CITY OF PASIG VS.

COMELEC

FACTS:

On April 22, 1996, the City Council of Pasig passed and approved an ordinance to convert the
Karangalan Village into a distinct barangay, its plebiscite set on June 22 of the same year. On September
9, 1996, the City of Pasig also issued an ordinance creating Barangay Napico in Pasig City, which plebiscite
was set for March 15, 1997.

Upon learning of such ordinances, the Municipality of Cainta moved to suspend or cancel the
respective plebiscites scheduled, and filed with the Commission on Elections, claiming that the proposed
barangays were subject to a pending case in the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal for settlement of
boundary dispute. The City of Pasig, herein petitioners, argued that there is no prejudicial question since
the same contemplates a civil and criminal action and does not come into play where both cases are civil,
as in the instant case and that since the plebiscite for the proposed Barangay Napico had already been
held, the case has become moot and academic.

The COMELEC held that the plebiscites be held in abeyance; hence, this petition.

ISSUEs:

Whether or not the plebiscites scheduled for the creation of barangays Karangalan and Napico
should be suspended or cancelled in view of the pending boundary dispute between the two local
governments.

Whether or not the plebiscite that took place for the proposed Barangay Napico renders the case
moot and academic.

RULING:

Yes, the plebiscites scheduled should be suspended in view of the pending boundary dispute
between the two local governments. The Supreme Court held, that a requisite for the creation of a
barangay is for its territorial jurisdiction to be properly identified by metes and bounds or by more or less
permanent natural boundaries. Precisely because territorial jurisdiction is an issue raised in the pending
civil case, until and unless such issue is resolved with finality, to define the territorial jurisdiction of the
proposed barangays would only be an exercise in futility.

No, the plebiscite that took place for the proposed Barangay Napico does not render the case as
moot and academic. The citing their decision in the case of Tan vs. COMELEC, where the Supreme Court
held that the fact that such plebiscite had been held and a new province proclaimed and its officials
appointed, the case cannot be truly be viewed as already moot and academic. Continuation of the
existence of this newly proclaimed province which petitioners strongly profess to have been illegally born,
deserves to be inquired into by this Tribunal so that, if indeed, illegality attaches to its creation, the
commission of that error should not provide the very excuse for the perpetration of such wrong.

Therefore, pplebiscites on the creation of Barangay Karangalan should be held in abeyance

pending final resolution of the boundarydispute and the plebiscite held on March 15, 1997 to ratify the
creation of Barangay Napico, Pasig City, should be annulled and set aside.
PALMA VS. FORTICH

FACTS:

On March 30, 1981, private respondents filed criminal cases for acts of lasciviousness against an
elective local official against petitioner Teudolo Palma, Sr., the duly elected and qualified Mayor of the
Municipality of Don Carlos, Province of Bukidnon and requested respondent Provincial Governor for an
immediate administrative investigation for the prupose of suspending the aforementioned mayor.
However, petitioner contends that the premise of the administrative case lacks basis since the three
criminal cases filed against him were all dismissed by the Regional Trial Court of Bukidnon.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the criminal cases of acts of lasciviousness filed against the Municipal Mayor
merits the granting of the administrative case subsequently filed against him.

RULING:

No, it does not. The Supreme Court, in defining “misconduct” as such that affects his (the public
official’s) performance of his duties as an officer and not only as affects his character as a private
individual, held that that there being no showing that the acts of petitioner Mayor are linked with the
performance of official duties such as “neglect of duty, oppression, corruption, or other form of
maladministration of office,” there appears to be no question that the pending administrative case against
him should be dismissed for lack of basis and the restraining order issued by the court should be made
permanent. In the instant case, not only is a final judgment lacking, but the criminal cases filed against the
petitioner were all dismissed by the trial court, for insufficiency of evidence.

Therefore, the administrative case filed against the petitioner was dismissed and subject petition
for having been moot and academic.