OPIA and OPR was merged with another Office to form the o but also in the Declaration of Policies found in Book V, Title I,
Research and Development Office. (RDO) Subtitle A, Section 1 of the 1987 Revised Administrative Code
o Fernandez was then assigned as Regional Director of the Region which required the Civil Service Commission
V office, while Desierto as the Regional Director of the Region III § establish a career service, adopt measures to promote
office efficiency and responsiveness.
• Petitioners filed this instant petition and moved for the issuance of a
TRO. The TRO was granted to which the CSC filed a motion to lift the Issue #3 – W/N security of tenure violated? NO.
TRO. Petitioners claim protection under Section 2(3) of Article IX-B - "no officer or
employee of the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause
Issue #1 – W/N the CSC had the authority to merge the three offices to form the provided by law."
RDO? YES.
• Section 16, Book V, Title 1 of the Revised Administrative Code provides First of all, appointments in a commission are not appointments to a particular
for the internal organization of the CSC. Included in the enumeration office but to a rank/position. Thus they may be appointed to the rank of Director
were the three offices the memorandum merged into one. The provision II or Attorney IV, but without specifying any particular office or station.
immediately following the enumeration states that “As an
independent constitutional body, the Commission may effect changes Second, the admin code recognizes reassignment as a management prerogative
in the organization as the need arises”. vested in the Commission. “Reassignment. An employee may be re-assigned
• In this case, circumstances show that the changes made were justified. from one organizational unit to another in the same agency, Provided, that such
o The change in the structure itself is justified by the re-assignment shall not involve a reduction in rank status and salary”
decentralization and devolution of the commission’s functions
throughout the country, such that the Commission itself would
be closer physically to the employees they are mandated to Some Cited Cases re: reassignment
serve. - We cannot subscribe to the theory that an assignment to a particular
o Fernandez’s assignment to Region V is justified by the fact that station, in the light of the terms of the appointments in question, was
most of his previous work revolved around regional offices necessary to complete the said appointments. The approval thereof by
anyway. Furthermore, he was replacing someone under the Commissioner of Civil Service gave those appointments the stamp of
investigation finality.
o De Lima’s assignment to Region III is justified by her experience - Transfers there are which do not amount to removal. Some such transfer
as a labor lawyer (plenty of Union ganaps in that area) and can be effected without the need for charges being preferred, without
because the person he was replacing is retiring. trial or hering, and even without the consent of the employee.
- The clue to such transfers may be found in the "nature of the
appointment." Where the appointment does not indicate a specific
Issue #2 – W/N there was an abolishment which requires legislative power? NO. station, an employee may be transferred or reassigned provided the
• There was no abolishment. (NB: abolishment requires legislative) transfer affects no substantial change in title, rank and salary.


Segovia vs. Noel right to his office. If that right is to be taken away by statute, the terms
Kinds/Classifications of Public Officers and Office should be clear in which the purpose is stated."
Malcolm • This case is different from the case of Chanco vs. Imperial. In that case,
• Segovia was appointed as Justice of the Peace of Dumanjug, Cebu in the law which imposed a ceiling expressly stated that the present judges
1907. He continuously occupied this position even past age 65. He was of the courts vacate their positions and the governor general makes new
then ordered by the Secretary of Justice in 1924 to vacate that office. appointments.
Ever since then, Noel, the auxiliary justice of the peace, has acted as o The intention of the legislature in that case is clear – vacate the
justice of the peace. offices!
• Segovia instituted quo warranto proceedings at CFI-Cebu to inquire in to • The language of Act No. 3107 amendatory of section 203 of the
the right of Noel to occupy the office. Noel filed an answer claiming lack Administrative Code, gives no indication of retroactive effect. The law
of Cause of Action, and that Segovia, being 65, had automatically ceased signifies no purpose of operating upon existing rights. A proviso was
to be justice of the peace. merely tacked on to section 203 of the Administrative Code, while
• Admin Code section 203 in its first paragraph provides that "one justice leaving intact section 206 of the same Code which permits justices of the
of the peace and one auxiliary justice of the peace shall be appointed by peace to hold office during good behavior.
the Governor-General for the City of Manila, the City of Baguio, and for
each municipality, township, and municipal district in the Philippine
Islands, and if the public interests shall so require, for any other minor
political division or unorganized territory in said Islands."
o It was this section which section 1 of Act No. 3107 amended by
adding at the end thereof the following proviso: "Provided, That
justices and auxiliary justices of the peace shall be appointed to
serve until they have reached the age of sixty-five years."
o But section 206 of the Administrative Code entitled "Tenure of
office," and reading "a justice of the peace having the requisite
legal qualifications shall hold office during good behavior unless
his office be lawfully abolished or merged in the jurisdiction of
some other justice," was left unchanged by Act No. 3107.

Supreme Court
• A sound canon of statutory construction is that a statute operates
prospectively only and never retroactively, unless the legislative intent
to the contrary is made manifest either by the express terms of the
statute or by necessary implication.
o A statute ought not to receive a construction making it act
retroactively, unless the words used are so clear, strong, and
imperative that no other meaning can be annexed to them, or
unless the intention of the legislature cannot be otherwise
satisfied
• This same rule is followed in reference to public office. Court cited Ryan
vs. Green (New York) - "though there is no vested right in an office, which
may not be disturbed by legislation, yet the incumbent has, in a sense, a