CASE NO.

831 Philippine Constitution provides that, “the Constitutional Commissions shall appoint their and such rules and regulations may be reviewed by the Court only in cases of grave
ART. IX-A, SEC. 1: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS officials and employees in accordance with law.” abuse of discretion.
Independent Commissions CASE NO. 835
Macalintal vs. COMELEC ART. IX-A, SEC. 6: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
MAIN POINT: Promulgation of Rules
FACTS: Even though there are independent offices specifically authorized by the Constitution to Sabili vs. COMELEC
Petitioner Macalintal files a petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking a declaration that appoint their officials, it does not imply that their appointment will not be subject to the FACTS:
certain provisions of RA 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) are Civil Service Law and Rules. Since all matters pertaining to appointments are within the The COMELEC denied Sabili’s certificate of candidacy for mayor of Lipa for failure to
unconstitutional on the ground that Section 25 of the same law, allowing Congress realm of expertise to the Civil Service Commission, all laws, rules and regulations it comply with the one-year residency requirement. Sabili moved for reconsideration during
(through the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created in the same section) to issues on appointments must be complied with. the pendency and he was proclaimed the duly elected mayor of Lipa City after garnering
exercise the power to review, revise, amend, and approve the Implementing Rules and the highest number of votes. He filed a Manifestation with the COMELEC en banc to
Regulations (IRR) that the COMELEC shall promulgate, violates the independence of the CASE NO. 833 reflect this fact, but the same was denied. Upon Resolution, he claimed that there was no
COMELEC under Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution. ART. IX-A, SEC. 5: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS prior notice setting the date of promulgation of the said Resolution which was received by
Fiscal Autonomy him, pursuant to Section 6 of the COMELEC Resolution No. 8696 which requires the
ISSUE: CSC vs. DBM parties to be notified in advance of the date of the promulgation. However, the COMELEC
Whether Section 25 of RA 9189 violates Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution. issued an Order suspending Section 6 of said Resolution due to the proximity of the
FACTS: Automated National and Local Elections and lack of material time, granting all Resolutions
RULING: The Civil Service Commission via the present petition for mandamus seeks to compel the to be delivered to the Clerk of the Commission for immediate promulgation.
Yes. Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution states that, “the Constitutional Department of Budget and Management to release the balance of its budget for fiscal
Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service Commission, the year 2002. CSC claims that the reason for the withholding was the “no report, no release” ISSUE:
Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.” The Constitution expressly policy. Budget Department, however, claims that the failure to release the fund in full is Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion for failing to promulgate its
mandates the independence of the COMELEC as a constitutional body intended to play a because of shortage of funds. Resolution in accordance with its own Rules of Procedure.
distinct and important part in our scheme of government. In the discharge of its functions,
it should not be hampered with restrictions that would be fully warranted in the case of a ISSUE: RULING:
less responsible organization. Whether the “no report, no release” policy of DBM is constitutional. No. The COMELEC has the power to suspend its own rules of procedure, invoking
Section 6, Article IX-A of the Constitution, which gives it the power to promulgate its own
In this case, by vesting itself with the powers to approve, review, amend, and revise the RULING: rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices. In this case,
IRR for RA 9189, Congress went beyond the scope of its constitutional authority and No. Section 5, Article IX-A of the Constitution states that, “the Commission shall enjoy we read from the COMELEC Order that the exigencies attendant to the holding of the
trampled upon the constitutional mandate of independence of the COMELEC. It may not fiscal autonomy. Their approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and country’s first Automated National Elections had necessitated that the COMELEC
be subject to interference by any government instrumentality and that only this Court may regularly released.” In this case, the “no report, no release” policy by the DBM violates suspend the rule on notice prior to promulgation, and that it instead direct the delivery of
review COMELEC rules and only in cases of grave abuse of discretion. such constitutional provision and may not be validly enforced against offices vested with all resolutions to the Clerk of the Commission for immediate promulgation.
fiscal autonomy. Being “automatic” connotes something mechanical, spontaneous and
MAIN POINT: perfunctory. It means that no condition, such as the “no report, no release” policy, to fund Clearly, the COMELEC validly exercised its constitutionally-granted power to make its
The Constitution expressly mandates the independence of the COMELEC as a releases to it may be imposed. own rules of procedure when it issued the Order suspending Section 6 of COMELEC
constitutional body intended to play a distinct and important part in our scheme of Resolution No. 8696.
government. It may not be subject to interference by any government instrumentality and MAIN POINT:
that only this Court may review COMELEC rules and only in cases of grave abuse of The automatic release of approved annual appropriations to the Civil Service MAIN POINT:
discretion. Commission, a constitutional commission vested with fiscal autonomy, should thus be The power of each Commission en banc to promulgate its own rules concerning
construed to mean that no condition to fund releases to it may be imposed. pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices also includes the power to
CASE NO. 832 suspend such rules.
ART. IX-A, SEC. 1: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS CASE NO. 834
Independent Commissions ART. IX-A, SEC. 6: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS CASE NO. 836
Ombudsman vs. CSC Promulgation of Rules ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
Macalintal vs. COMELEC Decisions of the Commissions
FACTS: Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop vs. Ferrer
Carandang, Clemente and De Jesus were appointed Graft Investigation Officers III of the FACTS:
Office of the Ombudsman. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) approved the Petitioner Macalintal files a petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking a declaration that FACTS:
appointments on the condition that for the appointees to acquire security of tenure, they certain provisions of RA 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) are The COMELEC issued an Invitation to Bid Call No. 127 calling for the submission of
must first obtain a Career Executive Service (CES). The Ombudsman requested to the unconstitutional on the ground that Section 25 of the same law allows Congress (through sealed proposals for the manufacture and delivery of units of voting booths with certain
CSC for the change of status from temporary to permanent, of the appointments of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created in the same section) to exercise the specifications and descriptions. Among the bidders were Filipinas Engineering and
Carandang, Clemente and De Jesus, emphasizing that since the Office of the power to review, revise, amend, and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations Machine Shop, and Acme Steel Manufacturing Company. The COMELEC submitted that
Ombudsman is not governed by the Career Executive Service Board, security of tenure (IRR) that the COMELEC shall promulgate. Acme’s bid had to be rejected because the sample it submitted did not comply with the
can be granted despite the absence of CES eligibility. CSC changed the status of specifications and descriptions. The COMELEC recommended that Filipinas be awarded
Carandang‘s and Clemente‘s appointments to permanent but not with respect to De ISSUE: the contract to manufacture and supply the voting booths, but upon ocular inspection of all
Jesus on the ground that he has not met the eligibility requirements. Hence, this petition Whether Congress may assume power to review rules promulgated by the Commission. the samples submitted by Filipinas, the COMELEC instead awarded the contract to Acme.
for certiorari filed by the Office of the Ombudsman seeking to nullify the Resolution issued Filipinas filed an injunction suit against the COMELEC and Acme before the CFI of
by the Civil Service Commission. RULING: Manila.
No. Section 6 Article IX-A of the Constitution states that, “each Commission en banc may
ISSUE: promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its ISSUE:
Whether the Civil Service Commission, in the exercise of its general power to administer offices. Such rules however shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.” In Whether the CFI has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a suit involving an order of the
civil service, may validly curtail the specific discretionary power of appointment by the this case, by vesting itself with the powers to approve, review, amend, and revise the IRR COMELEC dealing with an award of contract arising from its invitation to bid.
Office of the Ombudsman. for RA 9189, Congress went beyond the scope of its constitutional authority and trampled
upon the constitutional mandate of independence of the COMELEC. It may not be subject RULING:
RULING: to interference by any government instrumentality and that only this Court may review No. Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution states that, “unless otherwise provided by
Yes. While it is true that constitutional agencies such as the Office of the Ombudsman COMELEC rules and only in cases of grave abuse of discretion. this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be
has the authority to appoint its officials in accordance with law, such law does not brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the party within thirty days from receipt of a
necessarily imply that their appointment will not be subject to the Civil Service Law and MAIN POINT: copy thereof.” In this case, an order of the COMELEC awarding a contract to a private
Rules. Otherwise, these independent bodies will arrogate upon themselves a power that The COMELEC, as a constitutional body, is not under the control of either the executive party, as a result of its choice among various proposals submitted in response to its
properly belongs to the Civil Service Commission. Had the intention of the framers of the or legislative departments of government. Only the COMELEC itself can promulgate rules invitation to bid does not come within the purview of a “final order” because it was not
Constitution been to isolate and grant full independence to Constitutional Commissions in and regulations which may be changed or revised only by the majority of its members, issued pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions but merely as an incident of its inherent
the matter of appointments, it would have been so provided. But that is not the case. The administrative functions over the conduct of elections. Hence, said resolution may not be
deemed as a “final order” reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme Court. Any question ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
arising from said order may be well taken in an ordinary civil action before the trial courts. Decisions of the Commissions Decisions of the Commissions
Cua vs. COMELEC Mison vs. COA
MAIN POINT:
What is contemplated by the term “final orders, rulings and decisions” of the COMELEC FACTS: FACTS:
reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme Court as provided by law are those rendered in The First Division of COMELEC rendered a 2-1 decision favoring the petitioner but Hyojin Maru, a seized vessel by the Bureau of Customs, sank prior to its release to its
actions or proceedings before the COMELEC and taken cognizance of by the said body in nevertheless suspended his proclamation as winner in the lone congressional district of claimants. They filed a claim with COA for the payment of the vessel but the same was
the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, and not administrative functions. Quirino due to the lack of the unanimous vote required by the procedural rules in denied by Mr. Rogelio Espiritu, Technical Services Office (TSO) Manager of COA,
COMELEC Resolution No. 1669. Section 5 of said resolution states that “a case being claiming to be acting by authority of the Acting Chairman. The decision was eventually
CASE NO. 837 heard by it shall be decided with the unanimous concurrence of all three Commissioners ratified by Chairman Domingo acting for the Commission. Claimants now question the
ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS and its decision shall be considered a decision of the Commission. If this required number authority of the TSO Manager and COA Chair, alleging that the decision was void
Decisions of the Commissions is not obtained, as when there is a dissenting opinion, the case may be appealed to the because the matter could validly be acted upon only by the COA duly constituted, by the
Saligumba vs. CA Commission en banc, in which case the vote of the majority thereof shall be the decision appointment and qualification of its Chairman and two Commissioners.
of the Commission.”
FACTS: ISSUE:
This is a petition for review of the decision rendered by the Commission on Audit Petitioner contends that the 2-1 decision of the First Division was a valid decision despite Whether the contention of the claimants were correct.
regarding the administrative case filed by petitioner Saligumba against respondent the resolution stated above because of Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution. He
Estella, the Auditing Examiner III of the Auditor’s office of Misamis Occidental. The charge argues that this applies to voting of the COMELEC both in divison and en banc. RULING:
was that the Estella raped Saligumba on several occasions, but the COA dropped the Respondent, on the other hand, insists that no decision was reached by the First Division Yes. Mr. Espiritu, as the TSO Manager of COA, had no power whatsoever to render and
administrative complaint due to insufficient evidence. Saligumba filed a petition before the because the required unanimous vote was not obtained. It was also argued that no valid promulgate a decision of or for the Commission. Indeed, even the Chairman, alone, had
Court to review such action taken by the COA. decision was reached by the COMELEC en banc because only three votes were cast in not that power. As clearly set out in the Constitution then in force, the power was lodged
favor of the petitioner and these did not constitute the majority of the body. in the COA composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners. It was the Commission, as
ISSUE: a collegial body, which then as now, had the jurisdiction to decide any case brought
Whether the Court may take cognizance of such decision by the Commission on Audit. ISSUE: before it within 60 days from the date of its submission for resolution.
Whether the 2-1 decision of the First Division was valid.
RULING: No proper ratification or validation could have been effected by the Acting Chairman since
No. The court dismissed the petition as it held that the power of the Supreme Court to RULING: he was not the Commission, and he himself had no power to decide any case brought
review the decisions of the Commission on Audit only refers to money matters in the Yes. The Court held that the 2-1 decision by the First Division was a valid decision under before the Commission, that power being lodged only in the Commission itself as a
exercise of their quasi-judicial functions and not to administrative cases involving the Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution. Furthermore, the three members who voted to collegial body.
discipline of its personnel in the exercise of their administrative functions. Even assuming affirm the First Division constituted a majority of the five members who deliberated and
that the Court does have jurisdiction to review decisions on administrative matters as voted thereon en banc and their decision is also valid under the constitutional provision. MAIN POINT:
mentioned above, the Court cannot do so on factual issues since its power to review is Hence, the proclamation of Cua on the basis of the two decisions was a valid act that Since the Commissions are collegial bodies, the decisions are made by the body and not
limited to legal issues only. entitles him now to assume his seat in the House of Representatives. by individual members of the body. No individual member may make decision acting for
the Commission.
MAIN POINT: MAIN POINT:
The power of the Court to review the decisions of the COA only refer to money matters in The COMELEC en banc shall decide a case or matter brought before it by a majority of CASE NO. 842
the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions and not to administrative cases involving the the members who deliberated and voted thereon. [Note: In Estrella vs. COMELEC, the ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
discipline of its personnel in the exercise of their administrative functions. Court abandoned this doctrine and upheld the constitutional provision that the COMELEC Decisions of the Commissions
en banc must decide on a case or matter by a majority of ALL its members.] Paredes vs. COMELEC
CASE NO. 838
ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS CASE NO. 840 FACTS:
Decisions of the Commissions ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS This petition seeks the disqualification of respondents Guyguyon, Sakai, Bulayungan,
PTTC vs. COA Decisions of the Commissions Bilibli and Bulahao as candidates for the positions of Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of
Estrella vs. COMELEC Sangguniang Bayan, respectively, in the Municipality of Kiangan, Province of Ifugao, on
FACTS: the ground of turncoatism (the prohibited change of party affiliations by an elective official
This is a petition by the Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation before the FACTS: during his term of office and by a candidate for such office within six months immediately
Supreme Court to review the two letters of the Commission on Audit. In the first letter, the Romeo Estrella and Rolando Salvador were mayoralty candidates in Baliuag, Bulacan preceding or following an election).
COA informed the PTTC that they had a franchise tax deficiency for the year 1979. In the during the May 14, 2001 Elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed
second letter, the COA stated that it did not recognize the contention of PTTC that under Salvador as winner. Estrella filed an election protest before the RTC of Bulacan. Upon The respondents were official candidates of the Nacionalista Party (NP) in the aforesaid
the “most favored treatment clause” of RA 4161, as amended by RA 5048, its franchise decision, the RTC annulled the proclamation of Salvador as mayor and declared Estrella election. The petitioners filed the instant petition but before the resolution thereof by this
tax liability should no longer be 1 and ½ % but only ½%, and if the latter percentage were as the duly elected mayor of Baliuag. Before this Court is a petition for certiorari under Commission, the local election was held and the respondents garnered the majority of the
used as basis for computation, it has clearly fully settled its franchise tax liability. Rule 64 seeking to set aside and nullify the November 5, 2003 Status Quo Ante Order votes cast for the positions for which they respectively ran. Subsequently, the
issued by the COMELEC en banc. respondents were proclaimed by the Kiangan Board of Canvassers. Private respondents
ISSUE: testified that, although they admittedly attended certain meetings of the KBL, they did it on
Whether the Court may review the two letters of the Commission on Audit. ISSUE: the belief that these were intended for the organization of civic committees that would
Whether the vote of majority consists of all the members of the COMELEC en banc. disseminate information regarding future plebiscites and elections. The COA issued that,
RULING: “in all the aforementioned meetings, the respondents did not take an oath of affiliation as
No. The two letters of the COA are not proper subjects of appeal and/or review by this RULING: members of the KBL. They have been long standing NP members prior to said meetings,
Court. The COA, in the said letters, did not decide the issue. It did not render a decision, Yes. This Court hereby abandons the doctrine laid down in Cua vs. COMELEC and holds except respondent Guyguyon who was not then a member of any political party.”
order or final award. It merely expressed an opinion. Hence, the COA cannot render a that the COMELEC en banc shall decide a case or matter brought before it by a majority
“final order, decision or award” on the question of whether petitioner should pay 1 and ½ of “all its members” and not majority of the members who deliberated and voted thereon. ISSUE:
% or ½ % of franchise tax. This is not a matter falling under the jurisdiction this Court. The provision of the Constitution is clear that decisions reached by the COMELEC en Whether the Court may review the rulings and findings of fact of the Commission on
Rather, it is a matter for resolution by the Bureau of Internal Revenue whose decision banc should be the majority vote of all its members and not only those who participated Elections.
may be appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals. and took part in the deliberations.
RULING:
MAIN POINT: MAIN POINT: No. Such rulings or findings of fact of the Commission on Elections must be lacking in
The two letters of the COA are mere opinions and not a final awards, decisions or orders. Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution clearly provides that decisions reached by the arbitrariness to be conclusive on this Court. The above doctrine, of course, is only
The same cannot be brought to this Court for appeal and/or review. COMELEC en banc should be the majority vote of all its members and not only those who applicable under facts that would show arbitrariness. In this case, the COMELEC held
participated and took part in the deliberations. after a careful study of the evidence of record that there was no cause for disqualification
based on turncoatism. There being then no taint of arbitrariness in the conclusion arrived
CASE NO. 839 CASE NO. 841
at, its finding, being supported by substantial evidence, is entitled to be accorded full Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction before the RTC of Rizal challenging his dismissal
respect. by petitioners. CASE NO. 846
ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
MAIN POINT: ISSUE: Decisions of the Commissions
For the Court to exercise its power to review the rulings or findings of fact of the Whether the RTC of Rizal has jurisdiction over the case. ABS-CBN vs. COMELEC
Commission on Elections, such rulings or findings of fact be lacking in arbitrariness to be
conclusive on this Court. There being no taint of arbitrariness in the conclusion arrived at, RULING: FACTS:
its finding, being supported by substantial evidence, is entitled to be accorded full respect. No. The case involves the dismissal of an employee of quasi-public corporation. There is The COMELEC issued a Resolution on April 21, 1988 approving the issuance of a
no question that MOWAD is a quasi-public corporation created pursuant to PD No. 198, restraining order to stop ABS-CBN or any other groups, its agents or representatives from
known as the provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973, as amended. Indeed, the established conducting exit polls and to authorize the Honorable Chairman to issue the same. ABS-
rule is that the hiring and firing of employees of government-owned and controlled CBN filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court questioning the validity of
corporations are governed by the provisions of the Civil Service Law and Rules and such resolution. Such resolution was issued by the COMELEC allegedly upon information
Regulations. Hence, Regional Trial Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain cases from a reliable source that ABS-CBN has prepared a project to conduct radio-TV
involving dismissal of officers and employees covered by the Civil Service Law. coverage of the elections and to make an exit survey of the vote during the elections for
CASE NO. 843 national officials particularly for President and Vice-President, results of which shall be
ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution states that, “unless otherwise provided by this broadcasted immediately. The Solicitor General contended that the petition should be
Decisions of the Commissions Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought dismissed for petitioner’s failure to exhaust available remedies by failure to file a motion
Ambil vs. COMELEC to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the party within thirty days from receipt of a copy for reconsideration before the COMELEC.
thereof.” It categorically provides that the party aggrieved by a decision, ruling, order, or
FACTS: action of an agency of the government involving termination of services may appeal to the ISSUE:
Petitioner Ambil and respondent Ramirez were candidates for the position of Governor, Commission within fifteen (15) days. Whether there was still a need to file for a motion for reconsideration before the
Eastern Samar, during the May 11, 1998 elections. The Provincial Board of Canvassers COMELEC.
proclaimed Ambil as the duly elected Governor, Eastern Samar, with the highest number MAIN POINT:
of votes in the election returns. Ramirez, who had the second highest number of votes, The established rule is that the hiring and firing of employees of government-owned and RULING:
filed an election protest with the COMELEC First Division challenging the results in certain controlled corporations are governed by the provisions of the Civil Service Law and Rules No. The Supreme Court dispensed with the need to file for a motion for reconsideration
precincts. Commissioner Guiani then prepared and signed a proposed resolution in the and Regulations. Regional Trial Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain cases involving before the COMELEC since elections were already very close and there was no more
case, but he then retired from the service before the resolution was promulgated. The dismissal of officers and employees covered by the Civil Service Law. time for another speedy remedy. This Court ruled in the past that this procedural
President of the Philippines appointed Commissioner Javier to the seat. Ambil and requirement may be glossed over when the need for relief is extremely urgent
Ramirez received a purported resolution which ruled in favor of Ramirez and declared him CASE NO. 845 and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy remedy available. In the instant petition
the winner. The COMELEC First Division issued a resolution declaring such previously ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS assailing the Resolution issued by the COMELEC en banc on April 21, 1988 – only 20
prepared resolution by Guiani to be void because it was not promulgated. It subsequently Decisions of the Commissions days before the election itself. Besides, petitioner got hold of a copy thereof only on May
issued an order setting the promulgation of said resolution. Petitioner Ambil seeks to Reyes vs. Regional Trial Court 4, 1988. Under the circumstances, there was hardly enough opportunity to move for a
annul such order and prohibit the COMELEC First Division from promulgating said reconsideration and to obtain a swift resolution in time of the May 11, 1998 elections.
purported resolution by Guiani. FACTS: Moreover, not only is time of the essence; the petition involves transcendental
Petitioner Aquiles Reyes and private respondent Adolfo Comia were candidates for the constitutional issues. Direct resort to this Court through a special civil action
ISSUE: position of member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro in the May 11, for certiorari is therefore justified.
Whether the prepared resolution by former Commissioner Guiani is valid and can be 1992 synchronized elections. During the proceedings of the Municipal Board of
reviewed by the Supreme Court via certiorari. Canvassers, Comia moved for the exclusion of certain election returns, on the ground of MAIN POINT:
serious irregularity in counting in favor of petitioner Aquiles Reyes votes cast for "Reyes" The procedural requirement of filing for a motion for reconsideration before the
RULING: only, considering that there was another candidate (Epitacio Reyes) bearing the same COMELEC was dispensed by the Court because the need for relief is extremely urgent
No. A final decision or resolution becomes binding only after it is promulgated and not surname. However, without resolving his petition, the Municipal Board of Canvassers since the elections were already very close and there was no more time for another
before. Accordingly, one who is no longer a member of the Commission at the time the proclaimed on the same day Aquiles Reyes as the 8th winning candidate. Comia filed an speedy remedy besides a certiorari.
final decision or resolution is promulgated cannot validly take part in that resolution or election protest before the trial court alleging that a vital mistake had been committed by
decision. In this case, Guiani vacated office without the final decision or resolution having the Board of Canvassers in the mathematical computation of the total number of votes CASE NO. 847
been promulgated. Hence, there was no valid resolution or decision to speak of. Even if garnered by Aquiles Reyes. The Municipal Board of Canvassers admitted that it had ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
there was a valid final decision or resolution by the COMELEC First Division, the made a mistake in crediting Comia with lesser votes than actual. The trial court annulled Decisions of the Commissions
Supreme Court ruled that it has no power to review via certiorari, an interlocutory order or the proclamation of Reyes and declared Comia as the 8th winning candidate. Aquiles Salva vs. Makalintal
even a final resolution of a Division of the COMELEC. For decisions of the COMELEC to Reyes filed a notice of appeal to the COMELEC and he filed a petition for mandamus and
be reviewed by the Supreme Court, these must be final decisions or resolutions of the prohibition in the Court of Appeals to compel the Sangguniang Bayan to recognize him as FACTS:
COMELEC en banc, not of a Division, and certainly not an interlocutory order of a the duly proclaimed member of that body and prohibit it from further recognizing Comia. The Sangguniang Pambayan of Calaca, Batangas approved Ordinance No. 5 merging
division. Barangay San Rafael with Barangay Danclao. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
ISSUE: Batangas passed a Resolution instructing the COMELEC to conduct the required
MAIN POINT: Whether the trial court and the COMELEC First Division committed a grave abuse of plebiscite. The COMELEC passed a Resolution providing for the rules and regulations of
A final decision or resolution becomes binding only after it is promulgated and not before. discretion. said plebiscite. The officials and residents of San Rafael filed a case before the RTC of
There is no decision until the draft is signed and promulgated. Accordingly, one who is no Balayan to prohibit the plebiscite on the ground that the Ordinance and the Resolutions
longer a member of the Commission at the time the final decision or resolution is RULING: were invalid. The RTC ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the case because only the
promulgated cannot validly take part in that resolution or decision. Hence, if a No. Rule 65 of the Rules of Court states that a certiorari may be resorted to when there is Supreme Court can review the resolution of the COMELEC. Petitioners filed an appeal by
commissioner signs a decision but retires before the decision is promulgated, his vote no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. But reconsideration is a speedy and certiorari seeking the reversal of denying the issuance of temporary restraining order to
does not count even if it was he who penned the decision. adequate remedy. Hence, a case may be brought to the Supreme Court only after enjoin the COMELEC from holding the plebiscite.
reconsideration. As a consequence, in the case of decisions of the COMELEC, only
CASE NO. 844 decisions en banc may be brought to the Court by certiorari since Article IX-C (3) of the ISSUE:
ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS Constitution states that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to enjoin the COMELEC from implementing its
Decisions of the Commissions Commission en banc. Since a basic condition for bringing such action is that the petitioner Resolution providing the rules and regulations for the conduct of the plebiscite.
Mateo vs. CA first files a motion for reconsideration, it follows that petitioner's failure to file a motion for
reconsideration of the decision of the First Division of the COMELEC is fatal to his present RULING:
FACTS: action. No. Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution provides that “unless otherwise provided by
Upon complaint of some Morong Water District (MOWAD) employees, petitioners, all this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be
Board Members of MOWAD, conducted an investigation on private respondent Edgar Sta. MAIN POINT: brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the party within thirty days from receipt of a
Maria, then General Manager. He was placed under preventive suspension and Maximo It is a general rule that a case through certiorari may be brought to the Supreme Court copy thereof.” What is contemplated by the term “final orders, rulings and decisions” of
San Diego was designated in his place as Acting General Manager. He was later only after a motion for reconsideration and such motions for reconsideration of decisions the COMELEC reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme Court as provided by law are
dismissed. Private respondent Sta. Maria filed a special civil action for Quo Warranto and shall be decided by the COMELEC en banc. those rendered in actions or proceedings before the COMELEC and taken cognizance of
by the said body in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. In the case at the proclamation of Dumayas. The COMELEC en banc reversed the decision, annulled MAIN POINT:
bar, the said resolution may not be deemed as a “final order” reviewable by certiorari by Dumayas’ proclamation, and constituted a new MBC which proclaimed Bernal as the Where a division of the COMELEC decides a motion for reconsideration in violation of
this Court. The COMELEC Resolution which provides for the rules and regulations duly-elected mayor. Dumayas contended that the COMELEC en banc Resolution was Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution, the division’s ruling is a complete nullity and
governing the conduct of the required plebiscite was not issued pursuant to the void considering that only four Commissioners voted to reverse the Resolution of the may be brought to the Court on certiorari.
COMELEC’s quasi-judicial functions but merely as an incident of its inherent COMELEC Second Division because the two Commissioners who participated in the
administrative functions over the conduct of plebiscites. consideration thereof have already retired before its promulgation even if they had CASE NO. 851
participated earlier in the deliberations of the case. ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
MAIN POINT: Decisions of the Commissions
Only final orders, rulings and decisions of the COMELEC, in the exercise of its ISSUE: Cayetano vs. COMELEC
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, are reviewable through certiorari by the Supreme Whether the assailed resolution should be null and void for violating Section 7, Article IX-
Court. Since the COMELEC Resolution was a ministerial duty enjoined by law in the A of the Constitution. FACTS:
exercise of its administrative functions, it involved no exercise of discretionary authority In the automated national and local elections held on May 10, 2010, petitioner Cayetano
and adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power and therefore cannot be reviewable by the RULING: and private respondent Tinga were candidates for the position of Mayor of Taguig City.
Supreme Court through certiorari. No. A decision becomes binding only after its promulgation. If at the time it is promulgated Cayetano was proclaimed the winner receiving garnering the highest votes. Tinga filed an
a member of the collegiate court who had earlier signed or registered his vote has election protest against Cayetano before the COMELEC for allegedly committing election
CASE NO. 848 vacated office, his vote on the decision must automatically be withdrawn or cancelled. frauds and irregularities which translated to the latter’s ostensible win as Mayor of Taguig
ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS Accordingly, the votes of the two retired Commissioners should merely be considered as City. On the whole, Tinga claims that he is the actual winner of the mayoralty elections in
Decisions of the Commissions withdrawn for the reason that their retirement preceded the resolution’s promulgation. The Taguig City. On the other hand, Cayetano raised the affirmative defense of insufficiency in
Garces vs. CA effect of the withdrawal of their votes would be as if they had not signed the resolution at form and content of the election protest and prayed for the immediate dismissal thereof.
all and only the votes of the remaining commissioners would be properly considered for However, it was denied by the COMELEC.
FACTS: the purpose of deciding the controversy. In the case at bar, with the cancellation of the
Petitioner Garces was appointed Election Registrar of Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte, to votes of the two retired Commissioners, the remaining votes among the four ISSUE:
replace respondent Concepcion who, in turn, was transferred to Liloy, Zamboanga del commissioners at the time of the resolution’s promulgation would still be 3 to 1 in favor Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
Norte. However, Concepcion refused to transfer as he did not request for it. Garces was of Bernal. Noteworthy, these remaining Commissioners still constituted a quorum. of jurisdiction in refusing to dismiss the protest of private respondent Tinga for
directed by the Office of Assistant Director to assume the Gutalac office but was not able insufficiency in form and content.
to do so because of a Memorandum issued by Provincial Election Supervisor Empeynado MAIN POINT:
that prohibited her from assuming office as it was not vacant. She was then directed to The effect of the withdrawal of their votes would be as if they had not signed the RULING:
defer her assumption of the Gutalac office. Since Concepcion continued to occupy said resolution at all and only the votes of the remaining commissioners would be properly No. Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution provides that, “unless otherwise provided by
office, the COMELEC en banc cancelled his appointment to Liloy. Garces filed before the considered for the purpose of deciding the controversy. this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be
RTC a petition for mandamus with preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction and brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from
damages against Empeynado and Concepcion. But the COMELEC en banc issued a receipt of a copy thereof.” We have interpreted this constitutional provision to mean final
Resolution recognizing Concepcion as the Election Registrar of Gutalac, and ordered the CASE NO. 850 orders, rulings and decisions of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory
appointments of Garces to Gutalac and of Concepcion to Liloy be cancelled. Empeynado ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS or quasi-judicial powers. The decision must be a final decision or resolution of the
also sought to dismiss the petition for mandamus alleging that the same was rendered Decisions of the Commissions COMELEC en banc. The Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari an
moot and academic by the said COMELEC Resolution, and that the case is cognizable Aguilar vs. COMELEC interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the COMELEC. Failure to
only by the COMELEC under Section 7 Art. IX-A of the 1987 Constitution. abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground for dismissal of the petition.
FACTS:
ISSUE: Petitioner Aguilar won the chairmanship of Barangay Bansarvil 1, Kapatagan, Lanao del MAIN POINT:
Whether the case is cognizable by the Supreme Court. Norte over private respondent Insoy by a margin of one vote. Not conceding his defeat, It is a well-settled rule that the Court has no jurisdiction to review a final or interlocutory
Insoy timely instituted an election protest in the MTC of Kapatagan. It rendered its order, or even a final resolution of a division of the COMELEC. Stated otherwise, the
RULING: decision finding Insoy as the duly elected Punong Barangay. The trial court consequently Court can only review via certiorari a decision, order, or ruling of the COMELEC en banc.
No. Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution provides that “unless otherwise provided by nullified the proclamation of Aguilar and directed him to vacate the office. Aguilar filed his However, the Court held that an exception to this rule applies where the commission of
this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be notice of appeal and paid to the trial court the appeal fee of P1,000.00. The COMELEC grave abuse of discretion is apparent on its face. Where there is none, the Courts are
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the party within thirty days from receipt of a First Division issued a Resolution dismissing the appeal on the ground of failure to pay without jurisdiction to review such case.
copy thereof.” This provision is inapplicable as there was no case or matter filed before the correct appeal fee as such was a ground for the dismissal of the appeal. Aguilar
the COMELEC. The “case” or “matter” referred to are those that relate to the COMELEC’s moved for reconsideration, arguing that the newly promulgated rule only requires the CASE NO. 852
exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers involving elective regional, provincial payment of P1,000.00 as appeal fee. Still Aguilar filed another motion for reconsideration, ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
and city officials. In this case, what was being assailed was the COMELEC's choice of an contending that the order was null and void because it was issued in violation of the rule Decisions of the Commissions
appointee to occupy the Gutalac office which is an administrative duty done for the that motions for reconsideration should be resolved by the COMELEC en banc and not by Dela Llana vs. The Chairperson, COA
operational set-up of an agency. The controversy involves an appointive, not an elective, its Division.
official. FACTS:
ISSUE: The Commission on Audit issued Circular No. 89-299 lifting its system of pre-audit of
MAIN POINT: Whether the order by the COMELEC First Division was null and void. government financial transactions. The rationale for the circular was (1) to reaffirm the
The “case” or “matter” referred to by the Constitution that may be brought to the Supreme concept that fiscal responsibility resides in management as embodied in the Government
Court on certiorari under Section 7, Article IX-A are those that relate to the COMELEC’s RULING: Auditing Code of the Philippines; and (2) to contribute to accelerating the delivery of
exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers involving elective regional, provincial Yes. Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution provides that it is the decision, order or public services and improving government operations by curbing undue bureaucratic red
and city officials. ruling of the COMELEC en banc which may be brought to this Court on certiorari. But this tape and ensuring facilitation of government transactions, while continuing to preserve
rule should not apply when a division of the COMELEC arrogates unto itself and deprives and protect the integrity of these transactions. Petitioner Dela Llana filed a petition for
CASE NO. 849 the en banc of the authority to rule on a motion for reconsideration, as in this case. certiorari seeking to annul the said Circular alleging that the pre-audit duty on the part of
ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS the COA cannot be lifted by a mere circular, considering that pre-audit is a constitutional
Decisions of the Commissions In this case, petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing his appeal was mandate enshrined in Section 2 of Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution. The COA argues
Dumayas vs. COMELEC not resolved by the COMELEC en banc, but by the COMELEC First Division, in obvious that the petition must be dismissed on the ground that that petition for certiorari was not
violation of the provisions of the Constitution and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. proper since it did not exercise quasi-judicial functions in the promulgation of said
FACTS: Stated differently, the division, after dismissing petitioner's appeal, arrogated unto itself Circular.
Petitioner Dumayas and respondent Bernal were rival candidates for the position of mayor the en banc's function of resolving petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Being a
in Carles, Iloilo. During the canvassing by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC), violation of the Constitution and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the assailed orders ISSUE:
Dumayas sought the exclusion of election returns for 3 precincts of Barangay Pantalan are null and void. They were issued by the COMELEC First Division with grave abuse of Whether the Court may review upon certiorari the Circular No. 89-299 issued by the COA.
owing to alleged acts of terrorism, intimidation and coercion committed in said precincts. discretion. Clearly, by arrogating unto itself a power constitutionally lodged in the
The MBC denied the objections and proceeded with the canvass which showed Bernal Commission en banc, the COMELEC First Division, in this case, exercised judgment in RULING:
garnering more votes than him. Upon appeal, Dumayas was proclaimed winner of the excess of, or without, jurisdiction. No. Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution provides that, “unless otherwise provided by
election by the COMELEC Second Division. Bernal filed an urgent motion to declare void this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from "In a quo warranto proceeding the person suing must show that he has a clear right to the
receipt of a copy thereof.” Decisions and orders of the COA are reviewable by the court MAIN POINT: office allegedly held unlawfully by another. Absent that right, the lack of qualification or
via a petition for certiorari only when these refer to decisions and orders which were The extension of the term did not affect the term. Thus, reckoning the seven year term, eligibility of the supposed usurper is immaterial. Indeed, this has been the “exacting rule.
rendered by the COA in its quasi-judicial capacity. the starting point is always a February 2 even if the appointee took office after February 2. "A person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or
Through this rotational system the staggering of the terms is preserved. exercised by another may bring an action therefor in his own name."
In the case at bar, Circular No. 89-299 was promulgated by the COA under its quasi- It is uniformly prescribed a seven-year term of office for Members of the Constitutional
legislative or rule-making powers and not under its quasi-judicial powers. Hence, Circular Commissions, without re-appointment, and for the first appointees terms of seven, five CASE NO. 857
No. 89-299 is not reviewable by certiorari. and three years, without re-appointment ARTICLE IX- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SECTION 8 (SECTION 2: PARAGRAPH 1
UNDER CIVIL SERVICE LAW)
MAIN POINT: CASE NO. 855 METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM (MWSS) vs. HON.
The cases or matters referred to by the Constitution that may be brought to the Supreme ARTICLE IX- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SECTION 8 (SECTION 1: COMPOSITION; BIENVENIDO S. HERNANDEZ, (G.R. No. 71818 August 19, 1986)
Court on certiorari under Section 7, Article IX-A are those that only relate to the exercise QUALIFICATIONS; TEAM)
of adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. The Courts cannot take cognizance of cases or ISMAEL A. MATHAY JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS (G.R. No. 124374. December 15, FACTS:
matters of the Commission in the exercise of quasi-legislative powers. 1999] Petitioner Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) was haled before the
CASE NO. 853 Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region of the National Labor Relations Commission
ART. IX-A, SEC. 7: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS FACTS: on charges of willfull failure to pay wage differentials, allowances and other monetary
Decisions of the Commissions Brigido R. Simon appointed private respondents to positions in the Civil Service Unit benefits to its contractual employees numbering 2,500 or so.
Cagas vs. COMELEC (“CSU”) of the local government of Quezon City. Civil Service Units were created MWSS assessed that:
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 51 which was allegedly signed into law on (1) it "is a government-owned and controlled corporation and therefore ... (the
FACTS: November 15 or 16, 1972.The Civil Service Commission issued Memorandum NLRC) has no jurisdiction over the ... case", and (2) assuming the contrary arguendo, "the
Petitioner Cagas and respondent Bautista contested the position of Governor of the Circular No. 30, directing all Civil Service Regional or Field Offices to recall, revoke and terms and conditions of the complainants who are all contractual employees are governed
Province of Davao del Sur in the May 2010 automated national and local elections. Cagas disapprove within one year from issuance of the said Memorandum, all appointments by their respective contracts.
was proclaimed the winner for garnering the highest number of votes cast in said position. in CSUs created pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 51 on the ground that the ISSUE:
Alleging fraud, anomalies, irregularities, vote-buying and violations of election laws, rules same never became law. Among those affected by the revocation of Are employees of the MWSS covered by the Labor Code or by laws and regulations
and resolutions, Bautista filed an electoral protest which was ruled in his favor. Cagas appointments are private respondents in these three petitions. On May 11, 1992, governing the civil service?
moved to reconsider assailing the orders issued by the COMELEC First Division. petitioner Ismael A. Mathay, Jr. was elected Mayor of Quezon City. On July 1, 1992,
However, Bautista countered that the assailed orders were merely interlocutory and could Mayor Mathay again renewed the contractual appointments of all private respondents RULING:
not be elevated to the COMELEC en banc. effective July 1 to July 31, 1992. Upon their expiry, these appointments, however, were The character of the MWSS as a government-owned or controlled corporation is not
no longer renewed. The non-renewal by Quezon City Mayor Ismael A. Mathay, Jr. of contested; Republic Act No. 6234 created it as a "government corporation to be known as
ISSUE: private respondents’ appointments became the seed of discontent from which these three the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System." therefore, employment in the
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess consolidated petitions grew. MWSS is governed not by the Labor Code but by the civil service law, rules and
of jurisdiction in refusing to dismiss the protest for insufficiency in form and content. ISSUE: regulations; and controversies arising from or connected with that employment are not
The Civil Service Commission has legal standing to prosecute. cognizable by the National Labor Relations Commission. the Decision of the Labor Arbiter
RULING: RULING: having been rendered without jurisdiction, are hereby declared void and set aside.
No. Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution provides that, “unless otherwise provided by DISMISSED. Civil Service Commission lack of legal standing to sue. MAIN POINT:
this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be There is no legal or logical justification for such a distinction. Indeed, it is ruled out by the
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from MAIN POINT: fact that positions in the civil service are classified into career and non-career service, 14
receipt of a copy thereof.” This provision, although it confers on the Court the power to Basic is the rule that “every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name and that the non-career service includes inter alia-
review any decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC, limits such power to a final decision of the real party in interest.” A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited Contractual personnel or those whose employment in the
or resolution of the COMELEC en banc, and does not extend to an interlocutory order or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. government is in accordance with a special contract to undertake a specific work or job,
issued by a Division of the COMELEC. Otherwise stated, the Court has no power to As a general rule, one having no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction requiring special or technical skin not available in the employing agency, to be
review on certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final resolution issued by a Division of of the court asa party-plaintiff in an action accomplished within a specific period, which in no case shall exceed one year, and
the COMELEC. performs or accomplishes the specific work or job, under his own responsibility with a
CASE NO. 856 minimum of direction and supervision from the hiring agency.
MAIN POINT: ARTICLE IX- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SECTION 8- SECTION 2: SCOPE OF CASE NO. 858
It is a well-settled rule that the Court has no jurisdiction to review a final or interlocutory SYSTEM) ARTICLE IX- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SECTION 8 (SECTION 2: PARAGRAPH
order, or even a final resolution of a division of the COMELEC. Stated otherwise, the THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS v. ATTY. JOSEFINA G. BACAL 1- UNDER CIVIL SERVICE LAW)
Court can only review via certiorari a decision, order, or ruling of the COMELEC en banc. [G.R. No. 139382. December 6, 2000.] NASECO vs. NLRC, et.al. (G.R. No. L-69870 November 29, 1988)

CASE NO. 854 FACTS: FACTS:

ARTICLE IX- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SECTION 8 (SECTION 1: COMPOSITION; This case involves the appointment and transfer of career executive service officers Eugenia Credo, Chief of Property and Records of NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION
QUALIFICATIONS; TEAM) (CESOs). More specifically, it concerns the "appointment" of respondent Josefina G. (NASECO) filed a complaint before the Arbitration Branch of the Ministry of Labor after
THELMA P. GAMINDE vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (GR. No. 140335 December 13, Bacal, who holds the rank of CESO III, to the position of Chief Public Attorney in the having been placed in forced leave without due process. Said forced leave was a product
2000) Public Attorney’s Office, which has a CES Rank Level I, and her subsequent transfer, of her alleged non-compliance of a memorandum coming from a Finance Manager, and
made without her consent, to the Office of the Regional Director of the PAO. other past acts of misconduct as found by NASECO’s committee on Personnel Affairs.
FACTS: In its decision 1 rendered on March 25, 1999, the Court of Appeals declared respondent In the Manager’s office, Credo was made to explain her side in connection with the
The case is a special civil action of certiorari seeking to annul and set aside two Josefina G. Bacal entitled to the position of Chief Public Attorney in the Public Attorney’s conducts for which she is complained of. But because she failed to explain, she was
"decisions" of the Commission on Audit ruling that (Thelma Gaminde) petitioner’s term of Office. Petitioners moved for a reconsideration, but their motion was denied by the handed a Notice of Termination. Credo thus filed a supplemental complaint for illegal
office as Commissioner, Civil Service Commission, to which she was appointed on June appeals court in its resolution dated July 22, 1999. Hence this petition for review on dismissal and lack of opportunity to be heard.
11, 1993, by the president, expired on February 02, 1999, as set forth in her appointment certiorari. Petitioners contend that the transfer of respondent to the Office of the Regional ISSUE:
paper. Director of the PAO is appropriate considering her rank as CESO III. Was there an illegal dismissal?
RULING:
ISSUE: ISSUE: YES. NASECO did not comply with these guidelines in effecting Credo's dismissal. The
Whether the term of office of Atty. Thelma P. Gaminde, as Commissioner, Civil Service Whether or not the petition for quo warranto is tenable petitioner are ordered to: 1) reinstate Eugenia C. Credo to her former position at the time
Commission, to which she was appointed on June 11, 1993, expired on February 02, of her termination, or if such reinstatement is not possible, to place her in a substantially
1999, as stated in the appointment paper, or on February 02, 2000, as claimed by her. RULING: equivalent position, with three (3) years back wages, and pay for moral damages and
The contention has no merit. We first consider petitioners’ contention that respondent’s attorney’s fees.
RULING: quo warranto suit should have been dismissed for failure of respondent to exhaust
The court REVERSE the decisions of the Commission on Audit insofar as they disallow administrative remedies by appealing to the Office of the President. MAIN POINT:
the salaries and emoluments of Commissioner Thelma P. Gaminde and her coterminous The civil service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the
staff during her tenure as de facto officer from February 02, 1999, until February 02, 2000. MAIN POINT: Government, including every government-owned or controlled corporation.
The applicability of the Labor Code to, and the authority of the NLRC to exercise THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The CTA dismissed LMWD’s petition for lack of
jurisdiction over, disputes involving terms and conditions of employment in government G.R. No. 113212 December 29, 1995 jurisdiction to try the case.
owned or controlled corporations, among them, the National Service Corporation. Joining the petitioner is the "No Tax, No Impairment of Contracts Coalition, Inc.", a
On the premise that it is the 1987 Constitution that governs, it is the Constitution in place FACTS: corporation represented by its President and Chairman, Napoleon G. Aranez, which filed
at the time of decision thereof, the NLRC has jurisdiction to accord relief to the parties. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by the Department of Health seeking to review a motion for leave to admit complaint-petition in intervention. The Court granted said
and set aside the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC CASE motion and required the Coalition, together with LMWD, to submit their respective
CASE NO. 859 which dismissed herein petitioners' appeal. memoranda in a resolution.
ARTICLE IX- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SECTION 8 (SECTION 2: PARAGRAPH 1 The antecedent facts: ISSUE:
UNDER CIVIL SERVICE LAW) Private respondent Ceferino R Laur, admitted and discharged. He was employed at the WON water districts are not GOCCs as they are quasi-public corporations or private
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. THE HON. TEODORO P. REGINO, (G.R. NO. DJRMH as a patient-assistant police force. Complaints for Alarm and Scandal, Oral corporations exercising public functions
88167 MAY 3, 1993) Defamation, Grave Threats, Concealment of Deadly Weapon, Violation of the Code of RULING:
Ethics of Policemen, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer were filed against said We find no merit in the petition and the petition in intervention, particularly in their core
FACTS: private respondent. Private respondent filed with the National Labor Relations position that water districts are private corporations, not GOCCs. The Commission on
Angel Pamplina, a mimeograph operator at the University of the Philippines School of Commission a complaint for illegal dismissal with additional claims for payment of wage Audit and the Department of Finance – they nevertheless represented and spoke for the
Economics, was dismissed on 22 Jun 1982 after he was found guilty of dishonesty and differentials. same government; thus, a substantial identity of respondents obtained in resolving the
grave misconduct for causing the leakage of final examination questions in Economics same contentious issue of whether local water districts should be treated as private
106 under Prof. Solita Monsod ISSUE: corporations and not as GOCCs with special charter.
ISSUE: WON respondents NLRC committed serious error in their decisions and acted without
Whether or not CSC has jurisdiction over the university which was vested under its jurisdiction before the NLRC instead of the Civil Service Commission. MAIN POINT:
charter, Act No. 1870, with academic freedom and institutional autonomy The Constitution emphatically prohibits the creation of private corporations except by a
RULING: RULING: general law applicable to all citizens. The purpose of this constitutional provision is to ban
YES. As a mere government-owned or controlled corporation, UP was clearly a part of the The petition to be impressed with merit. As it is clearly an agency of the Government, the private corporations created by special charters, which historically gave certain
Civil Service under the 1973 Constitution and now continues to do so because it was DJRMH falls well within the scope and/or coverage of the Civil Service Law in accordance individuals, families or groups special privileges denied to other citizens.
created by a special law and has an original charter. As a component of the Civil Service, with paragraph 1. Section 2, Article IX B, 1987 Constitution. The Dr. Jose N. Rodriguez
UP is therefore governed by P.D. 807 and administrative cases involving the discipline of Memorial Hospital to be within the scope of the Civil Service Law and not of the Labor
its employees come under the appellate jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. Code.

MAIN POINT: MAIN POINT: CASE NO. 864

Article IX-B, Section 2(l), which states: As the central personnel agency of the Government, the Civil Service Commission ARTICLE IX- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SECTION 8 (SECTION 2: PARAGRAPH
The Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of administers the Civil Service Law. It is, therefore, the single arbiter of all contests or 1- GOCCS UNDER THE CORPORATION CODE)
the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original controversies relating to the civil service, the Civil Service Commission which has BLISS vs. HON. PURA FERRER CALLEJA, G.R. No. 80887 (September 30, 1994)
charters. UP was clearly a part of the Civil Service under the 1973 Constitution and now jurisdiction.
continues to be so because it was created by a special law and has an original charter. FACTS:
The President and Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines possess full and CASE NO. 862 On October 10, 1986, petitioner, a duly registered labor union, filed with the Department
final authority in the disciplining, suspension and removal of the civil service employees of ARTICLE IX- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SECTION 8 (SECTION 2: PARAGRAPH of Labor, National Capital Region, and a petition for certification election of private
the University, including those of the Philippine General Hospital, independently of the 2- UNDER CIVIL SERVICE LAW) respondent Bliss Development Corporation (BDC).
Commissioner of Civil Service and the Civil Service Board of Appeals. BENJAMIN C. JUCO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and Based on the position papers submitted by the parties, Med-Arbiter Napoleon V.
NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION, - G.R. No. 98107 August 18, 1997 Fernando, in an order dated January 26, 1987, dismissed the petition for lack of
CASE NO. 860 jurisdiction stating that the majority of BDC's stocks is owned by the Human Settlement
ARTICLE IX- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SECTION 8 (SECTION 2: PARAGRAPH 2 FACTS: Development Corporation (HSDC), a wholly-owned government corporation. Therefore,
UNDER CIVIL SERVICE LAW) Petitioner Benjamin C. Juco, project engineer of National Housing Corporation, filed a BDC is subject to Civil Service law, rules and regulations.
ANICETO G. MATEO VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 113219 complaint for illegal dismissal against the NHC with the Department of Labor and
(AUGUST 14, 1995) dismissed it. Elevated the case to the NLRC and reversing the decision of labor arbiter. ISSUE:
Filed with the Civil Service Commission with preliminary mandatory injunction. WON Bliss Development Corporation (BDC) is a government-owned controlled
FACTS: corporation subject to Civil Service Laws.
Upon complaint of some Morong Water District (MOWAD) employees, petitioners, all ISSUE:
Board Members of MOWAD, conducted an investigation on private respondent Edgar Sta. WON The Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which reversed RULING:
Maria, then General Manager. The private respondent was placed under preventive the Decision of Labor Arbiter, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. NO. BDC is a government-owned corporation created under the Corporation Law. It is
suspension and Maximo San Diego was designated in his place as Acting General without a charter, governed by the Labor Code and not by the Civil Service Law.
Manager. He was later dismissed. The private respondent filed a Special Civil Action for RULING:
Quo Warranto and Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court The NLRC erred in dismissing petitioner’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction because the MAIN POINT:
of Rizal, challenging his dismissal by petitioners. The petition embodied three (3) causes rule now is that the Civil Service now covers only government-owned or controlled 1987 Constitutional provision that the Civil Service embraces government-owned or
of action. corporations with original charters. controlled corporations with original charter; therefore, by clear implication, the Civil
ISSUE: Service does not include government-owned or controlled corporations which are
WON the Regional Trial Court of Rizal has jurisdiction over the dismissal of an employee MAIN POINT: organized as subsidiaries of government-owned or controlled corporations under the
of Quasi-public Corporation. The terms and conditions of employment of all government employees, including general corporation law.
RULING: employees of government-owned and controlled corporations shall be governed by the
NO jurisdiction. MOWAD is a quasi-public corporation. The Civil Service Commission Civil Service Law, rules and regulations CASE NO. 865
under the Constitution, is the single arbiter of all contests relating to the Civil service and ARTICLE IX- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SECTION 8 (SECTION 2: PARAGRAPH
as such, its judgments are unappealable and subject only to this Court's certiorari 2- GOCCs UNDER THE CORPORATION CODE)
judgment CASE NO. 863 DR. PERLA A. POSTIGO v. PHILIPPINE TUBERCULOSIS SOCIETY, INC., [G.R. NO.
MAIN POINT: ARTICLE IX- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SECTION 8 (SECTION 2: PARAGRAPH 1 155146 - January 24, 2006]
The established rule is that the hiring and firing of employees of government-owned and UNDER CIVIL SERVICE LAW)
controlled corporations are governed by the provisions of the Civil Service Law and Rules ENGR. RANULFO C. FELICIANO vs. HON. CORNELIO C. GISON, (GR No. 165641
and Regulations. Regional Trial Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain cases involving August 25, 2010) FACTS:
dismissal of officers and employees covered by the Civil Service Law. This petition assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which set aside the Resolution
FACTS: of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC had dismissed the
CASE NO. 861 Before this Court is the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rules of Court filed by respondent's appeal from the Decision of the Labor Arbiter, who ordered the payment of
ARTICLE IX- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SECTION 8 (SECTION 2: PARAGRAPH Leyte Metropolitan Water District (LMWD) through its General Manager, Engr. Ranulfo C. retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 7641 to petitioners. This petition likewise
1- UNDER CIVIL SERVICE LAW) Feliciano, which seeks to set aside the decision of the CA that in turn affirmed the ruling assails the Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying petitioners' motion for
reconsideration.
ISSUE: appeal the HIGC had invoked the permanent appointment of Cruz and left the jurisdiction Rimonte v CSC
WON the Court of Appeals err in granting the petition and directing the NLRC to act on of Cruz’s civil service eligibility to the CSC. Cruz had availed the Early Separation Facts:
the Motion to Reduce Bond and to give due course to the appeal. Incentive Package (ESIP) granted by HIGC then withdrawn his appeal. By December 7, The Petitioner who held the position of the Planning Officer III in the Office of the
1988 Cruz had refilled his appeal due to no longer granted ESIP. HIGC dismissed Cruz’s Ombudsman, had applied for any positions which included the Administrative Officer V of
RULING: appeal. However, through the Resolution No. 89-973, held that since Cruz was not able to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Armed Forces or Chief of Monitoring and
NO. The Court of Appeals did not err in granting the petition and holding that there was receive early retirement benefits that was asked for, he should be reappointed on the EDP Division or Records Officer V of the Central Records Division. The petitioner was
substantial compliance in the posting of a cash or surety bond. Directing the NLRC to act position that in the next lower to the position of the Vice President of the HIGC such as appointed as the Associate Graft Investigation Officer III. The respondent, Henrietta F.
on the Motion to Reduce Bond and to give due course to the Appeal. Manager of the Comptrollership Department, Treasury or any other department. Roque, was appointed as Records Officer V or Chief of the Central Records Division,
Issue: Whether the CSC had committed grave abuse of discretion which amounted to the Office of the Ombudsman.
MAIN POINT: lack or excess of jurisdiction in the permanency of appointment to Cruz. The petitioner had filed for repeal for the appointment of Roque. The petitioner had filed
The law does not cover employees of retail, service and agricultural establishments or Ruling: the repeal on the grounds on the claim of possessing better qualifications than the
operations employing not more than (10) employees or workers and employees of the Affirmative, the court had ruled that the CSC had committed grave abuse of discretion respondent and he should be appointed the position of Roque. However, the Ombudsman
National Government and its political subdivisions, including Government-owned and/or which amounted to the lack or excess of jurisdiction in the permanency of appointment to Vasquez had denied the appeal. The Ombudsman Vasquez had denied the repeal as the
controlled corporations, if they are covered by the Civil Service Law and its regulations. Cruz. The 1987 Constitution states that the appointments in the civil service is based on appointed authority, whom has ample jurisdiction to appoint to any vacant position to
The respondent is a non-profit but private corporation organized under the Corporation merit and fitness except those positions that are policy-determining primarily confidential those persons that have the minimum qualifications. The repeal had failed to show how
Code, and the petitioners are covered by the Labor Code and not by the Civil Service or highly technical. The appointment of Cruz is ruled to be invalid due to the position that the respondent does not have the minimum qualifications for such position.
Law. was held by him was not followed under the third level of the career service; the position The petition to appeal from the Obudsman decision was brought to the CSC which was
was not identified by the Career Executive Service Board; and was never appointed by later on dismissed. The Petitioner than rendered that the CSC is erred due to the
CASE NO. 866 the President. Therefore, the CSC had erred in the appointment of permanency towards appointment of Roque as Records Officer V was not with accord to RA 6656 and the
ARTICLE IX- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SECTION 8 (SECTION 2: PARAGRAPH Cruz in the HIGC. Rules on Government Reorganization.
1- GOCCS UNDER THE CORPORATION CODE) Main Point: Issue:
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, PETITIONER VS. PERFECTO H. VENUS, JR., In reference to Article IX Section 2(2), the appointments in the civil service shall be made 1. Whether the Petitioner’s argument can be sustained due to the grave abuse of
G.R. NO. 163782 MARCH 24, 2006 only according to merit and fitness to be determined. At the case at, bar the private discretion of the courts.
respondent Daniel R. Cruz had failed to meet such criteria due to the lack of merit of the 2. Whether the respondent Henrietta F. Roque is qualified to be appointed as
position held which was not under the third level of the career service; not identified by the Records Officer V.
Career Executive Service Board; and never appointed by the President. Ruling:
FACTS: 1. Negative, the court ruled that the Petitioner’s argument cannot be sustained.
the consolidated petitions of Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) and Metro Transit Case No. 868 The erroneous findings does not allow the CSC to have vulnerability to
Organization, Inc. (METRO), seeking the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals Article IX Section 2(2): Classifications and Appointments certiorari, the CSC is only to have jurisdiction over the errors of the law and
directing them to reinstate private respondent workers to their former positions without Mauna v CSC not of abuse of discretion that could be correctible under certiorari. In relativity
loss of seniority and other rights and privileges, and ordering them to jointly and severally Facts: to the Ombudsman’s decision, Ombudsman Vasquez had assessed the
pay the latter their full back wages, benefits, and moral damages. The LRTA and METRO The COMELEC Chairman Ramon H. Felipe, Jr. had appointed the petitioner Gaga G. relative fitness and competence in considering the replacement. The
were also ordered to jointly and severally pay attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent Mauna as the Chief Election Officer of the Precincts and Voting Centers Division of the assessment of Ombudsman Vasquez had included 65% composed for the
(10%) of the total money judgment. Election and Barangay Affairs Department (EBAD) in the COMELEC. The respondent performance of the last two years or the date of the affectivity of appointment
ISSUE: Cristeto J. Limbaco from CSC, had filed a protest against the appointment of the to present; 15% education and training; 10% experience and outstanding
Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over LRTA’s employees or is it the CSC? petitioner on the grounds that he has more qualifications than that of the petitioner; his accomplishments; 10% Office Order No. 90-33 issued to which requires the
RULING: position is the next-in-rank as the Assistant Chief Election Officer; and he has more assistance of a Central Placement Committee. Therefore, the petitioner’s
The SC agrees with petitioner LRTA. In contrast, petitioner METRO is covered by the seniority than the petitioner. argument cannot hold merit to the grave abuse discretion of the courts.
Labor Code despite its later acquisition by petitioner LRTA, SC holds that the employees The COMELEC en banc had dismissed the respondent’s protest on lack of merit due to 2. Negative, the court ruled that the respondent Henrietta F. Roque is qualified to
of petitioner METRO cannot be considered as employees of petitioner LRTA. The the appointment of the protestee to the contested position is within the discretion of the be appointed as Records Officer V. The qualifications for the Records Officer
employees hired by METRO are covered by the Labor Code and are under the jurisdiction Chairman and to where his judgement should not be interfered with. The disapproval of V includes education with a bachelor’s degree with a training in Records
of the Department of Labor and Employment, whereas the employees of petitioner LRTA, the COMELEC had resulted to the petitioner to file an appeal to the Merit System Management; experience of at least three years of responsible experience in
a government-owned and controlled corporation with original charter, are covered by civil Protection Board (MSPD) with the same grounds as to before. The COMELEC through developing work standards, engaged in records management activities, and
service rules. Herein private respondent workers cannot have the better of two worlds, Nancy H. Madarang, the Manager of the Personnel Department had commented that efficient methods and procedures in the maintenance of active continuing
e.g. be considered government employees of petitioner LRTA, yet allowed to strike as there was the use of the criteria on merit and fitness in consideration of the appointment. program of records disposition and preservation or other related work; and be
private employees under our labor laws. Petitioner LRTA cannot be held liable to the The MSPD had denied the appeal. The petitioner had then filed a petition for certiorari an eligible civil service professional. The records of Roque have shown that
employees of petitioner METRO. with prayer for preliminary injunction by which the Solicitor General required the due minimum requirements of Roque’s position were met which validated Roque
MAIN POINT: course of the petition and required the parties to file their respective memoranda. to be appointed the position of Records Officer V.
Section 2 (1), Article IX B, 1987 Constitution, expressly provides that "The civil service Issue: Whether CSC had committed grave abuse of discretion through invalidating the Main Point:
embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, appointment of the petitioner and ordering the respondent to take the position instead. In accord to Article IX Section 2(2), the case at bar further discusses that the mere
including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters." Ruling: qualifications for appointments within the CSC are necessary and should not be held in
Corporations with original charters are those which have been created by special law and Affirmative, the court ruled that the CSC had committed grave abuse of discretion through doubt unless there is guilty beyond reasonable doubt that shows otherwise. The
not through the general corporation law. invalidating the appointment of the petitioner and ordering the respondent to take the appointments from the vested appointed authority may further appoint positions as long
Case No. 867 place instead. The court ruled that the petitioner had no authority to invalidate the as the assessment of merit and fitness further indicates the necessary qualification of the
Article IX Section 2(2): Classifications and Appointments appointment of the petitioner under the principle power defining the power of appointing one appointed.
HIGC v CSC authority vis-à-vis of the CSC which is well settled. The power to appoint is considered as
essentially discretionary which prohibits the CSC to substitute the judgement of the Case No. 870
Facts: appointing power. Thus, the authority of the CSC is to only disapprove and approve the Article IX Section 2(2): Classifications and Appointments
A petition for certiorari was filed to set aside the Resolution 2 of the Civil Service appointment after determining if the appointee has the civil service eligibility or the Gloria v De Guzman
Commission (CSC) which granted the Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC) required qualifications. Facts:
for the reappointment of private respondent Daniel R. Cruz from albeit to a position of the The petitioner Hon. Ricardo T. Gloria had petition for certiorari under the position of
Vice- President of the petitioner’s corporation during the time of June 1, 1986 to June 8, Main Point: Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) and as Chairman of the Board of
1988. Back wages are to be paid to Cruz from dismissal. The case at bar, discusses the definition of appointment as to whom inherent such power. Trustees of the Philippine State College of Aeronautics (PSCA) to nullify the decision
Initially the appointment of Cruz was temporary approved from the CSC with the The definition of appointment is an essentially discretionary power that requires being made by Judge Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr. The petition had originated on the
completion of the Executive Leadership and Management Program. The CSC had preform for the officer that is vested to accordance of his best lights, the only condition is questionability of reinstatement of the private respondent, Rosario V. Cerillo under the
changed the appointment of Cruz from temporary to permanent with the requirement that that the appointee should possess the qualifications of law. The power to appoint is position of "Coordinator for Extension Services".
Cruz will have to take a mandatory leadership program within three years for the vested on a political question with the consideration of wisdom that only the appointed Cerillo had been appointed as Board Secretary of PAFCA (now PSCA) II, as a one-year
affectivity of the date of appointment. authority can decide. temporary appointment on March 25, 1992 up to 1992. However, Cerillo had been relive
In 1987, Cruz was found to have neglected his duty from inefficient supervision which led of this position through the reason of loss of confidence. Afterwards, Cerillo had been
to the loss of six Land Bank checks. In July 1988, the HIGC was found to have gone Case No. 869 designated as the Coordinator for Extension Services. Then on June 3, 1992 PAFCA had
through reorganization which had led to the lack of civil service eligibility of Cruz. Through Article IX Section 2(2): Classifications and Appointments converted into the Philippine State College of Aeronautics (PSCA) with the power of
appointments vested to Col. Julian J. Loleng, Jr who ended temporary appointments on rank of CESO to those who committed a degree Masters in Public Safety Administration Section 2(2) indicates that the respondent should be terminated due to the lack of merit
December 7, 1992. After which Cerillo had filed for the petition of mandamus and (MPSA) and Masters in National Security Administration (MNSA). and fitness while be in associated with a competitive service.
reinstatement, with back wages and damages. By June 2010, the CESB had found no legal impediments for the CESO rank to executive Case No. 873
The reinstatement of Cerillo was filed before Judge Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr while in in officials in the duration of the constitutional band on the midnight appointment and the Article IX Section 2(2) : Non-Competitive
the tenure of the succeeding DECS Secretary named Hon. Armand Fabella who was statutory ban on the pre-election appointment. However, petitioner Atty. Elias Omar A. Astraquillo v Mangalupas
involved in the judgement of the lower court. Hon. Armand Fabella further intends that the Sana filed a petition that the EO 883 and the appointment of the 13 executive officials of Facts:
question of duty and obligation of Judge de Guzman, Jr would devolve the incumbency to the CESO rank to be in violation of the constitutional ban of the midnight appointments. Astraquillo was appointed as the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and
Hon. Ricardo T. Gloria. The petitioner further theorized that EO 883 if made during that specific time frame should Chief of Mission (II) to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) by the President of the
Issues: fall under the prohibition of Article VII Section 15 and that the CESB Resolution No. 870 Philippines. A confidential memorandum was filed to Astraquillo for his wife, his cousin-in-
1. Whether the private respondent Rosario V. Cerillo would be entitled to should not change presidential issuances, laws, and the Constitution. law and himself for interference of the Seneres’ functions. The matter was further
reinstatement in the position of Coordinator for Extension Services. In the defence of the CESB, the party had provided that such ranking of the thirteen investigated by Ambassador Pacifico Castro. Astraquillo was then notified the termination
2. Whether the private respondent Rosario V. Cerillo would be entitled to officials under CESO was originated from the opinion of Atty. Ferdinand Rafanan, the of his position. From which, Astraquillo had than went to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs
reinstatement in the position of Board Secretary II. head of COMELEC Law Department. The opinion stated that the appointments were not for the extension of his services but ended up challenged from his post and designation of
3. Whether the termination of the private respondent Rosario V. Cerillo is to be considered as appointments to the office but rather the conferment of a rank instead Felicio as Charge D’Affaires.
deemed proper and legal. of a selection of a position. By which the CESB agreed but rendered it not automatic due Issue: Whether the Foreign Affairs Secretary had no power without the authorization of
4. Whether attorney’s fees and cost should be awarded to the private to requiring proper guidelines from the CESB. However, The OSG had rendered that the the President to terminate his services.
respondent Rosario V. Cerillo. EO 883 to be unconstitutional of Article VII Section 15 and prohibits the grant of CESO Ruling:
Ruling: rank of lawyers to hold CES positions. The court ruled in the affirmative, the Foreign Affairs Secretary had no power without the
1. The court ruled on the negative, the private respondent Rosario V. Cerillo Issue: Whether the petition of EO 883 and CESB Resolution No. 870 are unconstitutional authorization of the President to terminate his services. However, in the case at bar the
would not be entitled to reinstatement in the position of Coordinator for of Article VII Section 15. President had granted authorization to the Foreign Affairs Secretary to further terminate
Extension Services. The basis of the court’s ruling was that the position of Ruling: such position. Therefore, the termination of appointment is vested through the President
Cerillo was sought as inapplicable for the petition of mandamus to be filed due The court ruled in the negative, petition of EO 883 was not unconstitutional of Article VII but can be appointed within his or her discretion.
to not being of permanent appointment which was found not to have factual Section 15. President Aquino, during the time that the petition was filed, had already Main Point:
and legal basis. Therefore, the filing of the mandamus had no significant effect implemented EO3 which revoked EO 883. Since the EO 883 and CESB Resolution No. The roles appointed by the President may be appointed to such person in accordance
as to the reinstatement in the position of Coordinator for Extension Services. 870 no longer had any force or effect, the Court had found no necessary means to reach with Article IX Section 2(2) which states that appointments in the civil service shall be
2. The court ruled on the negative, the private respondent Rosario V. Cerillo the merits of the petition therefore passing the issuances’ validity. made by competitive examinations. Although competitive examinations had taken place
would not be entitled to reinstatement in the position of Board Secretary II. for the petitioner whom has such examined, termination can still occur in the discretion of
The court ruled that reappointment to such position is not done through the Main Point: the appointed authority.
filing of a mandamus but rather in the discretionary on the part of the With accordance to Article IX Section 2(2), which further states the requirements of
appointing power. Although Cerillo had obtained the requisite of the Civil appointment of the civil service; the subject matter of EO 883 and CESB Resolution No. Case No. 874
Service exam, there are other requisites that must have been acquired which 870 had no further compliance to the requirements of appointment. Although, the Article IX Section 2(2) : Non-Competitive
include the following: performance, degree of education, work experience, compliance of appointment were not met, the implementation of EO3 had further revoke Office of the President v Buenaobra
training, seniority, and, more importantly, as in this case, whether or not the the force and effect of EO 883 renders further judgement of the petition unnecessary. Facts:
applicant enjoys the confidence and trust of the appointing power. The status The Office of the Ombudsman’s Special Prosecutor Office had filed information against
of not obtaining the other requisites and the utilization of a mandamus renders the respondent Nita P. Buenaobra, the chairman of the Komisyon sa Wikang Pilipino
the reinstatement in the position of Board Secretary II as null and void. (KWP), for allegedly causing undue injury to the government by gross inexcusable
3. The court ruled in the affirmative, that the termination of the private Case No. 872 negligence in association with the unauthorized reprinting of the Diksyunaryo ng Wikang
respondent Rosario V. Cerillo is deemed proper and legal. The power of Article IX Section 2(2): Competitive Pilipino. The Sandiganbayan had than ordered a reinvestigation. Ombudsman Simeon
appointments was vested on the Board of Trustees’ discretion. The Judge’s Samson v CA Marcelo had tried for the reversal of the probable cause with withdrawing the file against
decision was that termination of an appointment is done through a Facts: the respondent.
commission of an overt act. However, Col. Julian provided notice to the Petitioner Mayor Marcial F. Samson of Caloocan City and petitioner had terminated the While under the reinvestigation, the PAGC had conducted a parallel administrative
upcoming expiration of contracts. The termination of the positions appointed services of the respondent Feliciano C. Talens. Talens who held the position of Assistant investigation against the respondents with the same grounds of the Sandiganbayan case.
to Cerillo were terminated due to simply expiring on their own terms, or Secretary to the Mayor, was terminated of service on the grounds of lack or loss of The respondent was then charged with the cause of undue injury to the government and
exceeding one year but most importantly due to the PAFCA was dissolved confidence. Talens, on his defense, had order a demurred on the grounds of the Civil providing unwarranted benefits to Merylvin Publishing House by gross inexcusable
and replaced as PSCA. Service Law that is indicated as a non-competitive for the positions of secretaries of negligence in not taking legal action for the collection of 15% royalty fee amounting to
4. The court ruled that the decision is moot and academic, in regards that, provincial city and municipal boards and councils. Talens had ordered the recall of the 3,366,250.00 pesos approved.
attorney’s fees and cost should be awarded to the private respondent Rosario administrative order due to having a permanent appointment in the city government. The respondent had then filed to dismiss the administrative case under the grounds of litis
V. Cerillo. The attorney’s fees and cost could not be imposed because even if The petitioner had than wrote a letter to decline the Administrative Order No. 3. pendentia and forum shopping. The PAGC had denied the dismissal. The petitioner had
it was directly ordered in the dispositive portion of the decision, there was no Afterwards, the respondent had filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and agreed with the PAGC and dismissed the respondent from office. The denied petition for
discussion or justification in the body of the questioned decision. Therefore, quo warranto to the Court of First Instance of Caloocan City. The respondent as well had dismissal was due to the inapplicability of litis pendentia and forum shopping because the
rending the awards moot and academic. tried to annul the declination of the Administrative Order No. 3 through the enjoinment of Sandiganbayan case was criminal while the PAGC was administrative in nature.
the roles of the petitioner mayor, treasurer and auditor from enforcing the same and Issue: Whether there was abuse of discretion from the petitioner to terminate the service
require the payments of the salaries and emoluments of his terminated position through of the respondent Nita P. Buenaobra.
Main Point: compelling all the public officials to pay the respondent. Ruling:
The definition of reinstatement is in technicality, the issuance of a new appointment which Issue: Whether there is legality in the termination of the private respondent Feliciano C. The court ruled in the affirmative, there was abuse of discretion from the petitioner to
is essentially discretionary, to be performed by the officer in which it is vested according Talens services as the Assistant Secretary to the Mayor of Caloocan City. terminate the service of the respondent Nita P. Buenaobra. The petitioner held that the
to his best lights, the only condition being that the appointee should possess the Ruling: respondent was presidential appointee and a holder of a non-career service position,
qualifications required by law. At the case at bar, the issuance of a mandamus for The court ruled in the affirmative, there is legality in the termination of the private therefore, the respondent may be removed from service at the discretion of the petitioner.
reinstatement cannot substitute the discretionary of the power of appoint of the Board of respondent Feliciano C. Talens services as the Assistant Secretary to the Mayor of The appointment of the respondent is a non-career service personnel who is protected
Trustees’. The reappointment could not be further rendered because of the lack of merit Caloocan City. The respondent claims that under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2260 that from any removal or suspension without just cause and non-observance of due process.
and the lack of fitness especially for the confidence in the position of Board Secretary II. a non-competitive service formed by positions is expressed by law as a non-competitive The petition was dismissed on lack of merit due to no evidentiary support as to show that
service which have policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly technical in nature. the respondent exhibit bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
Case No. 871 The court held that the submission to be unacceptable through the position of the
Article IX Section 2(2): Classifications and Appointments respondent was expressly declared under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2260. Therefore, Main Point:
Atty Elias Omar A Sana v Career Executive Service Board the termination of the respondent was legal due to not being specified as an exemption to In reference to Article IX Section 2(2), the appointments mention of the civil service
Facts: the Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2260. contents that appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to the merit
The issuance of EO 883 was made through the presidency of President Gloria Main Point: and fitness to be determined. The case at bar, provides that the Office of the President
Macapagal-Arroyo, thereby granting the ranking of CESO II or higher to occupy legal The general rule is that, “position in all branches, subdivisions and instrumentalities of the had gravely abused their discretion by stating the lack of merit and fitness of the
positions in the government executive office to those who obtained a law degree and governmentalities of the government, including those in government owned or controlled respondent to be entitled to the current position held without providing just cause and
those who successfully passed the bar exams. However, the EO 883 had invoked the corporations, belong to the competitive service”. The case at bar, in relation to Article IX observance of due process.
 Case No. 875 A petition for certiorari was filed to set aside Administrative Order No. 122 of the Office of the various qualifications, duties and powers of the city legal officer that have
Article IX Section 2(2): Primarily confidential the President which found the petitioner guilty of dishonesty. The Petitioner was not been enumerated under Republic Act No. 5185.
Borres v CA Rosalinda de Perio-Santos who a career service officer possessed the rank of Chief of 2. The court ruled in the negative, the petitioner could not only be directly
Facts: Mission II and Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary that was appointed by removed by the mayor but also the CSC. The CSC can determine whether or
The private respondents German O Lumapac and Bartolome Elizondo had been President Aquino and later was appointed to the position of Permanent Representative of not such person is still entitled to the position of city legal officer, which is
appointed as Senior Security and Security Guard, respectively by the Mayor of Cebu City. the Philippines to the Philippine Mission to the United Nations and other International provided under the Administrative Code. Therefore, the power to terminate the
The petitioner Eulogio Borres whom was the Acting Mayor of Cebu City had terminated Organizations with station in Geneva, Switzerland. position of the city legal officer is also held in the CSC.
the service of the private respondents due to the lack of confidence. The private The petitioner had a leave of absence from the DFA to spend the Easter Holidays in New Main Point:
respondents with Vicente Lao had filed a petition for mandamus with damages of the the York, U.S.A with her mother and her siblings. She only brought two non-transferrable and In accordance to Article IX Section 2(2), the appointments of the civil service shall except
Court of First Instance of Cebu. The grounds of the petition were as follows: the non-refundable tickets for herself and her adopted daughter Pia. Before leaving, the to the positions which are primarily confidential. The case at hand, expresses that the
termination of service was to be considered as unlawful and void; ordering of petitioner was instructed to proceed to Havana as a member of the Philippine delegation petitioner may be exempted from being co-terminous with the appointed authority.
reinstatement with payment of back up salaries; payment of moral and exemplary to the UNCTAD G-77 Preparatory Conference. For purchasing her ticket she used the However, with the position of city legal officer, confidentiality still applies which
damages plus attorney's fees and litigation expenses; and adjudging cost against the Geneva-New-York and vice versa fair. After proceeding to Havana she than proceeded to incorporates being co-termious with the appointed authority.
petitioner. New- York. Instead of claiming the reimbursement of SFr. 2,996; she had requested and
Issue: Whether there was grave abuse of discretion from the Acting Mayor of Cebu City received only SFr. 1,597 which spent on her trip and effected the savings of SFr.1,399 for Case No. 879
to terminate the service of the private respondents. the Government. Article IX: Primarly confidential
Ruling: The DFA had sent a cable to the petitioner questioning why the petitioner’s adopted Rosete v CA
The court ruled in the affirmative, that there was grave abuse of discretion from the Acting daughter had the Mission pay for her ticket if she was not authorized to accompany her Facts:
Mayor of Cebu City to terminate the service of the private respondents. The court ruled adopted mother at government expenses. The petitioner replied that the expenses were The petitioner was Reino R. Rosete was a medical doctor by profession. The respondent
that the private respondents Lumpac , Elizondo and Lao are appointed positions which only spent on her and not that of her daughter. The DFA required her than to refund the Richard J. Gordon, then Olongapo City Mayor had filed a formal charge for the grave
are primarily confidential in nature. Lumpac and Elizondo both hold permanent positions amount for her daughter’s ticket but instead of refunding only Sfr. 673, the petitioner had misconduct; dishonesty; violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; and neglect of
while Lao holds a temporary position. The position of primarily confidential should not be she returned the full amount of SFr.1,597. The petitioner was than charged with estafa. duty and gross negligence. The petitioner was charged and found guilty with a dismissal
interpreted as an appointment that is deemed permanent can be removed without a The petitioner had than filed for the petition for certiorari which claimed that there was no of being notoriously undesirable. The petitioner raised a petition for certiorari, prohibition
formal change with a specific ground for removal and without providing the opportunity to substantial evidence and there was gross abuse of discretion. and mandamus under the grounds that the respondent the investigation, suspension and
be heard. Issue: Whether finding of dishonesty on the petitioner would eliminate her primarily dismissal were squarely raised in the issue; the suspension and hearing deprived him of
Main Point: confidentiality. due process; whether section 40 of P.D. 807 was valid or constitutional; and the necessity
In accord to Art IX Section 2(2) the appointments of the civil service shall except to the Ruling: of relief was in demand.
positions which are primarily confidential. With relation to the case, the termination for the The court ruled in the affirmative, the finding of dishonesty on the petitioner would Issue: Whether there was abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent to raise a
service of the private respondents were committed out of grave abuse of discretion from eliminate her primarily confidentiality. The court ruled that the findings of dishonesty in the formal charge against the petitioner.
the Acting Mayor of Cebu City without including that the appointments of the private certification of the reimbursement had stated the purchase of two one-way tickets instead Ruling:
respondents are primarily confidential in nature. of two round trip tickets from Geneva to New- York and vice versa and the allegation that The court ruled in the affirmative, there was abuse of discretion on the part of the
the mission had never paid for the adopted daughter but rather it came from the respondent to raise a formal charge against the petitioner. The court finds that the
Case No. 876 ambassador’s personal fund. These findings have shown that the petitioner, had broken position of the petitioner as the Chief of the Hospital is primarily confidential. Since such
Article IX Section 2(2): Primarily confidential the roles of s the permanent representative of the Philippine Government to the United position is primarily confidential the removal of the position cannot be removed or
Grino v CSC Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva which are special trust and dismissed without just cause. Therefore, the petitioner should have not been charged
Facts: confidence. Therefore, the petitioner’s primarily confidentiality was eliminated by her without due process.
Sixto Demaisip had been appointed as the first Provincial Attorney of Iloilo. Later on the dishonesty. Main Point:
petitioner had resigned and appointed the Acting Governor. The petitioner had Main Point: In accordance to Article IX Section 2(2), the appointments of the civil service shall except
recommended that the role of the respondent Teotimo Arandela should be elevated from In accordance to Article IX Section 2(2), the appointments of the civil service shall except to the positions which are primarily confidential. The case at bar, exemplifies the
Senior Legal Officer to Provincial Attorney. However, the OIC Governor Licurgo Tirador to the positions which are primarily confidential. In the case at bar, the presumption of negligence of not apply the rights which are primarily confidential in the position of the
had appointed respondent Arandela as the Provincial Attorney. primarily confidentiality was inherent towards the petitioner who had been appointed a Chief of the Hospital which had removed or dismissed the petitioner without just cause.
The petitioner Simplicio Griño, who was the newly elected governor, had informed the prestigious role by the President. However, the dishonesty which resulted to estafa had
respondent and his legal subordinates of their termination of services. The termination of withdrawn her inherent primarily confidentiality. Therefore, the appointment bestowed to Case No.880
the respondent and his legal subordinates were had taken place on the grounds of loss of the petitioner may be terminated. Article IX B. primarily confidential
trust and confidence. The respondents had appealed this motion to the Merit Systems CSC v. Salas
Protection Board of the Civil Service Commission. The Merit Systems board had sided Case No. 878
with the respondents, claiming that the termination of their services were illegal and Article IX: Primarily confidential
should be paid in back paid salaries and emoluments. Hilario v CSC Facts:
Issue: Whether the position of the provincial attorney and his legal subordinates are Facts: Salas was an employee of PAGCOR, a GOCC with an original charter. He was a
primarily confidential in nature to where the service of the one’s holding the said terms The petitioner was appointed as City Attorney through the OIC Brigido R. Simon, Jr. supervisor of the dealers in the casino. He was suspected in engaging in proxy betting.
can be terminated as loss of confidence. under the Freedom Constitution of 1986. The newly-elected Mayor, Ismael Mathay, Jr. There was a discreet investigation conducted of his act. He was later removed on the
Ruling: had issued a letter to the City Attorney which stated that with the absence of a tender of ground of loss of trust and confidence. His defense was that he cannot be removed from
The court ruled in the affirmative, that the position of the provincial attorney and his legal resignation in accordance to Sec. 481, Art. II of the Local Government Code of 1991 office on the ground that under the Constitution, no employee of the Civil Service shall be
subordinates are primarily confidential in nature to where the service of the one’s holding which stated that the said position is co-terminous with appointing authority and is removed except for causes provided by law. On the other hand, PAGCOR contends that
the said terms can be terminated as loss of confidence. The court cannot agree with the therefore considered resigned. Afterwards, the respondent had filed a case against the under its charter, all positions are primarily confidential and hence may be removed in the
petitioner since the petition to the CSC was in a month’s time from their termination in petitioner to be administratively liable grave misconduct, usurpation, being notoriously ground of loss of confidence.
which the protest is made within a reasonable amount of time. undesirable, conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service and gross Issue:
Main Point: insubordination. The petitioner had filed for a motion for reconsideration by was denied by Whether Salas is a confidential employee.
In accordance to Article IX Section 2(2), the appointments of the civil service shall except the CSC. Ruling:
to the positions which are primarily confidential. Primarily confidential indicates confidence Issues: No. Applying the proximity rule, Salas cannot be removed on the said ground. The
in aptitude for duties done by the appointee but as well as the primarily close intimacy of 1. Whether the petitioner’s position as city legal officer is confidential. position of Salas as a supervisor is too remote from the appointing authority, the
insuring freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings or 2. Whether the petitioner could only be directly removed by the mayor and not Chairman. There are so many intermediaries between them
betrayals of personal trust on confidential matters of the state. The primarily confidence is the CSC. Main point:
still inherent as long as confidence is endured. primarily confidential will remain as such notwithstanding the change in the appointing
authority, head of office or officials served.
Ruling:
Case No. 877 1. The court ruled in the affirmative, the petitioner’s position as city legal officer is
Article IX: Primarily confidential confidential. As examined by the provisions of the Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, Case No.881
Santos v Macaraig there was never the intention to remove the confidentiality of the city legal Article IX B. primarily confidential
Facts: officer. Since the appointed position of city legal officer is confidential, the Achacoso v. Macaraig
position is co-terminous to the appointed authority. Rather, this would specific
Facts: the CSC. PLM again appealed to the IAC and the IAC ruled in favor of Esteban Whether the civil service commission has original concurrent jurisdiction over
Petitioner, Tomas Achacoso, was appointed Administrator of the Philippine Overseas again. administrative cases falling under the jurisdiction of heads of agencies
Employment Administration. In compliance with a request addressed by the President of Ruling:
the Philippines, he filed a courtesy resignation, and this was accepted by the President ISSUE: Yes, section 2(1) article IX(B) of 1987 Constitution defines the scope of the Civil Service.
“with deep regrets”. The Secretary of Labor requested him to turn over his office to the Whether or not Esteban’s appointment became permanent the authority to assume original jurisdiction over complaints directly filed with it. The CSC
Deputy Administrator as officer-in-charge. He protested his replacement and declared he explains that under the said law, it has appellate jurisdiction over all administrative
was not surrendering his office because his resignation was not voluntary but filed only in Ruling: disciplinary proceedings and original jurisdiction over complaints against government
obedience to the President's directive. Nonetheless, respondent Jose Sarmiento was Yes, its Resolution 485, the PLM Board of Regents verified Esteban’s appointment officials and employees filed before it by private citizens.16Ï‚rνll Accordingly, the CSC
appointed administrator of the POEA. Thus, Achacoso filed a motion for reconsideration without condition nor limitation as to tenure. As of that moment, it became a has concurrent original jurisdiction, together with the PUP Board of Regents, over the
but this was denied hence, this petition for prohibition and mandamus. regular and permanent appointment. Note further that “. . . an ad interim administrative case against Guevarra and Cezar and it can take cognizance of a case
Issue: appointment is one made in pursuance of par (4), sec 10, Article 7, of the [1973] filed directly with it, despite the fact that the Board of Regents is the disciplining authority
Whether the petitioner is entitled to security of tenure, as provided in civil service decree. Constitution, which provides that ‘the President shall have the power to make of university employees.
Ruling: appointments during the recess of the Congress, but such appointments shall be
No. Such right will have to depend on the nature of his appointment, which in turn effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the Main point:
depends on his eligibility or lack of it. A person who does not have the requisite next adjournment of the Congress.’ It is an appointment permanent in nature, and CSC has jurisdiction over cases filed directly with it, regardless of who initiated the
qualifications for the position cannot be appointed to it in the first place or, only as an the circumstance that it is subject to confirmation by the Commission on complaint.
exception to the rule, may be appointed to it merely in an acting capacity in the absence Appointments does not alter its permanent character.
of appropriate eligibles.
Main point: Case No.887
Main point: the term is not descriptive of the nature of the appointments given to him. Rather, it Article IX B. Permanent
The mere fact that a position belongs to the Career Service does not automatically confer is used to denote the manner in which said appointments were made, that is, done Luego v. CSC
security of tenure to its occupant even if he does not possess the required qualification. by the President of the PLM in the meantime, while the Board of Regents, which is
originally vested by the University Charter with the power of appointment, is unable Facts:
Case No.882 to act. Petitioner was admin officer II, Office of the City Mayor,,Cebu City, by Mayor Solon. The
Article IX B. primarily confidential appointment was described as ‘’permanent” but the CSC approved it as “temporary”,
Felix v. Buenaseda subject to the final action taken in the protest filed by the private respondent and another
Case No.884 employee.
Facts: Article IX B. primarily confidential Issue:
Felix worked as Medical Specialist I for the government [National Center of Mental Health Province of Camarines V. CA Whether the CSC is authorized to disapprove a permanent appointment on the ground
(NCMH)]. He started as a Resident Physician with an annual salary. Later he got that another person is better qualified than the appointee and, on the basis of this finding,
promoted to Senior Resident Physician [permanent], which he held for some time, and Facts: order his replacement.
thereafter accepted the appointment as Medical Specialist I [temporary] – which Felix held On October 12, 1972, private respondent Tito Dato was granted a temporary appointment Ruling:
for three years without remonstrations. Pursuant to an Executive Order [EO No. 119] a as Assistant Provincial Warden by then Governor Felix Alfelor, Sr which was renewed No, The Civil Service Commission is not empowered to determine the kind or nature of
general reorganization in the government ensued. In view of this, DoH effected a annually. On January 1, 1974, Governor Alfelor approved the change in Dato's the appointment extended by the appointing officer, its authority being limited to approving
reorganization, and one of the guidelines [DoH DO No. 478] made Felix unfit for the employment status from temporary to permanent upon the latter's representation that he or reviewing the appointment in the light of the requirements of the Civil Service Law.
position [he was not yet accredited by the Psychiatry Specilaty Board]. His appointment passed the civil service examination for supervising security guards. Said change of When the appointee is qualified and authorizing the other legal requirements are satisfied,
was extended pending review of the Medical Committee [of NCMH], which eventually status however, was not favorably acted upon by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) the Commission has no choice but to attest to the appointment in accordance with the
recommended non-renewal of Felix’s appointment and informed him of the same. reasoning that Tito Dato did not possess the necessary civil service eligibility for the office Civil Service Laws. And because neither of the claimants is next in rank. Moreover, the
Nevertheless, Felix was still allowed to continue his service even after he was informed of he was appointed to. His appointment therefore remained temporary. next-in-rank rule is not absolute as the Civil Service Decree allows vacancies to be filled
his termination. Issue: by transfer of present employees, reinstatement, re-employment, or appointment of
Issue: Whether private respondent Tito Dato was a permanent employee of petitioner Province outsiders who have the appropriate eligibility.
Is an employee, after not challenging his appointment from a permanent to a temporary of Camarines Sur thus entitled to benefits. Main point:
position within a reasonable period, deemed to have accepted his appointment? Ruling: all the Commission is actually allowed to do is check whether or not the appointee
Ruling: No. Dato, being merely a temporary employee, is not entitled to his claim for back wages possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or the required qualifications. If he does,
Yes, Felix’s acceptance as temporary Medical Specialist I for three years was subject to for the entire period of his suspension. The fact that private respondent obtained civil his appointment is approved; if not, it is disapproved. No other criterion is permitted by law
peer and superior evaluation, for which Felix fell short. Regardless, Felix never service eligibility later on is of no moment as his having passed the supervising security to be employed by the Commission when it acts on--or as the Decree says, "approves" or
questioned his temporary assignment [for three years] until DoH, as a result of his guard examination, did not ipso facto convert his temporary appointment into a permanent "disapproves" an appointment made by the proper authorities.
performance evaluation, ordered non-renewal of his temporary position. In view of his one. What is required is a new appointment since a permanent appointment is not a
silence to question his appointment from permanent to temporary, warrants the continuation of the temporary appointment — these are two distinct acts of the appointing
presumption that Felix has either given up his claim or that he has already settled into the authority. Case No.888
new position, which is the concept of laches, which therefore estops him from questioning Main point: Article IX B. Permanent
the same [three years later]. Stated otherwise, Felix has abandoned his right to claim to A new appointment on the case of a mere temporary appointment is not a continuation of Pangilinan vs Maglaya
question his conversion from permanent employee to temporary employee through the temporary appointment.
laches, and henceforth, is deemed to have accepted his appointment from permanent to Facts:
temporary position. The petitioner complains that he has been removed from office without due process and
Case No.885 just cause in disregard of his constitutional security of tenure. Worse, his removal was
Case No. 883 made in bad faith, immediately after his expose of certain anomalies in which his
Article IX B. primarily confidential Case No.886 superiors were involved.
PLM v. CA Article IX B. primarily confidential Teodoro B. Pangilinan joined the government service on July 18, 1966, when he was
FACTS: CSC V. CA appointed agent in the National Bureau of Investigation, a position for which he had the
Dr. Esteban has the background of a competent person able to handle a high post. appropriate civil service eligibility. He had risen to Supervising Agent when he resigned to
He used to teach in the Philippine College of Commerce when he was invited by Dr. accept appointment as Executive Director of the Land Transportation Office on July 8,
Blanco to teach in PLM. Blanco was then the president of PLM. He later assigned Facts: 1987. He assumed office on July 16, 1987.
Esteban as the VP for Academic Affairs. His appointment is however merely ad Respondent Guevara and Cezar were the officer-n-charge/President and the Vice Issue:
interim. Thereafter, he received notifications of renewal of his term every time his president for administration.Respectively of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Whether the petitioner has right of protection.
term would lapse. Until in 1975 when he asked Blanco to appoint him as the Honesto Cueva.then The Chief Legal Counsel file an administrative case against Guevara Ruling:
permanent VP. Blanco however refused to appoint him and he assigned Esteban to and Cezar for gross dishonesty, grave misconduct , Falsification of documents, conduct No, the problem posed by the petitioner is a serious threat to the integrity and
a lower post instead. Blanco also said that the Board of Regents was not able to prejudicial to the best interest of the service, being notirously undesirable and for violating independence of the civil service. As demonstrated in this case, the doctrine announced
approve his appointment as VP for it was withdrawn. Esteban file with the CSC and section 4 RA No. 6713 specifically the application for bond of accountable in which the in Achacoso may be used to muzzle and punish legitimate complaint and even to
the CSC ruled in favor of him. PLM appealed to the trial court and the court affirmed latter denied the existence of his pending criminal and administrative cases persecute "difficult" subordinates. That doctrine, let it be stressed, is only an interpretation
Issue: and application by the Court of the law as enacted by the legislative and implemented by
the executive. That doctrine can change only if the laws and regulations on which it was Case No. 893
based are also changed, not by this Court but by the political departments. article IX B Sec 2 appointment vs designation
Mainpoint: Binamira vs Garucho
The Supreme Court is not only the highest arbiter of legal questions but also the Case No. 891 Facts:
conscience of the government. The citizen comes to us in quest of law but we must also Article IX B. sec 2 Reorganization In pursuant to a memorandum addressed to him by the Minister of Tourism, the petitioner
give him justice. The two are not always the same. Gatmaitan v. Gonzales assumed office on on April 7, 1986. On April 10, 1986, Minister Gonzales sought approval
from President Aquino of the composition of the Board of Directors of the PTA, which
Facts: included Binamira as Vice-Chairman in his capacity as General Manager, approved by
Case No.889 In 1945, Mercedes Gatmaitan was listed as the owner of Lot No. 8709, situated at the President on the same date. Binamira claims that since assuming office, he had
Article IX B. Reorganization Kaytukong, Paombong, Bulacan, served by the Angat Irrigation System. For failure discharged the duties of PTA General Manager and Vice-Chairman of its Board of
Santiago v. CSC to pay the irrigation charges for the years 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949, Directors. On January 2, 1990, his resignation was demanded by respondent Garrucho as
proceedings for the collection of unpaid irrigation charges were instituted in the the new Secretary of Tourism. On January 4, 1990, President Aquino sent respondent
Facts: Court of First Instance of Bulacan (Irrigation Case No. 1), in accordance with Garrucho a memorandum designating him concurrently as General Manager, effective
Customs Commissioner Wigberto Tanada appointed Santiago from Collector of Customs Irrigation Act No. 2152, as amended. Among the delinquent lots proceeded against immediately, until the President can appoint a person to serve in the said office in a
I to Collector of Customs III. Respondent Jose, a Customs Collector II, filed a protest with was Lot No. 8709. Under section 13 of the Irrigation Law, as amended by Section 4 permanent capacity.
the Merit Systems Promotion Board against Santiago's promotional appointment mainly of Act 3523, it is provided that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Garrucho having taken over as General Manager of the PTA in accordance with this
on the ground that he was next-in-rank to the position of Collector of Customs III. The “Charges for administration expenses of irrigation system are declared preferred memorandum, the petitioner filed this action against him to question his title.
Board decided to revoke Santiago's appointment and directed that Jose be appointed in liens over all other liens except that for taxes on the land or any mortgage lien in Subsequently, while his original petition was pending, Binamira filed a supplemental
his stead. favor of the Philippine Agricultural Bank or its successor and such preferred lien petition alleging that on April 6, 1990, the President of the Philippines appointed Jose A.
Issue: shall not be removed until all charges are paid or the property is sold for payment Capistrano as General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority. Capistrano was
Whether should Santiago's promotional appointment be upheld? thereof.” impleaded as additional respondent.
Ruling: Issue: Issue:
Yes. There is "no mandatory nor peremptory requirement in the Civil Service Law that whether or not the proceeding for the collection of taxes upon real estate is an Whether or not, the petitioner was illegally removed from his designation.
persons next-in-rank are entitled to preference in appointment. What it does provide is action in rem.
that they would be among the first to be considered for the vacancy, if qualified, and if the Ruling: Ruling:
vacancy is not filled by promotion, the same shall be filled by transfer or other modes of No. it’s an action in personam. The Government or the Irrigation Board certainly
appointment." has a list of the owners whose lands are served by the irrigation system. It may be No. The reason is that the decree clearly provides that the appointment of the
Main point: that in the course of time, said owners may have conveyed and sold their parcels to General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority shall be made by the
all the commission is actually allowed to do is check whether or not the appointee other persons without notifying the Irrigation Board. In such cases, the personal President of the Philippines, not by any other officer. Appointment involves the
possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or the required qualifications. If he does, notice may be sent to or addressed to the owner appearing in said list, and this exercise of discretion, which because of its nature cannot be delegated. Legally
his appointment is approved; if not, it is disapproved. No other criterion is permitted by law would be sufficient compliance with the law because the irrigation authorities are speaking, it was not possible for Minister Gonzales to assume the exercise of that
to be employed by the Commission when it acts on, or as the decree says, "approves" or not bound by any changes in ownership or title of the lands served by it if not duly discretion as an alter ego of the President.
"disapproves" an appointment made by the proper authorities. notified thereof.
Main point: Main point:
Case No.890 Due process requires that the statutes under which it is attempted to deprive a
Article IX B. sec 2 Reorganization citizen of private property without or against his consent must, as in expropriation An officer to whom a discretion is entrusted cannot delegate it to another, the
Montecillo v. CSC cases, be strictly complied with, because such statues are in derogation of general presumption being that he was chosen because he was deemed fit and competent
rights. to exercise that judgment and discretion, and unless the power to substitute
another in his place has been given to him, he cannot delegate his duties to
Facts: Case No.892 another.
Petitioners assail the validity of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 22, Series of 1991, on the Article IX B. Sec 2 Reorganization CASE NO. 894
ground that its issuance amounted to an abuse of respondents power to promulgate rules Nieves v. Blanco Article IX: Constitutional Commissions;
and regulations pursuant to the Civil Service Law. Employee positions in the Metropolitan Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure; Loss Confidence
Cebu Water District (MCWD) were re-classified during the latter part of 1995 to conform Facts: Hernandez v. Villegas
with position descriptions and corresponding salary grades in the civil service. Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Main Point:
Accordingly, while the personnel structure of the MCWD was being modified, three of its seeking to annul and set aside the Decision1 dated September 10, 2009 issued by the Officials and employees holding primarily confidential positions continue only for so long
employees -- petitioners Asela B. Montecillo, Marilou Joan V. Ortega and Charrishe Court of Appeals (CA) and the Resolution2 dated November 24, 2009 denying the Motion as confidence in them endures.
Dosdos -- applied for promotional appointment to the position of Secretary to the for Reconsideration thereof in CA-G.R. SP No. 102174 which reversed and set aside Facts:
Assistant General Manager or Private Secretary C, as the position later came to be Resolution Nos. 071693 and 072374 dated August 24, 2007 and December 17, 2007, Villegas was appointed as director of security of BOC, he was then sent to the US. Upon
known. At the time of their application, petitioners had been occupying the position of respectively, of the Civil Service Commission (CSC). return to the Philippines, he was temporarily detailed in arrastre service as acting Arrastre
Department Secretary and were employed in the MCWD for six to seven years. Petitioner Russel Ulysses I. Nieves (Nieves) is a regular employee of the Department of Superintendent while a certain Keefe and Manikin acted as director of security.
Issue: Trade and Industry (DTI) with the position of Trade and Industry Development Specialist. Hernandez, in his letter, proposed that Keefe be appointed as Director and Villegas as
Whether the CSC abused its rule-making power He was formerly assigned to the DTI’s office in Sorsogon (DTI-Sorsogon). On the other arrastre superintendent which was then approved by the Office of the President. Upon
Ruling: hand, respondent Jocelyn LB. Blanco (Blanco) is the Regional Director of DTI Regional knowing this, Villegas served notice that he will resume his duties as director for security
Yes, Respondent was expressly empowered to declare positions in the Civil Service as Office in Region V. but failed, which led him to file action for quo warranto which was granted by the CFI and
may properly be classified as primarily confidential under Section 12, Chapter 3, Book V Issue: affirmed by the CA. The petitioner now then filed this appeal on the grounds that persons
of the Administrative Code of 1987. To our mind, this signifies that the enumeration found Whether the reassignment of Nieves is station specific and subject to the one-year period assigned in confidential position can be transferred without due cause.
in Section 6, Article IV of the Civil Service Decree, which defines the non-career service, Limitation. Issue:
is not an exclusive list. Respondent could supplement the enumeration, as it did when it Ruling: Whether or not Villegas’ transfer is valid given that he is holding a confidential position
issued Memorandum Circular No. 22, s. of 1991, by specifying positions in the civil No. insistence that a reassignment from one provincial office to another provincial office Ruling:
service, which are considered primarily confidential and therefore their occupants are co- within the same region should likewise be considered as a "reassignment outside No, it is to be understood of course that officials and employees holding primarily
terminous with the official they serve. The assailed memorandum circular cannot be geographical location" is clearly but a foray in the dark. confidential positions continue only for so long as confidence in them endures. The
deemed as an unauthorized amendment of the law. On the contrary, it was issued Main point: termination of their official relation can be justified on the ground of loss of confidence
pursuant to a power expressly vested by law upon respondent. As such, it must be The language of the revised rules of reassignment is plain and unambiguous. The because in that case their cessation from office involves no removal but merely the
respected by this Court as a valid issuance of a constitutionally independent body. reassignment of an employee with a station-specific place of work indicated in their expiration of the term of office.
Main point: respective appointment is allowed provided that it would not exceed a maximum period of
The cited circular amply provides valid reason and justification for the Commission's one year.on the other hand, the reassignment of an employee whose appointment is not CASE NO. 895
resolution, which affirmed on appeal the ruling of the CSC Regional Office that earlier station-specific has no definite period unless otherwise revoked or recalled by the head of Article IX: Constitutional Commissions;
upheld the action taken by its field office. the agency, the CSC or a competent court Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure; Abolition of Office
Briones v. Osmena
Main Point:
That right to abolish cannot be used to discharge employees in violation of the civil rearranged some of these offices including the offices of the petitioners. The petitioners Yes, Nacario is entitled. The unconsented lateral transfer of Nacario from the Budget
service law nor can it be exercised for personal or political reasons. then questioned the validity of the resolution and the authority of the CSC to promulgate Office to the Office of MPDC was arbitrary for it amounted to removal without cause,
Facts: the said resolution. They added that in promulgating the resolution, the CSC has hence, invalid as it is anathema to security of tenure. When Nacario was extended a
Briones and Rosagaran were employees of the City Mayor’s office of Cebu. In a abolished public offices which can only be done with legislative actions. permanent appointment on 1 August 1980 and she assumed the position, she acquired a
resolution by the Municipal Board it was stated that the positions that they are holding are Issue: legal, not merely an equitable, right to the position. Such right to security of tenure is
to be abolished. Upon receipt of the notice of abolition, the petitioners then replied with a Whether the CSC in promulgating the resolution to reorganize abolished public offices protected not only by statute, but also by the Constitution and cannot be taken away from
letter stating that they oppose the abolition of the office and that they will not relinquish Ruling: her either by removal, transfer or by revocation of appointment, except for cause, and
their positions until decided by a higher court. When the respondents were eager for the No, no public office was abolished. The court held that the resolution did not carry with it after prior notice.
abolition, the case was brought to the CFI. The court ruled for the petitioners and this led any changes involving termination of the relationship of public employment between the
respondents to appeal. Commission and any of its officers and employees and only involves reorganization of the CASE NO.901
Issue: offices which is a right given to them by the legislative. Article IX: Constitutional Commissions;
Whether the abolition of office by the Municipal Board is valid Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure; Reorganization
Ruling: CASE NO. 899 Vinzons-Chato v. Zenoroza
No, the Municipal Board’s decision to abolish the said office is not valid. The court said Article IX: Constitutional Commissions; Main Point:
that while abolition of office does not imply removal of the incumbent, the rule is only true Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure; Reorganization Public offices are given the right to reorganize. Transfer of offices dues to reorganization
where the abolition is made in good faith; that right to abolish can not be used to Vinzons-Chato v. Natividad does not result to demotion.
discharge employees in violation of the civil service law nor can it be exercised for Main Point: Facts:
personal or political reasons. Public offices are given the right to reorganize. Transfer of offices dues to reorganization Respondent Martinez was reassigned in a different RDO pursuant to an Order issued by
does not result to demotion. the Petitioner. As a result, a certain Marcelo will be assuming Martinez’ post. This led
CASE NO. 896 Facts: Martinez to filed a petition for injuction before the RTC to stop Marcelo from assuming her
Article IX: Constitutional Commissions; Pursuant to the issuance of EO 132, petitioner Liwayway Vinzons-Chato (LVC) issued an previous position. She alleged that it is the petitioner’s way of getting back at her as she
Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure; Abolition of Office orderwhich redefined the areas of jurisdiction and renumbered the regional district offices questions her unlawful acts and that it’ll amount to her demotion. The RTC granted the
Eugenio v. CSC (RDO’s), as well as abolished the previous classification of RDO’s and henceforth treated petition which led to the present petition on grounds that the decision will hamper the
Main Point: all as the same class. Following this, LVC directed 90 RD officers to report to new serious effort of BIR to do its job more efficiently.
An office made by law can only be abolished by legislature. assignments in the redesignated and renumbered RDO’s nationwide. Private respondent Issue:
Facts: Blas was among those affected by such reassignment. He was ordered to report to RD 14 Whether or not the said BIR reorganization is valid and authorized
Eugenio applied for a CES Eligibility and a CESO rank. She was given the CES Elegibilty in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, while petitioner Alcantara was ordered to report to Blas’ former Ruling:
and was recommended for a CESO rank by the CESB however the Civil Service post in San Fernando, Pampanga, now known as RD 21. Blas questioned the above Yes, it is authorized. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is authorized to assign or
Commission passed a resolution abolishing CESB. She then filed a petition on the ground reassignment, arguing that it constituted demotion since he was transferred from the reassign internal revenue officers and employees of the BIR as the exigencies of service
that CSC usurped the legislative functions of congress in abolishing the CESB which is an larger RD in San Fernando, Pampanga (formerly a Class A RDO) to the smaller one in may require, without demotion in rank and salary in accordance with Civil Service Rules
office made by law. Tuguegarao (formerly a Class C RDO). Thus, Blas filed a complaint for injunctive relief and Regulations. Martinez’ appointment and reassignment does not result to a demotion.
Issue: with the RTC contesting the same. He invoked Sec. 2 of EO 132, which stated that:
Whether the CSC usurped the legislative power of the congress in abolishing the CESB. “redeployment of officials and other personnel on the basis of the streamlining embodied CASE NO.902
Ruling: in this Executive Order shall not result in…the diminution of rank and compensation….” Article IX: Constitutional Commissions;
Yes, the abolition cannot be valid. The court stated that an office made by law can only be The RTC granted the TRO and writ of preliminary injunction; thus, petitioners are now Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure; Reorganization
abolished by legislature. before the SC to contest such Order on the grounds that there was no demotion since De Guzman v. Comelec
there was no reduction in duties, responsibilities, status, rank, or salary. Main Point:
CASE NO. 897 Issue: Security of Tenure does not mean Perpetual employment. It only means that employee
Article IX: Constitutional Commissions; Whether the abolition of the classification of the RDO’s resulted in demotion of the officers cannot be dismissed from cause other than that provided by law and after due process.
Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure; Reorganization holding of the respondent. Facts:
Romualdez-Yap v. CSC Ruling: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with urgent prayer for the issuance of a writ
Main Point: No, it did not result to the demotion of the transferred officer specifically Blas. The transfer of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, assailing the validity of Section
In order for a reorganization to be considered as valid it must not be done in bad faith. of Directors and the abolition of the classifications of the RDO were part of the national 44 of Republic Act No. 8189 (RA 8189) which authorizes reassignment of Comelec
Facts: reshuffle of the Commission of Internal revenue and is done towards improvement of tax officers. Petitioners, who are either City or Municipal Election Officers, were reassigned to
Romualdez-Yap was assigned as the Vice President of the Fund Transfer Department of collection. The RDO’s will now be of the same footing and no demotion was actually different stations by the COMELEC. Petitioners contend that the said law is
PNB. Because of medical condition, she filed for leave of absence which was approved. made by the CIR. unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional guarantee of security of Tenure of
During the said absence, the PNB was granted authority to reorganize and pursuant to Civil Servants
the same, the FTD was abolished and its function are transferred to international CASE NO. 900 Issue:
department, and that she is separated from service. She questioned her separation Article IX: Constitutional Commissions; Whether Sec. 44 of RA 8189 violates the constitutional guarantee of security of Tenure of
before the CSC where it was held valid. Her motion for reconsideration was also denied. Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure; Reorganization Civil Servants
She then appealed before the SC on the grounds that there is bad faith existing in the Divinagracia v. Sto. Tomas Ruling:
reorganization of the PNB which result to her separation from service. Main Point: No, the guarantee of security of tenure under the Constitution is not a guarantee of
Issue: Unconsented lateral transfer can amount to removal from an office without cause hence perpetual employment. It only means that an employee cannot be dismissed (or
Whether there is bad faith in the reorganization of the PNB. invalid. transferred) from the service for causes other than those provided by law and after due
Ruling: Facts: process is accorded the employee. What it seeks to prevent is capricious exercise of the
No, there is not bad faith present. In the case of Dario v. Mison, as cited, Bad faith has Filomena Mancita was appointed Municipal Development Coordinator (MDC) of Pili, power to dismiss. But, where it is the lawmaking authority itself which furnishes the
been defined as a state of mind affirmatively operating with some motive or ill will for an Camarines Sur, in 1980 in a permanent capacity. When the Local Government Code ground for the transfer of a class of employees, no such capriciousness can be raised for
ulterior purpose. The reorganization of PNB, however, was given authority by the virtue of (LGC) took effect, the office was renamed Municipal Planning Development Coordinator so long as the remedy proposed to cure a perceived evil is germane to the purposes of
the law and made for the purpose of remedying critical financial situations. (MPDC). The Sangguinang Bayan of Pili approved a Resolution creating and organizing the law.
the Office of MPDC. Mancita held over the position until 1985. Mayor Anastacio Prila
CASE NO. 898 notified Mancita that her services were being terminated on the ground that the Office of CASE NO.903
Article IX: Constitutional Commissions; MDC was abolished as a result of the reorganization of the local government of Pili. Article IX: Constitutional Commissions;
Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure; Reorganization Respondent Priscilla Nacario, the then Municipal Budget Officer (MBO), was appointed Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure; Reorganization
Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas MPDC. The position of MBO was then held by Alexis San Luis. Mancita then appealed Cuevas v. Bacal
Main Point: her termination and was reinstated as MPDC, this led Mayor Divinagracia to terminate Main Point:
Public offices are given the right to reorganize. Reorganization does not amount to Nacario’s services. Nacario then appealed her termination to the CSC and was granted Reassignment and transfer of position or office is authorized as long as it is made in the
abolition of offices and does not involve termination reinstatement as MBO. Hence the current appeal interest of the public.
Facts: Issue: Facts:
Petitioners are serving as officers under the Central Offices of the Civil Service Whether Nacario is entitled to reinstatement as MBO after the decision of reinstating This case involves the appointment and transfer of career executive service officers
Commissions. The CSC then promulgated a resolution that reorganizes their Offices Mancita’s reinstatement. (CESOs). More specifically, it concerns the “appointment” of respondent Josefina G.
specifically the Central Offices. Pursuant to the resolution, the CSC merged and Ruling: Bacal, who holds the rank of CESO III, to the position of Chief Public Attorney in the
Public Attorney’s Office, which has a CES Rank Level I, and her subsequent transfer, abolition of petitioners offices. We hold that there has been absolutely no attempt by appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court, which, in turn, considered said appeal.
made without her consent, to the Office of the Regional Director of the PAO because of Congress to effect such a reorganization…No bona fide reorganization of the Hence, the supposed denial of administrative due process has been cured.
the appointment of Atty. Carina Demaisip to the position of Chief Public Defender NAPOLCOM having been mandated by Congress, RA 8551, insofar as it declares the
(formerly Chief Public Attorney). Atty. Bacal filed a petition for quo warranto ruled in her terms of office of the incumbent Commissioners, petitioners herein, as expired and CASE NO. 908
favor by the Court of Appeals. Hence this petition for review on certiorari. resulting in their removal from office, removes civil service employees from office without Article IX: Constitutional Commissions;
Issue: legal cause and must therefore be struck down for being constitutionally infirm.” Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure;
Whether CESOs may be shifted from one position to another without violating their Due Process in Removal
security of tenure CASE NO. 906 CSC v. Magnaye
Ruling: Article IX: Constitutional Commissions; Main Point:
Yes. Members of the Career Executive Service may be reassigned or transferred from Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure; Both probationary and permanent or regular employees shall both enjoy security of tenure
one position to another and from one department, bureau or office to another; provided Abandonment; Acceptance of other Employment Facts:
that such reassignment or transfer is made in the interest of public service and involves Salvador v. CA In March 2001, Mayor Rosales of Lemery, Batangas, appointed Magnaye as Utility
no reduction in rank or salary; provided, further, that no member shall be reassigned or Main Point: Worker I of OOE but subsequently he detailed him to the Municipal Planning and
transferred oftener than every two years. If a CESO is assigned to a CES position with a An officer who accepted coterminous positions brought about by necessity cannot be Development Office (MPDO). May elections of that year, Bendaa defeated Mayor Rosales
higher salary grade than that of his CES rank, he is allowed to receive the salary of the terminated and questioned. and immediately assumed office. So Magnaye was returned to his original assignment at
CES position. Should he be assigned or made to occupy a CES position with a lower Facts: the OEE. Of which, Bendaa again placed him at the MPDO to assist in the
salary grade, he shall continue to be paid the salary attached to his CES rank. Here, there Conrado Salvador (petitioner) has been employed as a Forestry Supervisor II for 8 years implementation of a Survey. After a month, the new mayor served him a notice of
is a valid transfer of Atty. Bacal to the Regional Office as it was made in the interest of in DENR. Sometime in 1987, DENR was reorganized and the petitioner was constrained termination for unsatisfactory conduct and want of capacity. Magnaye immediately
public service and she is still compensated according to her CES rank to accept the lower position of Senior Executive Assistant, a coterminous employment, questioned his termination before the CSC head office on the ground that Mayor Bendaa
with a term not to exceed 3 years. Later on, he was promoted as Forester III however this was not in a position to effectively evaluate his performance because it was made less
CASE NO.904 position is still lower in rank compared to Forestry Supervisor which he previously held. In than one and one-half months after the assumption to office, and that his termination was
Article IX: Constitutional Commissions; January 1992, he received a letter from the Director of DENR stating that he was deemed without basis and was politically motivated. However, it was dismissed. Thereafter, he
Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure; Qualification for Eligibility terminated his position being a coterminous one. Salvador, joined his other employees filed a complaint with the regional office of the Civil Service (CSCRO-IV) but also
Mayor v. Macaraig who were illegally dismissed as well through a complaint-in- intervention. Decision was dismissed for lack of merit. Magnaye sought recourse through a petition for review with
Main Point: rendered in favor of the complainants, including Salvador. This decision (GR103121) CA, citing CSCRO-IVs alleged errors. Adopting the stance of the OSG, the CA ruled in
An employee may be removed from office through abolition of the same office due to became final and executory. Civil Service Commission instructed DENR to appoint the Magnaye's favor, mainly on the ground that he was denied due process. With that,
reason of economy or redundancy of functions. illegally dismissed employees but DENR did not heed CSC’s instructions. 3 years after, petitioners alleged the said reversal of decision.
Facts: Salvador filed a petition to hold the directors of DENR in contempt for willfully failing to Issue:
RA No. 6715 Declaring Vacant “all positions of the Commissioners, Executive Labor comply the execution of judgement. Whether or not Magnaye’s termination valid
Arbiters and Labor Arbiters of the present National Labor Relations Commissions” The old Issue: Ruling:
positions were declared vacant because of the “need to professionalize the higher levels Whether Salvador’s acceptance of a coterminous position excludes him within the scope No, Our Constitution, in using the expressions "all workers" and "no officer or employee,"
of officialdom invested with adjudicatory powers and functions, and upgrade their of the decision which attained finality? puts no distinction between a probationary and a permanent or regular employee which
qualifications, ranks and salaries or emoluments.” Ruling: means that both probationary and permanent employees enjoy security of tenure.
Issue: NO. The high tribunal ruled in favor of Salvador. Although the DENR Memorandum states Probationary employees enjoy security of tenure in the sense that during their
Whether provisions of RA No. 6715 are violative of the constitution. that among those people to be excluded from the Decision are those who accepted probationary employment, they cannot be dismissed except for cause or for failure to
Ruling: coterminous appointments, the SC held that Salvador’s acceptance of the coterminous qualify as regular employees.
The petitioners have the right to remain in office until the expiration of the terms for which appointment was brought about by necessity. “Petitioner’s application for and acceptance
they have been appointed, unless sooner removed “for cause provided by law.” A of a lower position in DENR, under the circumstances, was the practical and responsible CASE NO. 909
recognized cause for removal or termination is the abolition by law of his office as a result thing to do, and cannot be construed against him such as to foreclose his right to question Article IX: Constitutional Commissions;
of reorganization carried out by reason of economy or to remove redundancy of functions, the legality of his termination and to claim the position he held previous to the Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure;
or clear and explicit constitutional mandate for such termination of employment. Abolition organization” SC ordered the DENR officials to reinstate Salvador. Due Process in Removal
of office is not the same as declaring that office is vacant. The latter would constitute an Rubenecia v. CSC
infringement of the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. CASE NO. 907
Article IX: Constitutional Commissions; Main Point:
CASE NO. 905 Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure; Publication in a newspaper of general circulation of a resolution is deemed as substantial
Article IX: Constitutional Commissions; Due Process in Removal compliance with the requirement of written notice to affected individuals and shall amount
Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure; Enrique v. CA to due process.
Abandonment; Acceptance of other Employment Facts:
Canonizado v. Aguirre Main Point: Petitioner Ruble Rubenecia assails Civil Service Commission resolution acquitting him of
Main Point: To be sent a notice of the formal charge against a public officer is sufficient to be a charge of insubordination but finding him guilty of several other administrative charges
A law that would result to the abolition of an office without dues cause should be struck considered due process. and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service on grounds that due
down. Facts: process in the rendition of the same resolution as he was not notified with individual
Facts: Petitioners were charged by the CSC of Grave misconduct and resorted issued a written notice sent by mail that his case was raised to the CSC.
Petitioners were duly appointed Commissioners of the National Police Commission preventive suspension. Petitioner denied the charges and move for dismissal and formal Issue:
(NAPOLCOM) – created by virtue of RA 6975. Upon the passing of the amendatory law, hearing however it was denied by the CSC as well as their MR. Petitioners then appealed Whether Rubenecia has been accorded due process in rendering the resolution.
RA 8851 a.k.a "Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998," it to IAC however CSC’s decision was affirmed. They filed an MR but was dismissed, hence Ruling:
declared that the terms of the current Commissioners were deemed as expired upon its the present petition on the grounds that they are denied due process when they were Yes, due process was accorded with the resolution. The fact that Resolution No. 93-2387
effectivity. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of sections 4 and 8 of RA 8551. dismissed. of the CSC was published in a newspaper of general circulation is deemed as substantial
Petitioners argue that their removal from office by virtue of section 8 of RA 8551 violates compliance with the requirement of written notice to affected individuals.
their constitutionally guaranteed right to security of tenure. Public respondents insist that Issue:
the express declaration in section 8 of RA 8551 that the terms of petitioners’ offices are Whether the suspension of the petitioners is invalid on grounds that they are denied of CASE NO. 910
deemed expired discloses the legislative intent to impliedly abolish the NAPOLCOM due process of law Article IX: Constitutional Commissions;
created under RA 6975 pursuant to a bona fide reorganization. Petitioners posit the Removal for Cause/Security of Tenure;
theory that the abolition of petitioners’ offices was a result of a reorganization of the Ruling: Due Process in Removal
NAPOLCOM allegedly effected by RA No, it is not invalid. The court held that it is sufficient that the petitioners heard the PCSO v. Lapid
Issue: charges against them. petitioners were informed of the charges levelled against them and Main Point:
Whether petitioners were removed by virtue of a valid abolition of their office by Congress. were given reasonable opportunity to present their defenses. As a matter of fact, An employee who was not served with a formal charge shall equate to denial of due
Ruling: petitioners admitted that they filed their answer to the formal charges against them and process. The effects therewith cannot be held operative.
NO. Petitioners were not removed by virtue of a valid abolition of their office by Congress. submitted additional evidence when asked to do so. Petitioners even moved for a Facts:
First of all, RA 8551 did not expressly abolish petitioners’ positions. “Public respondents reconsideration of the adverse CSC decision. After the denial of their motion, petitioners This is a petition for review filed by petitioners Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office
would have this Court believe that RA 8551 reorganized the NAPOLCOM resulting in the Board of Directors (PCSO) respondent Marie Jean C. Lapid (Lapid). Lapid was charged
guilty with discourtesy and was dismissed by the PCSO. Lapid filed a petition before the 25, 1991. She assumed office and discharged the duties thereof, without any objection
CSC but was denied. She then appealed before the CA which granted her petition on the Issue: from the Board of Regents. When MSU President Alonto was replaced by herein
grounds that she was denied her right to due process because charges against her are Whether of not Garcia should be granted security of tenure in the abolition of LRC Offices petitioner Dr. Emily M. Marohombsar on January 5, 1993, private respondent continued
not proven and was not served to her. Hence, the current petition challenging the decision her employment and received the corresponding salary and other benefits from the MSU
of the Court of Appeals (CA) granting the petition ordering the reinstatement and retention Ruling: until she was summarily terminated on February 28, 1993. The Civil Service Commission
of the respondent in the service until the expiration of her casual employment. No, she is not since all positions in the Land Registration Commission are deemed declared her termination as illegal and ordered the payment of all her back salaries and
Issue: nonexistent. Abolition of a position does not involve or mean removal for the reason that other benefits due her from the date of her separation up to the date of her reinstatement
Whether Lapid’s dismissal is invalid due to deprivation of right to due process. removal implies that the post subsists and that one is merely separated therefrom. After in the service. CA affirmed the CSC’s order.
Ruling: abolition, there is in law no occupant. Thus, there can be no tenure to speak of. It is in this Issue:
Yes, it is invalid. Section 46 (a) of the Civil Service Law provides that “no officer or sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the question of any impairment of security of Whether an ad interim appointment is terminable at any time and for any cause.
employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as tenure does not arise. Ruling:
provided by law after due process. the CSC itself found that Lapid was denied due NO. An ad interim appointment is not descriptive of the nature of the appointment, that is,
process as she was never formally charged with the administrative offenses of CASE NO. 913 it is not indicative of whether the appointment is temporary or in an acting capacity, rather
Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties and Grave Misconduct, for which she was Article IX: Constitutional Commissions; it denotes the manner in which the appointment was made. In the instant case, the
dismissed from the service. Security of Tenure appointment extended to private respondent by then MSU President Alonto, Jr. was
Cabagnot v. CSC issued without condition nor limitation as to tenure.
CASE NO. 911 Main Point:
Article IX: Constitutional Commissions; The CSC has the obligation to implement the constitutional provision on security of tenure Case No. 915
Security of Tenure and due process however it cannot order reinstatement when a termination of employees Article IX: Constitutional Commissions;
Chua v. CSC is not due to reason of reorganization Security of Tenure
Main Point: Facts: ONG v. OP
Security of Tenure shall not be discriminatory between regular, temporary, casual and A new organizational structure and staffing pattern of the provincial government of Aklan Main Point:
emergency employees. This shall also apply with regards to the benefits arising from was approved and opened new plantilla positions. Aggrieved employees prayed that they A public officer cannot hold co-terminus positions and appointments which results in such
holding such employment. be appointed to the positions they applied for to which they are eligible and sent petitioner can be revoked by the appointing authority.
Facts: individual letters reiterating their qualifications. Petitioner denied their plea. Upon appeal, Facts:
Republic Act No. 6683 provided benefits for early retirement and voluntary separation CSC found that irregularities attended the election of the two members representing the Petitioner Samuel Ong, as a career employee in the NBI , was appointed as Director III
from the government service as well as for involuntary separation due to reorganization. first and second level personnel to the Placement Committee based on the affidavit co-terminus with the appointing authority and would end effectively at midnight on June
Deemed qualified to avail of its benefits are those enumerated in Sec. 2 of the Act. executed by one Nida E. Melgarejo and the letter appeal of some thirty-seven (37) 30, 2004, unless a new appointment would be issued in his favor by the President
Petitioner Lydia Chua believing that she is qualified to avail of the benefits of the program, employees of the provincial government of Aklan. The Commission found no reason for consistent with her new tenure effective July 1, 2004; and until then, he shall only hold his
filed an application with respondent National Irrigation Administration (NIA) which, displacing the services of private respondents primarily because there are eighty-four (84) position in a de facto/ hold over status. On Dec. 1, 2004, the President appointed
however, denied the same; instead, she was offered separation benefits equivalent to one additional positions for the Office of the Governor alone. The CSC found that sixteen (16) respondent Victor Bessat as Director III replacing the petitioner. Ong filed a quo warranto
half (1/2) month basic pay for every year of service commencing from 1980, or almost of the seventeen (17) private respondents were demoted because of the wide disparity before the CA but was denied.
fifteen (15) years in four (4) successive governmental projects. A recourse by petitioner to between the former positions held by them and the positions to which they were proposed Issue:
the Civil Service Commission yielded negative results, citing that her position is co- by petitioner. Whether petitioner can be removed from his position as NBI Director III
terminous with the NIA project which is contractual in nature and thus excluded by the Issue: Ruling:
enumerations under Sec.3.1 of Joint DBM-CSC Circular Letter No. 89-1, i.e. casual, Whether CSC committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the dismissed No. Ong lacked the CES eligibility required for the position of Director III and his
emergency, temporary or regular employment. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court employees. appointment was “co-terminus with the appointing authority.” His appointment being both
by way of a special civil action for certiorari. Ruling: temporary and co-terminous in nature, it can be revoked by the President even without
Issue: Yes. With respect to the sixteen private respondents, respondent Commission committed cause and at a short notice.
Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the benefits granted under Republic Act No. no grave abuse of discretion in ordering that they be “immediately appointed and restored CASE NO. 916
6683. to their positions or positions of comparable or equivalent rank without loss of seniority Article IX (B), Sec. 2. Electioneering or Partisan Political Activity
Ruling: rights with back salaries reckoned from dates they should properly have been appointed Santos v. Yatco
Petitioner was established to be a co-terminous employee, a non-career civil servant, like thereto effective the date of the reorganization of said province. "It is within the power of Facts:
casual and emergency employees. The Supreme Court sees no solid reason why the public respondent to order the reinstatement of government employees who have been Respondent Alejo Santos is the Secretary of National Defense and head of the
latter are extended benefits under the Early Retirement Law but the former is not. It will be unlawfully dismissed. The CSC, as the central personnel agency, has the obligation to Department of National Defense. Santos was campaigning for Governor Martin, candidate
noted that Rep. Act No. 6683 expressly extends its benefits for early retirement to regular, implement and safeguard the constitutional provisions on security of tenure and due of the Nacionalista Party in the Province of Bulacan, while acting as member of the
temporary, casual and emergency employees. But specifically excluded from the benefits process. In the present case, the issuance by the CSC of the questioned resolutions, for Cabinet in discussing the issues before the electorate and defending the actuations of the
are uniformed personnel of the AFP including those of the PC-INP. It can be argued that, the reasons clearly explained therein, is indubitably in the performance of its constitutional Administration to which he belongs to. Court of First Instance Judge Yatco ordered to
expressio unius est exclusio alterius but the applicable maxim in this case is the doctrine task of protecting and strengthening the civil service. However, it cannot order prohibit Santos from campaigning personally or in his official capacity.
of necessary implication which holds that “what is implied in a statute is as much a part reinstatement when a termination of employees is not due to reason of reorganization
thereof as that which is expressed”. Issue:
CASE NO. 914 Whether Yatco, as Cabinet secretary, could campaign for Governor Martin?
CASE NO. 912 Article IX: Constitutional Commissions;
Article IX: Constitutional Commissions; Security of Tenure Ruling:
Security of Tenure Marohombsar v. CA Yes. The court ruled that a cabinet member is not embraced and included within the term
NLTDRA v. CSC Main Point: "officers and employees in the civil service” that prohibits any electioneering or partisan
Ad interim appointment only talks of the manner of an appointment however an employee political campaign. However, it shall be unlawful for them to solicit contributions from their
Main Point: by ad interim appointment cannot be prejudiced to have condition or limitation as to subordinates or subject them to any of the acts involving subordinates prohibited in the
When offices are subjected to abolition, it shall not be equated to vacancy. The positions tenure. Election Code.
are deemed to be non-existent and that tenure cannot raise from the same. Facts:
Facts: Private respondent Billante S. Guinar-Marohombsar was first appointed Technical Main Point:
Assistant in 1988 and the MSU Board of Regents (BOR) confirmed her appointment per The prohibition does not include the President of the Philippines, vice-president, executive
Garcia was appointed as Deputy Register of Deeds (DRD) VII and later DRD (II) both of its Resolution No. 279, s. 1988. The position title was subsequently reclassified and secretaries or department secretaries, other members of the Cabinet, all other elective
permanent status. After Land Registration Commission was restructured to National Land retitled to Executive Assistant II upon the effectivity of Republic Act 6758, otherwise officials at all levels, and those in the personal and confidential staff of the stated officials.
Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NLTDRA) she became a temporary DRD II known as the Salary Standardization Law. Since private respondent did not possess the
as she did not comply with the requirement of being a part of the Bar. Series of event then appropriate civil service eligibility required of the position at that time, she was only CASE NO. 917
resulted to her termination. The CSC then issued a resolution directing Garcia to be extended a temporary appointment as Executive Assistant II which was noted by the MSU Article IX (B), Sec. 2. Electioneering or Partisan Political Activity
restored in her position under vested right theory which excepts her from the BAR Board of Regents. Subsequently, upon acquiring Career Service Professional Eligibility, People v. De Venecia
Membership requirement. Petitioner then filed the present petition questioning the validity she was extended a permanent appointment to the position of Executive Assistant II by Facts:
of the resolution on ground that all of the LRC positions are abolished and it is now the then MSU President Ahmad E. Alonto, Jr. on May 3, 1991. This appointment was Braulio de Venecia willfully induced, swayed, and made electors vote in favor of Felipe
discretion of the NLTDRA to appoint qualified position holders. approved as permanent by the Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. 12 on June Oda, NP candidate for Municipal Mayor of Binalonan by distributing and causing to be
distributed election handbills to win votes for said mayor. His defense was that RA 2260 Mass action participants were GSIS personnel, among them members of the Kapisanan
repealed the prohibition on government officials having any manner of influence, except Main Point: Ng Mga Manggagawa sa GSIS (KMG), a public sector union of GSIS rank-and-file
through voting, in elections. The RA gave a privilege to CSC members to express their The constitution recognizes the right of government employees to organize but they are employees. The manager of the GSIS Investigating Unit issued a memorandum directing
political opinions in the elections., to which section 54 of Revised Election Code banned. prohibited from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms to show cause why they should not be charged administratively for their participation in
of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service. said rally. KMG’s counsel, Atty. Molina, sought reconsideration of said directive on the
Issue: ground, among others, that the subject employees resumed work in obedience to the
Whether the defense of De Venecia could prosper? CASE NO. 920 return-to-work order thus issued. The plea for reconsideration was, however, effectively
Article IX (B), Sec. 2. Right to Self-Organization and Right to Strike denied. Administrative charges against some members for grave misconduct and conduct
Ruling: Jacinto v. CA prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
No. The court ruled that RA 2260 allows officers or employees from expressing his views Facts:
on current political problems or issues or mentioning the names of candidates for public Petitioners are public school teachers from various schools in Metro Manila. They Issue:
office whom he supports. Although a CSC employee who contributes money for election incurred unauthorized absences in connection with the mass actions. DECS Secretary Whether the strike of the KMG was valid?
purposes to a candidate violates the provision because he "aided a candidate" and may Cariño immediately issued a return-to-work order, but it was ignored by petitioners. Cariño
not invoke the privilege. He is then punishable for imprisonment. issued formal charges and preventive suspension orders against them. They were Ruling:
administratively charged with gross misconduct and gross neglect of duty for joining No. In the 1987 constitution, civil servants were, for the first time, allowed to the right to
Main Point: unauthorized mass actions and ignoring report-to-work directives. During the self-organization, unionize, and negotiations through peaceful means. The right to strike,
A CSC member or employee may not aid in electioneering but may express his political investigation, petitioners did not file their answers or controvert the charges against them. however, is not enjoyed by civil servants because it would prejudice the best interest of
views on problems and may mention the candidates he will vote for. But he is forbidden Consequently, Cariño, in his decisions found them guilty as charged and imposed the their service to the public.
from solicitation, in every form, of the elector’s vote in favor of a specific candidate. It penalty of dismissal except Jacinto who was given a 6-month suspension.
includes contribution of money for election purposes and distributing handbills. Main Point:
Issue: The constitution recognizes the right of government employees to organize but they are
CASE NO. 918 Whether government employees may participate in mass actions? prohibited from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms
Article IX (B), Sec. 2. Right to Self-Organization and Right to Strike of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service.
SSS Employees v. CA Ruling:
Facts: No. In their mass action of absenting themselves from classes and ignoring report-to-work CASE NO. 923
The petitioners went on strike after the SSS failed to act upon the union’s demands orders, they were guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service but no so Article IX (B), Sec. 2. Temporary Employees
concerning the implementation of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). SSS filed a grave misconduct that would lead to their dismissal. In the case of Merlinda Jacinto, Gloria v. CA
before the court action for damages against petitioners for staging an illegal strike. there was a finding that there was no proof that she joined the unlawful mass actions. Facts:
Petitioners contend that the court made reversible error in taking cognizance on the Dr. Icasiano was appointed Schools Division Superintendent, Division of City Schools in
subject matter since the jurisdiction lies on the DOLE or the National Labor Relations Quezon City by the president. Secretary Gloria recommended to the president that
Commission as the case involves a labor dispute. The SSS contends on one hand that Icasiano be reassigned as Superintendent of the MIST (Marikina Institute of Science and
the petitioners are covered by the Civil Service laws, rules and regulation thus have no Main Point: Technology) to fill up the vacuum created by the retirement of its Superintendent of the
right to strike. They are not covered by the NLRC or DOLE therefore the court may enjoin In participating in mass action that dramatizes the grievances of the public-school MIST. Icasiano requested Gloria to reconsider the reassignment but the latter denied the
the petitioners from striking. teachers, dismissal is unreasonable. A 6-month suspension was enough, and they are request. Gloria argued that it was only temporary and Icasiano would be returned when a
still entitled to back wages. permanent replacement was found.
Issue:
Whether the SSS employees have the right to strike? CASE NO. 921 Issue:
Article IX (B), Sec. 2. Right to Self-Organization and Right to Strike Whether the reassignment was valid because it was only temporary?
Ruling: De la Cruz v. CA
No. SSS employees, or other government workers, have the right to self-organization, Facts: Ruling:
collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities. However, the Petitioners are public-school teachers from various schools in Metro Manila who were No. While a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is permissible even without
constitution does not say that government employees may be given the right to strike, simultaneously charged, preventively suspended, and eventually dismissed in October the employee’s prior consent, it cannot be done when the transfer is a preliminary step
unlike employees in the private sector. In the absence of any legislation allowing 1990 by the Secretary of the DECS in connection with the administrative complaints filed towards his removal, or is a scheme to lure him away from his permanent position, or
government employees to strike, they are prohibited from doing so. before its office by their respective principals for participating in a mass action and designed to indirectly terminate his service, or force his resignation.
subsequently defying the return-to-work order by DECS constituting grave misconduct,
Main Point: gross neglect of duty, gross violation of Civil Service Law, Rules and Regulations and
All government officers and employees are not allowed to stage strikes, demonstrations, reasonable office regulations, refusal to perform official duty, gross insubordination
mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will result in temporary conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and absence without official leave Main Point:
stoppage or disruption of public service. (AWOL). Petitioners contend they are merely participating in a peaceful assembly to A transfer that is temporary in nature but clearly shows a specific intent to violate the right
petition the government for redress of their grievances in the exercise of their to tenure is invalid and unlawful.
CASE NO. 919 constitutional right and insist their assembly does not constitute as a strike as there is no CASE NO. 924
Article IX (B), Sec. 2. Right to Self-Organization and Right to Strike actual disruption of classes. Article IX (B), Sec 3. Purpose of a Civil Service System
Bangalisan v. CA Lazo v. CSC
Issue: Facts:
Facts: Whether the mass action can be considered as a strike? Civil Service Commission received a letter from a certain Pagurayan, reporting that
The Secretary of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS) placed Bangalisan and the other petitioner Lazo had boasted to him that he had bought his career service eligibility from
petitioners under preventive suspension in connection with a mass action staged by Ruling: the Civil Service Commission for Php 7,000.00. The Regional Office of the CSC found
several public-school teachers allegedly to dramatize their grievances against public- Yes. The court held that previous jurisprudence laid down a rule that public teachers in that the complainant was a fictitious individual and there being no witnesses to support
school authorities. The CSC found the petitioners guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best the exercise of their right to ventilate their grievances by petitioning the government for the allegation in the letter. Considering the seriousness of the allegation in the letter,
interest of the service and gave them a six-month suspension with automatic redress should be done within reasonable limits so as not to prejudice the public welfare. however, the CSC ordered the examination answer sheets of petitioner retrieved and
reinstatement in service but without payment of back wages. The court stresses that teachers are penalized not because they exercised their right to hand checked. The rechecking disclosed that petitioner's actual score was 34.48%, not
peaceably assemble but because of how such right was exercised. 76.46% as indicated in his certificate of eligibility. His certificate of eligibility was revoked
Issue: without the chance of petitioner to check his answer sheet.
Whether the public-school teachers had the right to strike? Main Point:
The conduct of mass protests during school days while abandoning classes is highly Issue:
Ruling: prejudicial to the best interest of public service. Thus, they will incur reasonable penalties. Whether the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion?
No. The right of government employees to organize is limited only to the formation of CASE NO. 922
unions or associations, without including the right to strike. It is an undisputed fact that Article IX (B), Sec. 2. Right to Self-Organization and Right to Strike Ruling:
there was only a work stoppage and that petitioners’ purpose was to realize their GSIS v. Kapisanan No. The CSC is the central agency of the government and thus may revoke a certificate of
demands by withholding their services. The fact that the petitioners did not use the word Facts: eligibility motu proprio. The general objective of the CSC is to establish and promote
“strike” to describe their course of action is inconsequential.
professionalism and efficiency in public service. The CSC has the power to issue a Escala was appointed by the Court as SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division. ISSUE:
certificate of eligibility and it carries with it the power to revoke one has been given. His application papers show he has experience and training as a police officer, having WoN, plaintiff’s contention have legal merit by mere designation which the administrative
been employed as Chief Inspector of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Aviation code provides for the according of the additional compensation?
Main Point: Security Group. During his employment, an anonymous letter reached the OAS reporting
When the case simply involves the re-checking of examination papers and nothing more the respondent’s gross violation of the Civil Service Law on the prohibition against dual RULING:
than a re-evaluation of documents already in the records of the CSC. Notice and hearing employment and double compensation in the government service. The letter alleged that NO. The Sec 1916 of the revised administrative code has been repealed by Act 4231 or
are not required. Instead, ipsa loquitur should have been raised as an argument. Escala accepted employment, and thus received salaries and other benefits, from the the Appropriation Act for the year 1936. Even if the law expressly provide for the allowing
Court and also from the PNP of which he remained an active member. of the disbursement of the additional compensation, the decision resides to the Director of
CASE NO. 925 Public Works if the engineer’s work circumstances may cost him from what he was meant
Article IX (B), Sec. 6. Prohibition of Appointment of “Lame Ducks Issue: only ton work for, such peculiar situations could warrant for the according of additional
People v. Sandiganbayan Whether Escala violated the prohibition against dual employment? wages.

Facts: Ruling: MAIN POINT:

During the 1998 elections, Villapando ran for Municipal Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan. Yes. All court personnel ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity, Only those duly designated authorities by law can decide to endow additional wages unto
Tiape a relative of Villapando’s wife, ran for Municipal Mayor of Kitcharao, Agusan del considering that their positions primarily involve service to the public. Personnel in conflict employees or appointed officials can receive additional wages given that the existing
Norte. Villapando won while Tiape lost. On July 1, 1998, Villapando designated Tiape as of interest, respondent violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by the Court. circumstances in their exercise of public duties may cost them personal expenses; the
Municipal Administrator of the Municipality of San Vicente, Maagad and Fernandez Considering the sensitive and confidential nature of his position, he was dismissed. He duly designated authority must determine on to the extent of the additional wages which is
charged Villapando and Tiape for violation for unlawful appointments. Villapando then file was ordered to return all benefits with prejudice to re-employment in any government given by its value and term.
demurrer to evidence in the Sandiganyan to which it was declared to have merit and they agency, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
were acquitted. CASE NO. 930
Main Point: ARTICLE IX, SECTION 8: Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title
Issue: The reason for prohibiting dual employment is there will be gross dishonesty and conduct Peralta v. Mathay – 38 SCRA 296 (1971)
Whether Villapando violated the prohibition of appointment of lame ducks? prejudicial to the best interest of public service.

Ruling: CASE NO. 928 FACTS:

Yes. The court declared the decision of the Sandiganbayan to be null and void. It was Article IX (B), Sec 7. Prohibitions; Appointments; Office; Employment Petioner, Pedro G. Peralta is a trustee of GSIS. He was granted an optional retirement
said that one who is under the one-year prohibition imposed on losing candidates is La Carlota City v. Rojo gratuity of P40,336.07. Of that amount, he was not able to collect the sum of P7,032.26,
disqualified from being appointed during the one-year period even if he or she has the Facts: covering P3,982.26 as cost of living allowance, P1,275.00 as incentive bonus, and
other qualifications needed for the position. This provision serves to extirpate the spoils Atty. Rojo was a member-councilor of the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) of La Carlota P1,775.00 as Christmas bonus. He appealed unto the Auditor General Ismael Mathay if
system. City, Negros Occidental. He tendered his resignation as councilor of the SP during regular there was ever any legal prohibition on the other items mentioned above as he deemed it
session. A day after, he permanently appointed as SP by the Vice-Mayor. The CSC then fit that it should also be reimbursed as part of the gratuity. The Auditor General affirmed
Main Point: recalled his appointment due to infirmity that there were no signatures of city’s personnel that there is no law allowing such auxiliary compensation since the gratuity is only
A “lame duck” or an unsuccessful person is prohibited from being appointed to any office selection board and human resources management officer. accorded upon retirement; thus there is no longer any discharge of official duties to the
in the government or any government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of their part of the petitioner. The Petitioner raised the petition for review of the court.
subsidiaries. Issue:
Whether the appointment was invalid because he just recently resigned? ISSUE:
WoN, Pedro G. Peralta is qualified to receive his undisbursed per diems as part of his
CASE NO. 926 Ruling: gratuity.
Article IX (B), Sec 7. Prohibitions; Appointments; Office; Employment No. The appointment was valid because there was a quorum and the resignation was
Flores v. Drilon considered to be valid. If resignation is valid then an appointment made by the vice- RULING:
Facts: mayor, who is the presiding officer of the SP, is also valid. His appointment is also valid No. Pedro G. Peralta cannot receive the above mentioned allowances because his
Petitioners, taxpayers and employees of U.S facilities at Subic, challenge the because he met all the necessary qualifications of the position and there was substantial discharge of his official duties and the gratuity he can receive are two different matters. In
constitutionality of Sec. 13 of the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992 which compliance with appointment requirements. the former, he was qualified to receive the following compensations since he was in the
directs the President to appoint a professional manager as administrator of the Subic Bay discharge of his functions and due considerations for financial appropriations to
Metropolitan Authority (SBMA). It is provided that “for the 1st year of its operations, the Main Point: compensate him for the personal hindrances that negate his performance of functions; in
mayor of Olongapo City, Richard Gordon, shall be appointed as the chairman and the The prohibition against dual employment only applies if an elected official holds another the latter it can be perceived that there petitioner no longer works for the government and
CEO of the SBMA. government position that was not prescribed by law. There is no duration required as to only benefits are hereby endowed; there are no reasons to provide compensations.
how much the gap between the resignation or forfeiture from the actual appointment for
Issue: as long as the requirements are properly complied. MAIN POINT:
Whether the appointment is unconstitutional? Art. IX Section VIII generally expressed that there is a prohibition on double compensation
as well pensions or gratuities are con considered additional or double compensations,
Ruling: such are considered retirement benefits which retired government employees or officials
Yes. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to saved during in their tenure, through GSIS, a government subdivision which is concerned
any public office or position during his tenure. The subject provision directs the President with retirement plans of qualified entities in its jurisdiction.
to appoint an elective official, which is unconstitutional. If an elected official accepts an CASE NO. 929
appointment in any government office other than his elective position, he must first resign ARTICLE IX, SECTION 8: Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title
from said elective position. However, all per diems, allowances and other emoluments Sadueste v. Municipality of Surigao – 72 PHIL. 482 [1941]
received by Gordon as such Chairman and CEO may be retained by him, and all acts CASE NO. 931
otherwise legitimate done by him in the exercise of his authority as officer de facto of ARTICLE IX, SECTION 8: Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title
SBMA are upheld. FACTS: Santos v. CA – GR No. 139792, Nov. 22, 2000
Plaintiff, District Engineer of the Province of Surigao Engineer Zacarias D. Sadueste was
Main Point: designated by the Director of Public Works as sanitary and waterworks engineer at the
For an elected official to be able to accept an appointment in any other office or same province. The municipal council having failed to provide the necessary FACTS:
employment in a government or any of its subsidiaries, other than his elective position, he appropriations for the services he rendered which has an aggregate total sum of Petitioner Antonio P. Santos was a former judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court for 9
must first resign from said elective position. P2,338.06 including the P60 additional compensation, the , plaintiff instituted an action years, then he optionally retired from his post and then he received his gratuity pay; five
for its recovery with claim for damages in the amount of P300, invoking sec. 1916 of the years later, he was receiving his pension monthly. Petitioner then reentered government
CASE NO. 927 Rev. Adm. Code, as amended by Acts Nos. 3257 and 3978). The plaintiff raised the service as the director of MMA which was then reformed into the Metro Manila
Article IX (B), Sec 7. Prohibitions; Appointments; Office; Employment complaint which was dismissed, by the court due to the fact that such additional Development Authority. As part of the reform of the agency, certain positions have been
In re Eduardo Escala compensation has been repealed by section 17 of Act No. 4187, otherwise known as the changed as well the entities holding the positions unless otherwise has been provided as
Facts: General Appropriation Act for 1936. CSC Laws took effect to justifiably accord protection for those who still choose to work in
the agency unless a compromise was accorded unto them. Petitioner voluntarily optioned
to be separated into the service and his resignation took effect after the office hours of The Board of Regents of the Benguet State University appropriated rice compensations ARTICLE IX, SECTION 8: Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title
September 15 1996. Petitioner then raised a question to the CSC if he could receive the as well health care compensations for the employees, workers and academic officials as NEA v. CSC – 611 SCRA 14 [2010]
full length of separation benefits from his service as the director of MMA as well his part of its compliance to the law enacted by the congress Republic Act No. 8292 entitled
benefits from his previous designation as judge in the MeTC can still be refunded. The An Act Providing for the Uniform Composition and Powers of the Governing Boards, the
CSC responded that the petitioner can still receive benefits from both previous Manner of Appointment and Term of Office of the President of Chartered State FACTS:
designations, provided that deductions will be made for the sake of equity. Universities and Colleges, and for Other Purposes, commonly known as the Higher The CSC through its Provincial Extension Office in Naga City filed a complaint regarding
Education Modernization Act of 1997. The BSU also highlighted the Salary The National Electrification Administration, alllowing their designated employees or
ISSUE: Standardization Law which allows allowances to be endowed to government employees officials in private electric cooperations to receive additional compensation in their
WoN the petitioner can have the full length of his retirement benefits from his two previous which doesn’t necessarily quantify as income, thus it supposedly do not transgress the embedded workplace. NEA explains that the reason for such designations are in order to
designations in the government service? provision of Article 9 Section 8, in its prohibition on additional compensation. The supervise the industry inside the private cooperations in which, public interest is at stake
Commission on Audit sent a notice of disallowance, stating otherwise against the and existing circumstances warrant the additional compensations as well allowances in
RULING: defences of the Board of Regents, insisting that indeed, there is transgression on the order for the designees to perform their jobs. NEA also laments the intrusion of CSC to its
No. The petitioner has ended his career as judge of the MeTC and thus the equivalent of constitutional limits accorded by the law on the fiscal autonomy empowered to SUCs internal affairs when it itself merely abides the pertinent laws regarding its operations as
the services he rendered has already been accorded in that part. In the part of being the Board of Regents. well the laws mandated by CSC.
director of the MMA, he was also provided the equivalent of the services he rendered.
Two options were presented upon him to either get his previous separation pay in full or ISSUE: ISSUE:
still receive his separation pay but deductions should be imputed, he still denied the WoN COA was right in disallowing the BSU in appropriating sums from its operations for WoN NEA has the legality on designating NEA officials in power cooperatives while
benevolent offer. the allowances? allowing for their reception of additional compensation or allowances?

MAIN POINT: RULING: RULING:

Part of Article 9 Section 8 “Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, Yes. The Court decreed that the allowances are not necessarily used to augment Yes, NEA as a government instrumentality upholds a function of oversight on the efficient
double, or indirect compensation.” Expressly prohibit the circumstance in which the judge academic operations at hand, instead it merely provide more sustenance for the comfort distribution of power by electric cooperatives since public interest is involved. By
is accruing his separation benefits; double compensation. and ease of the employees, workers and officials per see; thus the court affirmed the designating its qualified officials to be embedded in these private cooperatives, such has
COA’s decision since the BSU’s promulgation of these allowances count as additional been carried out. NEA also understood the complex circumstances which could negate
compensation whereas, the individual salaries of the workers in BSU is already affixed, the performance of these functions, so it allowed the collection of allowances or additional
CASE NO. 932 depending to the position they held. fees with strict proscription that what is accorded to their officials should be only utilized
ARTICLE IX, SECTION 8: Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title for the very performance of duties.
Cabili v. CSC, GR No. 156503, June 22, 2006 MAIN POINT:
In allowing additional compensation, the competent authority who endows the allowances MAIN POINT:
should determine specifically if whether the appropriation directly contributes to its sole Competent authorities can allow the appropriation of allowances or additional
FACTS: operations and whether the entities endowed with are actual operators of such function. compensation from private institutions, provided that it is in line with public discharge of
Local Water Utilities Administration Employees Association for Progress (LEAP), duties.
represented by its Chairman, Leonardo C. Cruz, filed a complaint before the CSC against
Camilo P. Cabili and Antonio R. De Vera, Chairman of the Board of Trustees and CASE NO. 934
Administrator, respectively, of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). The ARTICLE IX, SECTION 8: Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title
complaint prayed for investigation and opinion on the validity of the multiple directorship of Herrera, et al v. NPC, GR No. 166570, December 18, 2009 CASE NO. 936
LWUA Deputy Administrator Rodolfo de Jesus and his entitlement to per diems, ARTICLE IX, SECTION 8: Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title
representation and transportation allowance (RATA), discretionary fund, and other Yap v. COA – 619 SCRA 154 [2010]
extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses (EME) from the Olongapo City Water District FACTS:
where he was designated as member of the board of directors. He received these Efren Herera and Esther Galvez represent the other workers union of national power
monetary benefits in addition to his compensation as Deputy Administrator of LWUA. The grids, as well those rehired, retired and separated because of the restructuring of the FACTS:
CSC through its legal division dismissed the case albeit it expressed that additional electrical grid positions filed for petition on review for certiorari against the decision of the Ramon Yap is a department manager of the National Development Company, a
compensation in various forms are not allowed and only per diems can be appropriated, Quezon City RTC, favoring the National Power Corporation. Petitioners insist that they Government Owned and Controlled Corporation. At the same time, he was appointed as
provided by the stringent allocatons. LWUA Chairman Camilio Cabili filed for a petition to must receive their separation pays as well their retirement benefits to compensate them vice president for finance for Manila Gas Corporation. Due to his double employment, an
the Supreme Court against CSC for its narrow interpretation of Art. 9 Sec. 8 from losing their jobs. The NPC state that two options were provided for them to receive honoraria was granted, 50% from his salary in NDC with matching proscriptions,
their separation pays: it could be through receiving their separation pay and their allowances and reimbursements. Such was examined by the MGC board itself and they
ISSUE: retirement benefits, or through a separation plan which is 1 and ½ of a month salary discovered that his subscriptions in Reader’s Digest, National Geographic, PCA club
WoN CSC is right in its decree on the entitlements and per diems of the LWUA board which will be disbursed per annum. membership, car maintenance allowance, executive checkups, annual visa fee card and
directors? others which does not pass the public purpose test has been cited and disallowed him
from using his honoraria for these items. He then forwarded his concern unto the COA
RULING: ISSUE: which then affirmed the decision of the corporate auditor.
Yes. The CSC as a constitutional commission has jurisdictional oversight on the WoN the petitioner and it represents have right to receive both the separation pay and the
government instrumentality such as LWUA and its interpretation on allowing board of retirement benefits? ISSUE:
directors’ additional compensation in some extreme cases as it should be determined by WoN COA abused its discretionary powers in disallowing the items Yap qualified as part
an authority who wields the power on according compensations. RULING: of his honorarium?
No. There are two circumstances to wit: For those who opined to be separated from their
MAIN POINT: work, they are entitled to receive their separation bays as computed to their years in work, RULING:
Commonly, per diems are accorded to employees or officials as to complement their for those who qualified to retire and did so, they have an option to choose between No. COA acted in good faith and diligence in the public service; neither there was abuse
discharge of duties which has to be exacted to the point of its need and validity, but in separation pay or a retirement plan; but the Early Retirement Incentive Plan submitted to of its powers. It was discovered that Ramon Yap did not use the honoraria to compliment
extreme cases, the authority in charge of appropriations can attach additional and approved by then President Fidel V. Ramos explicitly provided for a separation his exercise of duties nor he can cite pertinent law or circulars as well empirical facts that
compensations which must also be determined and be exacted in its definite utility. package that would be given over and above the existing retirement benefits. Therein lays warrant for the items he cited. Thus, there is breach on public interest and in the public
the fundamental difference. purpose test. The Court presumes that the findings of administrative agencies are as
good as that of the courts since they are all versed in the nature of law.
CASE NO. 933 MAIN POINT:
ARTICLE IX, SECTION 8: Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title Retirees can only choose between retirement plan or separation pay, whereas those who MAIN POINT:
Benguet State University v. Colting, GR No. 169637, June 8, 2007 were separated can only receive a separation pay, computed by the length of their tenure Public Purpose Test is an examination done by the Commission on Audit that if such
and their service provided with no other forms of compensation be included. The items enumerated by and state institution and in its operations have direct utility or benefit
Constitutional provision of Article 9 Section 8 expressly prohibits double compensation in for the public. Failure to meet the standards of the test renders the item/s inadmissible for
accordance of good faith and equity. use.
FACTS:
CASE NO. 935
 CASE NO. 937 Philippine Economic Zone Authority ex officio board members have been receiving per FACTS: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon Aquino to
ARTICLE IX, SECTION 8: Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title diems in attending their board meetings. The ex officio members comprise the 13 the position of chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because
Sergio I. Carbonilla, et al v. Board of Airlines, GR 193247 undersecretaries of the departments of the government. The prime purpose of PEZA is to allegedly Monsod does not possess required qualification of having been engaged in the
discuss the economic mobility of the state, through the contribution of their insights, practice of law for at least ten (10) years. The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1,
FACTS: depending on what their individual department can offer. The per diems that were Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six
Petitioner, a customs official in Ninoy Aquino International Airport filed for motion for allocated were utilized and appropriated in good faith. Then PEZA Auditor Corazon V. Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of
intervention in the proceeding case of Office of the President v. Board of Airlines [GR Españo issued Notice of Disallowance to all of the ex officio members from receiving per their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must
193247]. He ascertains that he has the right to claim the uncollected overtime pay from diems the prohibition under Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution and emphasized that not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding elections.
BAR invoking it to pay its obligations under CAO 7-92, as amended by CAO 1-2005. CAO a public official holding an ex officio position as provided by law has no right to receive However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine
7-92, as amended by CAO 1-2005 is an administrative order promulgated by the Bureau additional compensation for the ex officio position. Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
of Customs which compels the member airlines of BAR to pay overtime pay in exchange
of the extended service provided by custom officials beyond their duty hours. ISSUE: ISSUE: Whether the respondent does not possess the required qualification of having
WoN ex officio members can still receive per diems under the guidance of “good faith”? engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
ISSUES:
WoN Sergio I. Carbonilla have legal right to receive his unpaid overtime pay from the RULING: RULING: No. Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The practice of law is
member airlines of BAR? No. There were two cases which prompted the PEZA Auditor to disallow the allocation of not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of
per diems, the bitonio and civil liberties union case. It was for the protection that to pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceeding, the management
RULING: prevent illegality from forming through the allocations in which, there was no law allowing of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in
Yes. Invoking CAO 7-92, Sergio I. Carbonilla has to prove specifically how he was its procedure. The framers of R.A. No. 7916 (Special Economic Zone Act of 1995) must addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in
deprived of due payment and the individual instances in which it should have been have realized the flaw in the law which is the reason why the law was later amended by matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation
rendered upon him. R.A. No. 8748 to cure such defect. services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage,
No. The case he intervened has different matters in contrast to his case. He was after the enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and
back payments which was untendered upon him. It was dismissed and was referred for MAIN POINT: conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have
different proceedings in the appropriate courts. In common usage, the term "good faith" is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind been held to constitute law practice. The contention that Atty. Monsod does not possess
denoting "honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which the required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years is
MAIN POINT: ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any incorrect since Atty. Monsod’s past work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-
If an administrative body has allowed the collection of compensation due to the fact that unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a
its employees or officials worked over the period of prescribed working hours, the absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render transaction lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor – verily more than satisfy the constitutional
compensation should cover the circumstances which were deprived from the qualified unconscientious." requirement for the position of COMELEC chairman. The respondent has been engaged
officials or workers, provided that the service they provided passes the public purpose in the practice of law for at least ten years does in the view of the foregoing, the petition is
test. DISMISSED.
CASE NO. 940
CASE NO. 938 ARTICLE IX, SECTION 8: Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title MAIN POINT: Engaged in the practice of law means to engage in any activity, or out of
ARTICLE IX, SECTION 8: Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title Dimagiba v. Espartero – 676 SCRA 420 [2012] court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
Office of the President v. Board of Airlines, GR 193247 experience.

FACTS: CASE NO. 942

FACTS: Petitioner Hilarion Dimagiba and his associates worked for The Livelihood Corporation ARTICLE IX–C: COMELEC, SEC 1: COMPOSITION, QUALIFICATIONS, TERMS
The Bureau of Customs formed a committee which deliberated for the overtime pay to be (LIVECOR), a Government Owned and Controlled Corporation. The three of them are Brillantes v. Yorac (192 SCRA 358, 1990)
endowed to the customs officials in the international point of entries such as international classified as officials. Another GOCC, Human Settlement Development Corporation
ports and international airports, primarily NAIA. Out of the two years deliberations, (HSDC), now known as Strategic Investment and Development Corporation (SIDCOR) FACTS: The Petitioner is challenging the designation by the President of the Philippines
Customs Administrative Order No. 1-2005 (CAO 1-2005) was promulgated thus amending came into trust agreement in which LIVECOR will undertake the task of managing, of Associate Commissioner Haidee Yorac as Acting Chairman of the COMELEC, in place
CAO 7-92. The Board of Airlines Representatives is a group of international airlines administering, disposing and liquidating the corporate assets, projects and accounts of of Chairman Hilario Davide, who had been named chairman of the fact-finding
which has direct flight from all over the world up to Manila; sent a letter to the BOC to the latter. It was deemed that Dimagiba and his associates must transfer to HSDC in commission to investigate the December 1989 coup d’etat attempt. The Petitioner
discuss the proposed rate adjustment that would be embodied in an Amendatory order to efficiently facilitate the management. In the transfer, Dimagiba and his associates contends that the choice of the Acting Chairman of the COMELEC is an internal matter
Customs Administrative Order. The BOC insisted through its discretionary powers that its were given Separation Pay, Gratuity Pay, Last Month Gross Salary, and Service Awards. that should be resolved by the members themselves and the intrusion of the President of
decision is final and executory. BAR filed for a motion for review unto the Court of Such were impeded Atty. Julita Espartero and her legal associates as the Legal Officers the Philippines violates their independence. He then cites the practice in the Supreme
Appeals of LIVECOR. Petitioners pleaded many times to the respondents many times in the Court, where the senior Associate Justice serves as Acting Chief Justice in the absence
course of long time, thus they suffered financially through the course of time. Then, the of the Chief Justice. No designation from the President of the Philippines is necessary.
ISSUES: petitioner filed an administrative case against the respondent’s violation of Section 5 (a),
WoN CAO 1-2005 is valid in ordering the overtime pay customs officials from BAR? Republic Act No. 6713 ISSUE: Whether the designation by the President of the Philippines of Commissioner
Yorac as Acting Chairman of the COMELEC, in the absence of Chairman, valid?
RULING: ISSUE:
Yes. The point of the BOC is to compel the airlines served by the over time working WoN the petitioners are qualified to receive their separation benefits and gratuities? RULING: No. Article IX-C Section 1(2) prohibits the appointment of members in a
customs officials to compensate their extend service in processing the entry or departure temporary or acting capacity. Moreover, Article IX-C Section 1 of the Constitution provides
of shipments and persons in the country. The overtime pay is valid in the aspects as it RULING: for the independence of all Constitutional Commissions. The choice of a temporary
specifically highlights the provisions for food and transportation; essential for the customs Yes. The petitioners have duly complied with the procedures of their separation from chairman falls under the discretion of the Commission and cannot be exercised for it by
official in uplifting their mandate. LIVECOR, earned their right to claim their separation pay and gratuities, thus conceding the President of the Philippines.
to the terms of agreements before their transfer to HSBC. What must be ensured is that
MAIN POINT: they do not receive any forms of indirect compensation from LIVECOR anymore. MAIN POINT: It is expressly stipulated in Article IX-C Section 1(2) that no member can be
Through the Doctrine of Finality, the BOC’s decision on promulgating CAO 1-2005 was appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
affirmed by the Court of Appeals since the doctrine emphasizes that administrative MAIN POINT:
ordinances or promulgations have passed completeness and sufficiency standard test. In preventing double compensation in dual appointments, the designee must let go of his
liabilities from his previous employment. As well concede to the equitable options
provided by the law. CASE NO. 943
CASE NO. 939 ARTICLE IX–C: COMELEC, SEC 1: COMPOSITION, QUALIFICATIONS, TERMS
ARTICLE IX, SECTION 8: Prohibitions; Compensation; Foreign Gift/Office/Title CASE NO. 941 Matibag v. Benipayo (380 SCRA 49)
PEZA V. COA – 675 SCRA 513[2012] ARTICLE IX–C: COMELEC, SEC 1: COMPOSITION, QUALIFICATIONS, TERMS
Cayetano v. Monsod (201 SCRA 210, 1991) FACTS: President GMA appointed, ad interim, Benipayo as COMELEC Chairman, and
Borra and Tuason as COMELEC Commissioners, each for a term of seven years and all
FACTS: expiring on February 2, 2008. Benipayo took his oath of office and assumed the position
of COMELEC Chairman. Borra and Tuason likewise took their oaths of office and recommended that Timbol’s name be removed from the list of nuisance candidates in the
assumed their positions as COMELEC Commissioners. However, they were not It is interesting to note that Hayudini was, in fact, initially excluded by the ERB as a voter. COMELEC’s website and that his COC be given due course. However, the
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on several meetings due to its On November 30, 2012, the ERB issued a certificate confirm in the disapproval of recommendation was never acted upon.
adjournment. Hayudini's petition for registration. This is precisely the reason why he needed to file a
Petition for Inclusion in the Permanent List of Voters in Barangay Bintawlan before the ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in denying Timbol’s petition
ISSUE: Whether the appointments are valid. MCTC. Thus, when he stated in his COC that he is eligible for said office," Hayudini made for inclusion in the list of candidates.
a clear and material misrepresentation as to his eligibility, because he was not, in fact,
RULING: Yes. The ad interim appointments and subsequent renewals of appointments of registered as a voter in Barangay Bintawlan. RULING: Yes. Respondent’s power to motu proprio deny due course to a certificate of
Benipayo, Borra and Tuason do not violate the prohibition on reappointments because candidacy is subject to the candidate’s opportunity to be heard. COMELEC declared
there were no previous appointments that were confirmed by the Commission on MAIN POINT: Under Sec. 74 of the Omnibus Election Code, it is required that a candidate Timbol a nuisance candidate without giving him a chance to explain his bonafide intention
Appointments. A reappointment presupposes a previous confirmed appointment. The must certify under oath that he is eligible for the public office he seeks election. When a to run for office. It issued Resolution No. 9610 when Timbol appeared before Valencia in
same ad interim appointments and renewals of appointments will also not breach the candidate states in his COC that he is a resident of the place where he is seeking to be a clarifcatory hearing. This was an ineffective opportunity to be heard.
seven-year term limit because all the appointments and renewals of appointments of elected, and is eligible for a public office, but it turned out that he was declared to be a
Benipayo, Borra and Tuason are a fixed term expiring on February 2, 2008. Any delay in non-resident thereof in a petition for his inclusion in the list of registered voters, he MAIN POINT: To minimize the logistical confusion caused by nuisance candidates, their
their confirmation will not extend the expiry date of their terms of office. Consequently, commits a false representation pertaining to a material fact in his COC, which is a ground certificates of candidacy may be denied due course or cancelled by respondent. This
there is no danger whatsoever that the renewal of the ad interim appointments of these for the cancellation of his COC. denial or cancellation may be “motu-proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested
three respondents will result in any of the evils intended to be exercised by the twin party, subject to an opportunity to be heard.”
prohibitions in the Constitution. The continuing renewal of the ad interim appointment of CASE NO. 945
these three respondents, for so long as their terms of office expire on February 2, 2008, ARTICLE IX–C: COMELEC, SEC 1: COMPOSITION, QUALIFICATIONS, TERMS CASE NO. 947
does not violate the prohibition on reappointments in Article IX-C Section 1(2) of the Naval v. COMELEC (GR No. 207851, July 8, 2014) ARTICLE IX–C: COMELEC, SEC 1: COMPOSITION, QUALIFICATIONS, TERMS
Constitution. Jalover v. Osmena (GR No. 209286, September 23, 2014)
FACTS: Naval had served as member of the Sanggunian, 2nd District of Cam Sur. On
MAIN POINT: Chairman and Commissioners of COMELEC are not subject to re- October 12, 2009, RA 9716 was approved, reapportioning the legislative district of FACTS: Osmeña filed his COC for the position of Mayor in Toledo City, Cebu. In his
appointment. Ad interim appointments are permanent. Province of Cam Sur. In the 2010 elections, Naval once again won as among the COC, Osmeña indicated that he had been a resident of Toledo City for fifteen (15) years
members of the Sanggunian, Third District. He served until 2013. In the 2013 elections, prior to the May 2013 elections. Before running for the mayoralty position, Osmeña also
CASE NO. 944 Naval ran anewand was re-elected as Member of the Sanggunian, Third District. Julia served as the representative of the 3rd Congressional District of the Province of Cebu
ARTICLE IX–C: COMELEC, SEC 1: COMPOSITION, QUALIFICATIONS, TERMS was likewise a Sanggunian Member candidate from the Third District in the 2013 from 1995-1998, that incidentally includes the City of Toledo. Soon thereafter, the
Hayudini v. COMELEC (GR No. 207900, 723 SCRA 223, April 22, 2014) elections. On October 29, 2012, he invoked Section 7810 of the Omnibus Election Code petitioners filed before the COMELEC a "Petition to Deny Due Course and to Cancel COC
(OEC) and filed before the COMELEC a Verified Petition to Deny Due Course or to cancel and to disqualify a Candidate for Possessing Some Grounds for Disqualification.
FACTS: A COC is filed by Hayudini for the position of Municipal Mayor of South Ubian, the COC of Naval. Julia posited that Naval had fully served the entire Province of
Tawi-Tawi in May 2013 Elections. 10 days after, Omar filed a petition to cancel his COC, Camarines Sur for three consecutive terms as a member of the Sanggunian, irrespective ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion on dismissing the
asserting that he should be disqualified for making false representation regarding his of the district he had been elected from. The three-term limit rules’ application is more petition.
residence, claiming that Hayudini declared in his COC that he is a resident of the with reference to the same local elective post, and not necessarily in connection with an
Municipality of South Ubian when in fact, he resides in Zamboanga City. Hayudini then, identical territorial jurisdiction. Allowing Naval to run as a Sanggunian member for the RULING: No. We held that the misrepresentation that Section 78 addresses cannot be
filed a petition for Inclusion in the Permanent List of Voters in Barangay Bintawlan, South fourth time is violative of the inflexible three-term limit rule enshrined in the Constitution the result of a mere innocuous mistake, and cannot exist in a situation where the intent to
Ubian before the MCTC, thus, petition was granted. The case was then elevated to and the LGC, which must be strictly construed. deceive is patently absent, or where no deception of the electorate results. The deliberate
Bongao RTC and it reversed the MCTC ruling and ordered the deletion of his name in character of the misrepresentation necessarily follows from a consideration of the
Barangay Bintawlan's permanent list of voters. Omar, then, filed before the COMELEC a ISSUE: Whether Naval’s Certificate of Candidacy is violative of the Constitution. consequences of any material falsity: a candidate who falsifies a material fact cannot run
petition to cancel the COC of Hayudini by virtue of a Supervening Event on March 26, (Mitra v. COMELEC). To establish a new domicile of choice, personal presence in the
2013. Hayudini appealed the March 8, 2013 RTC decision to the CA but was denied. On RULING: Yes. A republic is a representative government, a government run by and for place must be coupled with conduct indicative of this intention. It requires not only such
May 13, 2013, Hayudini won the mayoralty race in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi. He was the people. It is not a pure democracy where the people govern themselves directly. The bodily presence in that place but also a declared and probable intent to make it one’s
proclaimed and took his oath of office. On June 20, 2013, the COMELEC Second Division essence of republicanism is representation and renovation, the selection by the citizenry fixed and permanent place of abode. The critical issue, however, pertains to Osmeña’s
issued a Resolution granting Omar’s second petition to cancel Hayudini's COC. Hayudini of a corps of public functionaries who derive their mandate from the people and act on bodily presence in Toledo City and the declaration he made in his COC on this point. The
filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc, arguing that its Second their behalf, serving for a limited period only, after which they are replaced or retained, at petitioners claim that Osmeña was only seen in Toledo City in the month of September
Division committed grave error when it gave due course to a belatedly filed petition and the option of their principal. RA.No. 9716 plainly state that the new Second District is to be 2012 to conduct political meetings. They also stress that the dilapidated property in Ibo,
treated the March 8, 2013 RTC Decision as a supervening event. The COMELEC En created, but the Third District is to be renamed. The rationale behind reapportionment is Toledo City is not even owned by Osmeña, and is not in keeping with the latter’s stature
Banc denied Hayudini’s Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit and declared Omar the constitutional requirement to achieve equality of representation among the districts. It — a former Senator and a member of a political clan. Osmeña, meanwhile submitted
as the Mayor. is with this mindset that the Court should consider Naval’s argument anent having a new photographs of the Ibo, Toledo City property, and various affidavits confirming his
set of constituents electing him into office in 2010 and 2013. Naval’s ineligibility to run, by residence for more than one year in Toledo City. Under that contradictory evidence, we
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Omar reason of violation of the three-term limit rule, does not undermine the right to equal find that the COMELEC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in upholding the
as the duly-elected mayor. representation of any of the districts in Camarines Sur. With or without him, the renamed residency of Osmeña.
Third District, which he labels as a new set of constituents, would still be represented,
RULING: No. If the disqualification or COC cancellation or denial case is not resolved albeit by another eligible person. MAIN POINT: To successfully challenge a winning candidate’s qualifications, the
before the Election Day, the proceedings shall continue even after the election and the petitioner must clearly demonstrate that the ineligibility antagonistic to constitutional and
proclamation of the winner. Meanwhile, the candidate may be voted for and even be MAIN POINT: A provincial member cannot be elected and serve for more than three legal principles that overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the apparent
proclaimed as the winner, but the COMELEC's jurisdiction to deny due course and cancel consecutive terms. will of the people would ultimately create greater prejudice to the very democratic
his or her COC continues. institutions and juristic traditions that our Constitution and laws so zealously protect and
CASE NO. 946 promote.
A statement in a COC claiming that a candidate is eligible to run for public office when in ARTICLE IX–C: COMELEC, SEC 1: COMPOSITION, QUALIFICATIONS, TERMS CASE NO. 948
truth, he is not, is a false material representation which is a ground for a petition. Sec. 74: Timbol v. COMELEC (GR No. 206004, February 24, 2015) ARTICLE IX–C: COMELEC, SEC 2: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS
Contents of COC. The COC shall state that the person filing, is announcing his candidacy Alfiado v. COMELEC (GR No. 141787, September 18, 2000)
for the office stated therein and that he is eligible for said office; x x x civil status; his date FACTS: Timbol filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Member of the
of birth; residence; x x x that the obligation imposed by his oath is assumed voluntarily, Sangguniang Panlungsod of the Second District of Caloocan City for the May 13, 2013 FACTS: This case involves a petition asking for the annulment of a resolution calling for
without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that the facts stated in the elections. However, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9610 declaring Timbol a nuisance the recall of the vice-mayor. The barangay officials in a preparatory recall assembly
certificate of candidacy are true to the best of his knowledge. candidate and ordering the removal of his name from the certified list of candidates, and passed this resolution. The proclaimed mayor at that time was the son of the previous
Minute Resolution denying his petition to have his name listed in the certified list of mayor who had already served for 3 consecutive terms. The father ran for a 4th term but
Sec. 78: The false representation mentioned in these provisions must pertain to a material candidates and printed on the ballots for the May 13, 2013 elections. Timbol, together withdrew, and was substituted by the son. The opponent filed a petition asking for the
fact, not to a mere innocuous mistake. A candidate who falsifies a material fact cannot with his counsel, appeared before Election Officer Valencia, pursuant to the Subpeona annulment of the substitution. When the SC ruled that the substitution was invalid, the
run; if he runs and is elected, cannot serve; in both cases, he or she can be prosecuted issued upon him, for a clarificatory hearing. He contended that he was not a nuisance vice-mayor became the mayor.
for violation of the election laws. These facts pertain to a candidate's qualification for candidate, that in fact he placed 8th among all candidates who ran for city councilor of
elective office, such as his or her citizenship and residence. Caloocan City, and that he had sufficient resources to sustain his campaign. Valencia
ISSUE: Whether an elective official who became City Mayor by legal succession can be and consolidation of results of the elections were conducted using the Automated Election with the COMELEC, the verification of such resolution or petition, the fixing of the date of
the subject of a recall election by virtue of a Preparatory Recall Assembly Resolution System. Before petitioner could assume office, the COMELEC promulgated Minute the recall election, and the holding of the election on the scheduled date. However, as
which was passed or adopted when the said elective official was still the Vice-Mayor. Resolution which reads: “To direct the immediate manual recounting of ballots in the used in paragraph (b) of Sec 74, "recall" refers to the election itself by means of which
province of Tawi-Tawi; and to suspend the effects of the proclamation as a logical voters decide whether they should retain their local official or elect his replacement.
RULING: NO. The specific purpose of the preparatory recall assembly was to revive the consequence of the manual counting and that all pleadings filed be made to survive even
vice-mayor. However, the resolution does not apply to the vice-mayor anymore, since she beyond the deadline.” The COMELEC passed the Minute Resolution in connection with a
gave up the office of vice-mayor when she assumed the position of mayor. petition filed by Matba and Abubakar, praying for the immediate manual counting of
ballots, on the allegation that the machines utilized in said province suffered massive and CASE NO. 952
MAIN POINT: Sec. 74: Limitation on Recall - (a) any elective local official may be the total systems breakdown. Petitioner filed certiorari seeking the annulment of COMELEC ARTICLE IX–C: COMELEC, SEC 2: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS
subject of a recall election only once during his term of office for loss of confidence. (b) No Minute Resolution No. 98-1959, likewise prayed for the issuance of a temporary De Guzman v. COMELEC (GR No. 129118, July 19, 2000)
recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the official's assumption to restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the COMELEC from
office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election implementing or executing the assailed Resolution. He contends that he was not notified FACTS: COMELEC reassigned petitioners to other stations pursuant to Section 44 of the
CASE NO. 949 and was not afforded an opportunity to answer the petition, and was thereby denied his Voter’s registration act. The act prohibits election officers from holding office in
ARTICLE IX–C: COMELEC, SEC 2: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS constitutional right to due process, that he was not officially notified of the promulgation by a particular city or municipality for more than 4 years. Petitioners claim that the act
Columbres v. COMELEC (GR No. 142038, September 18, 2000) the COMELEC of Minute Resolution No. 98-1959; and that he only learned of it from violated the equal protection clause because not all election officials were covered by the
newspaper reports. Petitioner submits that COMELEC acted with grave abuse of prohibition. Petitioners contend that RA 8189 Section 44 is unconstitutional as it violates
FACTS: Columbres and Hilario de Guzman, Jr. were candidates for the position of Mayor discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Solicitor General argues that the equal protection clause enshrined in the constitution; that it violates constitutional
of San Jacinto, Pangasinan during the May 1998 elections. Hilario was proclaimed with the questioned resolution was issued in violation of petitioner’s constitutional right to due guarantee on security of civil servants; that it undermines the constitutional independence
4,248 votes as against Columbres’ 4,104 votes. Subsequently, petitioner filed an election process, citing the case of Bince Jr. v. COMELEC “where the Court held that the right to of COMELEC and COMELEC’s constitutional authority; that it contravenes the basic
protest with the RTC; contested 42 precincts and prayed for the revision of ballots in the public office is a right protected by the due process clause, and the COMELEC is without constitutional precept; that it is void for its failure to be read on 3 separate readings.
said precincts. The RTC declared Columbres as the duly elected mayor of San Jacinto, power to partially or totally annul a proclamation or suspend the effects of a proclamation
Pangasinan with 4,037 votes against 3,302 votes of Hilario. Hilario appealed the decision without notice and hearing.” ISSUE: Whether Section 44 of RA 8189 is unconstitutional.
to the respondent COMELEC, thus, the Second Division promulgated its Resolution
reversing and setting aside the decision rendered by the RTC and affirmed the ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion upon issuing the RULING: No, RA 8189 Sec 44 is constitutional. It has not violated the equal protection
proclamation of Hilario. He was declared to have won by 69 votes. Columbres filed a Resolution No. 98-1959 without due process. clause. It is intended to ensure the impartiality of election officials by preventing them from
motion for reconsideration, validating 120 marked ballots in favor of Hilario, despite developing familiarity with the people of their place of assignment. Large-scale anomalies
absence of evidence, to prove that the marks have been placed on the ballots by third RULING: No. The COMELEC, motu proprio, reconsidered its earlier Minute Resolution in the registration of voters cannot be carried out without the complicity of election
persons other than the voters themselves. He likewise moved for a reconsideration of the No. 98-1959, as it was within its power to do, before it became final and executory. officers, who are the highest representatives of COMELEC in a city or municipality.
decision with respect to the 111 ballots found by the trial court to have been written by two COMELEC has the inherent power to amend and control its process and order. Within the
persons, but not so ruled upon by the Second Division, again, in favor of Hilario. Lastly, 30 day period from its promulgation, therefore, the questioned Minute Resolution No. 98- MAIN POINT: The COMELEC has the authority to affect the transfer of election officers.
Columbres claimed that the Second Division erred in totally disregarding his other 1959 was still under the control of the COMELEC and may thus be recalled or set aside.
objections and therefore urged the COMELEC EN BANC to review the findings of the The petition was dismissed because petitioner miserably failed to show that the CASE NO. 953
Second Division. The respondent COMELEC En Banc, in the herein assailed Resolution, promulgation by respondent COMELEC of the assailed Minute Resolution No. 98-1959 ARTICLE IX–C: COMELEC, SEC 2: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS
said: Protestant-appellee alleges that there were 124 ballots which were written by 2 amounted to a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of Social Weather Station Inc. v. COMELEC (GR No. 147571, May 5, 2001)
persons, and as such they should all be annulled. Instead, the Commission annulled only jurisdiction, or that its act was exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of
13 ballots while validating 111 ballots in favor of protestee-appellant Hilario. Movant passion or personal hostility towards petitioner. FACTS: Social Weather Stations (SWS) is an institution conducting surveys
contends that the 13 ballots commonly invalidated by both the COMELEC and the trial in various fields. Kamahalan Publishing Corp., on the other hand, publishes the Manila
court as having been written by two persons were no different from the 111 ballots MAIN POINT: Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing, but simply an Standard which is a newspaper of general circulation and features items of information
validated by the Commission but invalidated by the trial court. "The finding by the opportunity or right to be heard. including election surveys. Both SWS and Kamahalan are contesting the validity and
Commission that the 111 questioned ballots were written by the same person is a finding enforcement of RA. 9006 (Fair Election Act), especially section 5(4) which provides that
of fact that may not be the subject of a motion for reconsideration. Movant protestant- CASE NO. 951 surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published 15
appellee is not challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in this instance but the ARTICLE IX–C: COMELEC, SEC 2: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published 7
appreciation thereof by the Commission." "Movant protestant-appellee contends that Claudio v. COMELEC (GR No. 140560, May 4, 2000) days before the election. SWS wanted to conduct an election survey throughout the
there were 120 ballots erroneously validated by the Commission which were admittedly period of the elections both at the national and local levels and release to the media the
marked. He argues that whenever ballots contain markings very obvious and visible on FACTS: Jovito Claudio was duly elected mayor of Pasay City in the May 11, 1998 results of such survey as well as publish them directly. Kamahalan, for its part, intends to
their faces, the presumption is that the said markings on the ballots were placed thereat elections. Sometime in May 1999, the chairs of several barangays in publish election survey results up to the last day of the elections on May 14, 2001.
by the voter themselves - thus nullifying the said ballots. Stated otherwise, protestant- Pasay City gathered for the purpose of convening the Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA)
appellee argues that the purported markings on the questioned ballots are presumed to and to file a petition for recall against Mayor Claudio for loss of confidence. On May 29, ISSUE: Whether the restriction on the publication of election survey constitutes a prior
have been placed there by the voters themselves and, unless proven otherwise, nullifies 1999, 1,073 members of the PRA composed of barangay Chairs, Kagawads, and restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech without any clear and present danger to
the ballots. Sangguniang Kabataan Chairs of Pasay City, adopted Resolution, recalling Claudio as justify such restraint.
mayor for loss of confidence. The petition for recall was filed on July 2, 1999 and copies
ISSUE: Whether the findings of fact of the COMELEC Division, especially in matters of of the petition were in public care as throughout the City Claudio filed an opposition RULING: Yes. RA No. 9006 Section 5(4) constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of
appreciation of ballots, is absolute and cannot be the subject of a motion for against the petition alleging, among others, that the petition for recall was filed within one freedom of speech, expression, and the press.
reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc. year from his assumption into office and therefore prohibited. He argued that the PRA
was convened within the 1 year prohibited period as provided by Section 74 of the LGC. The power of the COMELEC over media franchises is limited to ensuring equal
RULING: No. What is being challenged is not the sufficiency of evidence but the The COMELEC, however, granted the petition for ruling that recall is a process which opportunity, time, space, and the right to reply, as well as to fix reasonable rates of charge
appreciation thereof by the COMELEC Division. If the appreciation of the Division is starts with the filing of the petition for recall and since the petition was filed exactly one for the use of media facilities for public information and forms among candidates. Here,
erroneous, there is the implication that such finding or ruling is contrary to law and thus, year and a day after Claudio's assumption of office, the petition was filed on time. the prohibition of speech is direct, absolute, and substantial. Nor does this
may be a proper subject of a motion for reconsideration. Thereafter, COMELEC set the date of the recall elections on April 15, 2000. section pass the O’brient test for content related regulation because, it suppresses one
type of expression while allowing other types such as editorials, etc.; and the restriction is
MAIN POINT: Questions involving findings of fact (i.e., sufficiency of evidence) addressed ISSUE: Whether the petition for recall was filed within the proper period provided for by greater than what is needed to protect government
by a COMELEC division is a proper subject of a motion for reconsideration with the Section 74 of the Local Government Code. interest because the interest can be protected by narrower restrictions such as
COMELEC En Banc. subsequent punishment.
RULING: Yes. SC affirmed COMELEC. The limitations in Section 74 apply to the exercise
CASE NO. 950 of the power of recall (the recall election itself) which is vested with the registered voters Note: Justice Kapunan’s dissenting opinion basically says that the test of clear and
ARTICLE IX–C: COMELEC, SEC 2: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS of the LGU. It does not apply to the preparatory processes to such exercise of recall such present danger is inappropriate to use in order to test the validity of this section. Instead,
Sahali v. COMELEC (GR No. 134169, February 2, 2000) as the proceedings of the PRA. he purports to engage in a form of balancing and weighing the circumstances to
determine whether public interest is served by the regulation of the free enjoyment of
FACTS: Petitioner Sahali and Respondent Matba were 2 of the contending gubernatorial MAIN POINT: Recall is a process which begins with the convening of the preparatory the rights. However, he failed to show why, on the balance, the other considerations
candidates in Tawi-Tawi in the elections of May 11, 1998 and Petitioner Sahali was recall assembly or the gathering of the signatures at least 25% of the registered voters of should outweigh the value of freedom of expression.
proclaimed as the duly elected governor. The counting of votes, canvassing of returns a local government unit, and then proceeds to the filing of a recall resolution or petition
MAIN POINT: Section 5(4) is invalid because it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom the AES Contract. Later, the COMELEC issued Resolution resolving to accept appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC under the afore-quoted section. Hence, the
of expression, it is a direct and total suppression of a category of expression even though Smartmatic-TIM’s offer to extend the period to exercise the OTP. The agreement on the decision rendered by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, should have been appealed directly
such suppression is only for a limited period, and the governmental interest sought to be Extension of the OTP under the AES Contract (Extension Agreement) was eventually to the COMELEC and not to the RTC. Accordingly, Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 6679,
promoted can be achieved by means other than suppression of freedom of expression. signed. Finally, it issued Resolution resolving to approve the Deed of Sale between the insofar as it provides that the decision of the municipal or metropolitan court in a barangay
COMELEC and Smartmatic-TIM to purchase the latter’s PCOS machines to be used in election case should be appealed to the RTC, must be declared unconstitutional.
the upcoming elections. The Deed of Sale was forthwith executed.
MAINPOINT: Municipal or Metropolitan Courts being courts of limited jurisdiction, their
CASE NO. 954 ISSUE: Whether assailed resolutions and transactions entered are valid. decisions in barangay election contests are subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction
ARTICLE IX–C: COMELEC, SEC 2: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS of the COMELEC.
Information Technology Foundation v. COMELEC (GR No. 159139, January 13, RULING: Yes. Based on the AES Contract, the Court sustained the parties’ right to
2004) amend the same by extending the option period. Considering that the performance CASE NO. 958
security had not been released to Smartmatic-TIM, the contract was still effective which ARTICLE VIII Election Contest
FACTS: Petitioners were participating bidders questioning the identity and eligibility of the can still be amended by the mutual agreement of the parties, such amendment being Galido v. COMELEC – 193 SCRA 78 [1991]
awarded contractor Mega Pacific Consortium (MPC) where the competing bidder is Mega reduced in writing. To be sure, the option contract is embodied in the AES Contract
Pacific eSolutions, Inc. (MPEI) as signed by Mr. Willy Yu of the latter. Private respondent whereby the COMELEC was given the right to decide whether or not to buy the subject FACTS:
claims that MPEI is the lead partner tied up with other companies like SK C&C, goods listed therein under the terms and conditions also agreed upon by the parties. Galido and private respondent Galeon were candidates during the January 1988 local
WeSolv, Election.com and ePLDT. Respondent COMELEC obtained copies of Clearly, under the AES Contract, the COMELEC was given until December 31, 2010 elections for mayor of Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol. Petitioner was proclaimed the duly-
Memorandum of Agreements and Teaming Agreements. within which to exercise the OTP the subject goods listed therein including the PCOS elected Mayor. Private respondent filed an election protest before the RTC. After hearing,
machines. The option was, however, not exercised within said period. But the parties later the said court upheld the proclamation of petitioner. Private respondent appealed the RTC
ISSUE: Whether there was an existence of a consortium. entered into an extension agreement giving the COMELEC until March 31, 2012 within decision to the COMELEC. Its First Division reversed the RTC decision and declared
which to exercise it. With the extension of the period, the COMELEC validly exercised the private respondent the duly-elected mayor. After the COMELEC en banc denied the
RULING: No. There was no documentary or other basis for COMELEC to conclude that a option and eventually entered into a contract of sale of the subject goods. As the Court petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and affirmed the decision of its First Division. The
consortium had actually been formed amongst MPEI, SK C&C and WeSolv, along simply held in the assailed decision that the moment the performance security is released, COMELEC held that the fifteen (15) ballots in the same precinct containing the initial “C”
with Election.com and ePLDT. The president of MPEI signing for allegedly in behalf of the contract would have ceased to exist. However, since it is without prejudice to the after the name “Galido” were marked ballots and, therefore, invalid.
MPC without any further proof did not by itself prove the existence of the consortium. It surviving provisions of the contract, the warranty provision and the period of the option to
did not show that MPEI or its president have been duly pre-authorized by the other purchase survive even after the release of the performance security. Thus, not only the Undaunted by his previous failed actions the petitioner filed the present petition for
members of the putative consortium to represent them, to bid on their collective behalf option and warranty provisions survive but the entire contract as well. In light of the certiorari and injunction before the Supreme Court and succeeded in getting a temporary
and, more important, to commit them jointly and severally to the bid undertakings. The contractual provisions, the SC sustained the amendment of the option period. restraining order. In his comment to the petition, private respondent moved for dismissal,
letter is purely self-serving and uncorroborated. citing Article IX (C), Section 2(2), paragraph 2 of the 1987 Constitution, that “Final
MAIN POINT: As COMELEC is confronted with time and budget constraints, and in view decisions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC in election contests involving elective
MAIN POINT: The COMELEC may conduct automated election even if there is no pilot of COMELEC’s mandate to ensure free, honest, and credible elections, the acceptance of municipal offices are final and executory, and not appealable.
testing. COMELEC has no authority to use automated counting machines in the 2004 the extension of the option period, the exercise of the option, and the execution of the
Synchronized Elections when the purchase contract was in violation of laws, Deed of Sale, are the more prudent choices available to COMELEC for a successful 2013 ISSUE:
jurisprudence and its bidding rules, and the hardware and software failed to pass legally automated elections. Whether a COMELEC decision may, if it sets aside the trial court’s decision involving
mandated technical requirements. CASE NO. 957 marked ballots, be brought to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari by the
ARTICLE VIII Election Contest aggrieved party.
CASE NO. 955 Flores v. COMELEC – 184 SCRA 484 [1990]
ARTICLE IX–C: COMELEC, SEC 2: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS RULING:
Buac v. COMELEC (421 SCRA 92) Yes. The fact that decisions, final orders or rulings of the COMELEC in contests involving
FACTS: elective municipal and barangay offices are final, executory and not appealable, does not
FACTS: Ma. Salvacion Buac and Antonio Bautista filed a petition questioning Roque Flores was declared by the board of canvassers as having the highest number of preclude a recourse to this Court by way of a special civil action of certiorari. Under Article
COMELEC’s resolution stating that it has no jurisdiction over plebiscite controversies. votes for kagawad on the March 1989 elections, in Barangay Poblacion, Tayum, Abra, IX (A), Section 7 of the Constitution, which petitioner cites, it is stated, “Unless otherwise
COMELEC contends that the rules and regulations it has only covers election protests. and thus proclaimed punong barangay in accordance with Section 5 of R.A. 6679. provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission
The quasi- judicial jurisdiction of the Commission extends to those enumerated in Section However, his election was protested by private respondent Rapisora, who placed 2nd in may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty
2(2). the election with 1 vote less than Flores. MCTC of Tayum sustained Rapisora and days from receipt thereof.” However, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of
installed him as punong barangay in place of Flores after deducting 2 votes as stray from discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering the questioned decision.
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction over controversies involving the conduct the latter’s total. Flores appealed to the RTC, which affirmed the challenged decision in It is settled that the function of a writ of certiorari is to keep an inferior court or tribunal
of plebiscite and the annulment of its result. toto. The judge agreed that the 4 votes cast for “Flores” only, without any distinguishing within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing a grave abuse of
first name or initial, should all have been considered invalid instead of being divided discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
RULING: Yes. The COMELEC has jurisdiction over controversies involving the conduct of equally between the petitioner and Anastacio Flores, another candidate for kagawad. The
plebiscites. One must first look at the nature of the case. Such controversy could not be total credited to Flores was correctly reduced by 2, demoting him to 2nd place. MAINPOINT:
attended by the judiciary because it is not within its jurisdiction to settle such type of Decisions, final orders or rulings of the Commission on Elections in contests involving
controversy. It does not fit the usage of judicial power. If the RTC would be given Flores went to the COMELEC, which dismissed his appeal on the ground that it had no elective municipal and barangay offices are final, executory and not appealable, does not
jurisdiction over such case, there would be a confusion regarding the settlement of justice. power to review the decision of the RTC, based on Section 9 of R.A. 6679, that decisions preclude a recourse to this Court by way of a special civil action of certiorari.
The judiciary, based on the Constitution, has jurisdiction only on elections, returns and of the RTC in a protest appealed to it from the MTC in barangay elections “on questions
qualifications of elected officials. of fact shall be final and non-appealable”. In his petition for certiorari, the COMELEC is
faulted for not taking cognizance of the petitioners appeal. CASE NO. 959
MAIN POINT: The COMELEC has jurisdiction over plebiscite protest cases involving the ARTICLE VIII Election Contest
conversion of a municipality to a city. ISSUE: Mercado v. BES – 243 SCRA 422 [1995]
Whether the decisions of Municipal or Metropolitan Courts in barangay election contests
CASE NO. 956 are subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC considering Section 9 FACTS:
ARTICLE IX–C: COMELEC, SEC 2: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS of R.A. No. 6679? The petitioner contends that COMELEC Resolution No. 2499 is illegal and
Capalla v. COMELEC (673 SCRA 1, 2012) unconstitutional because it makes the BES the final arbiter of election contests involving
RULING: The dismissal of the appeal is justified, but on an entirely different and more the SK in contravention of Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code which vests in the
FACTS: The COMELEC and Smartmatic-TIM entered into a Contract for the Provision of significant ground, to wit, Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of the Constitution, providing that the proper metropolitan or municipal trial court original jurisdiction over such contests and, on
an Automated Election System for the May 10, 2010 Elections. AES Contract is a COMELEC shall “Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the a more fundamental ground, in contravention of Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution
Contract of Lease with Option to Purchase (OTP) the goods listed therein consisting of elections, returns and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, which lodges on such courts exclusive original jurisdiction over contests involving elective
the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS), both software and hardware. The COMELEC and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by barangay officials.
opted not to exercise the same except for 920 units of PCOS machines. The COMELEC trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial
issued Resolution resolving to seriously consider exercising the OTP subject to certain courts of limited jurisdiction”. Municipal or Metropolitan Courts being courts of limited ISSUE:
conditions. It issued another Resolution resolving to exercise the OTP in accordance with jurisdiction, their decisions in barangay election contests are subject to the exclusive Whether COMELEC Resolution No. 2499 is illegal and unconstitutional
 People v. Delgado – 189 SCRA 715 [1990] Whether the case is cognizable only by the COMELEC under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the 1987
Constitution.
RULING:
No. Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code and that portion of paragraph (2), Section FACTS: RULING:
2, Article IX-C of the Constitution on the COMELEC's exclusive appellate jurisdiction over Receiving a report-complaint for an alleged violation of the Omnibus Election Code. A No. Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the 1987 Constitution is inapplicable as there was no case or
contests involving elective barangay officials refer to the elective barangay officials under preliminary investigation was conducted by Election Supervisor and he submitted a report matter filed before the COMELEC. The "case" or "matter" referred to by the constitution
the pertinent laws in force at the time the Omnibus Election Code was enacted and upon finding a prima facie case and recommending the filing of an information. COMELEC en must be something within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC, i.e., must pertain to an
the ratification of the Constitution. That law was B.P. Blg. 337, otherwise known as the banc, in a minute resolution, resolved to file the information against the private election dispute. The settled rule is that "decision, rulings, order" of the COMELEC that
Local Government Code, and the elective barangay officials referred to were the punong respondents as recommended. 15 informations were filed against each of private may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Sec. 7, Art. IX-A are those
barangay and the six sangguniang bayan members. They were to be elected by those respondents in the RTC. Respondents filed motions for reconsiderations and the relate to the COMELEC’s exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers involving
qualified to exercise the right of suffrage. They are also the same officers referred to by suspension of the warrant of arrest with the court on the ground that no preliminary "elective regional, provincial and city officials." In this case, what is being assailed is the
the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines on election of barangay investigation was conducted. An order was issued by respondent court directing the COMELEC’s choice of an appointee to occupy the Gutalac Post which is an
officials. Metropolitan and municipal trial courts had exclusive original jurisdiction over COMELEC to conduct a reinvestigation of said cases. COMELEC Prosecutor filed a administrative duty done for the operational set-up of an agency. The controversy
contests relating to their election. The decisions of these courts were appealable to the motion for reconsideration and opposition to the motion for reinvestigation alleging therein involves an appointive, not an elective, official.
Regional Trial Courts. that it is only the Supreme Court that may review the decisions, orders, rulings and
resolutions of the COMELEC. This was denied. Respondents contend that since the MAINPOINT:
MAINPOINT: cases were filed in court by the COMELEC as a public prosecutor, and not in the exercise The "case" or "matter" referred to by the constitution that may be brought to the Supreme
Election contests involving SK officials do not fall within Section 252 of the OEC and of its power to decide election contests, the trial court has authority to order a Court on certiorari under Sec. 7, Art. IX-A are those relate to the COMELEC’s exercise of
paragraph 2, Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution. In addition to this, no law prior to reinvestigation. its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers involving "elective regional, provincial and city
the ratification of the present Constitution makes the SK Chairperson an elective officials."
barangay official. Although the SK Chairperson is an ex-officio member of the ISSUE:
sangguniang barangay, this does not automatically make him/her an elective barangay Whether or not the respondent Court has the power or authority to order the COMELEC
official. to conduct a reinvestigation of Criminal Cases. CASE NO. 963
CASE NO. 960 ARTICLE VIII Election Contest
ARTICLE VIII Election Contest RULING: Zarate v. Comelec and Lallave – GR 129096, November 19, 1999
Relampagos v. Cumba – 243 SCRA 690 [1995] Yes, the court has the power to order COMELEC to reinvestigate Under Section 2(6), of
Article IX-C of the Constitution, the COMELEC may "investigate and, where appropriate, FACTS:
FACTS: prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting
In the synchronized elections of May 11, 1992, the petitioner and private election frauds, offenses and malpractices." Under Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Julian Lallave, Jr. won the 1996 SK Elections of Brgy Ican, Malasiqui,
respondent were candidates for the position of Mayor in the municipality of Magallanes, Code, the COMELEC, through its duly authorized legal officers, "have the exclusive Pangasinan, garnering a total of 46 votes over Marivic Zarate who garnered 45 votes.
Agusan del Norte. The latter was proclaimed the winning candidate. Unwilling to accept power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Unsatisfied with the proclamation by the Barangay Board of Canvassers, Zarate filed an
defeat, the petitioner filed an election protest with the RTC of Agusan del Norte. On June Code, and to prosecute the same." Section 268 of the same Code provides that: "The election protest before the Municipal Trial Court stating that three or more votes that read
29, 1994, the trial court, per Judge Rosario F. Dabalos, found the petitioner to have won regional trial courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal “JL” should not have been credited in favor of Lallave. Zarate further stated that the votes
with a margin of six votes over the private respondent and rendered judgement in favor of action or proceedings for violation of this Code, except those relating to the offense of bearing “JL” were stray votes and that there was no candidate with the name or nickname
the petitioner. failure to register or failure to vote which shall be under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of “JL”. The Municipal Trial Court rendered it decision in favor of petitioner Zarate,
or municipal trial courts.Thus, when the COMELEC, through its duly authorized law declaring 8 of the original 46 votes invalid.
The private respondent appealed the decision to the COMELEC which was officer, conducts the preliminary investigation of an election offense and upon a prima Lallave appealed to the Commission on Elections theorizing that the votes reading “JL”
later on given a due course by the trial court. The petitioner then filed with the trial court a facie finding of a probable cause, files the information in the proper court, said court should be credited in his favour considering that such initials sufficiently identify him as
motion for execution pending appeal. The trial court granted the petitioner's motion for thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, all the subsequent disposition the candidate and that the votes bearing “Julian, Jr de Real”, “Notno Lallave”, and “Nono
execution pending appeal despite the opposition of the private respondent. The of said case must be subject to the approval of the court. de Real” should have been credited as well being his nickname and middlename,
corresponding writ of execution was forthwith issued. Thereafter, the private respondent respectively. The appeal by Lallave was not referred to a division of the Commission but
filed a motion for a reconsideration which was later on denied. The private respondent MAINPOINT: was, instead, submitted to the Commission en banc.The COMELEC en banc annulled the
then filed with the respondent COMELEC a petition for certiorari to annul the aforesaid The COMELEC cannot conduct a reinvestigation of the case without the authority of the decision of the Municipal Trial Court and declared Lallave as the elected SK chairman.
order of the trial court granting the motion for execution pending appeal and the writ of court or unless so ordered by the court.
execution. The COMELEC granted the petition on February 9, 1995, ordering the CASE NO. 962 ISSUE:
petitioner Rosita Cumba is ordered restored to her position as Municipality Mayor of ARTICLE VIII Election Contest Whether or not the Commission on Elections committed a grave abuse of discretion
Magallanes, Agusan del Norte, upholding its exclusive authority to decide petitions for Garces v. Court of Appeals, 259 SCRA 99 [1996] amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction?
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus where the COMELEC maintains that there is a
special law granting it such jurisdiction Section 50 of B.P. Blg. 697, which remains in full FACTS: RULING:
force as it was not expressly repealed by the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) Garces was appointed Election Registrar of Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte to replace Yes. The COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction without first referring the case to
respondent Election Registrar Claudio Concepcion, who, in turn, was transferred to Liloy, any of its division. The petition for annulling the COMELEC’s decision was granted and
ISSUE: Zamboanga del Norte. Correspondingly approved by the Civil Service Commission, both was set aside. The Commission was ordered to assign the case to a division. The
Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions for, certiorari, prohibition, and appointments were to take effect upon assumption of office. Concepcion, however, recourse of respondent Lallave transgressed Section 3 Article IX of the Constitution which
mandamus in election cases where it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. refused to transfer post as he did not request for it. Garces, on the other hand, was provides that “...election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that
directed by the Office of Assistant Director for Operations to assume the Gutalac post. motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.”
RULING: But she was not able to do so because of a Memorandum issued by respondent
Yes. The Court in concluding that the aforesaid last paragraph of Section 50 of B.P. 697 Provincial Election Supervisor Salvador Empeynado that prohibited her from assuming
has not been repealed by the Omnibus Election Code, held that the COMELEC has the office in Gutalac as the same is not vacant. She was directed by the same Office of MAINPOINT:
authority to issue the extraordinary writs for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only in Assistant Director to defer her assumption of the Gutalac post. Meanwhile, since Election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, and all such cases must first be
aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Hence, the trial court acted with palpable and whimsical respondent Concepcion continued occupying the Gutalac office, the COMELEC en banc heard and decided by a Division of COMELEC. COMELEC, sitting En Banc, does not
abuse of discretion in granting the petitioner’s motion for execution pending appeal and in cancelled his appointment to Liloy. Garces filed before the RTC a petition for mandamus have the authority to hear and decide the same at the first instance.
issuing the writ of execution. Any motion for execution pending appeal must be filed with preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction and damages against Empeynado
before the period for the perfection of the appeal. Since the motion for execution pending and Concepcion but the COMELEC en banc through a Resolution resolved to recognize CASE NO. 964
appeal was filed only on 12 July 1994, or after the perfection of the appeal, the trial court respondent Concepcion as the Election Registrar of Gutalac and ordered that the ARTICLE VIII Election Contest
could no longer validly act thereon. appointments of Garces to Gutalac and of Concepcion to Liloy be cancelled. Empeynado Regalado v. CA, GR 115962, February 15, 2000
moved to dismiss the petition for mandamus alleging that the same was rendered moot
MAINPOINT: and academic by the said COMELEC Resolution, and that the case is cognizable only by FACTS:
The COMELEC has the authority to issue the extraordinary writs for certiorari, prohibition the COMELEC under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner Dominador Regalado, Jr. was found guilty of violating §261(h) of the Batas
and mandamus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) when he illegally transfer Editha P. Barba,
CASE NO. 961 ISSUE: a permanent Nursing Attendant, Grade I, in the Office of the [M]ayor of Tanjay, from her
ARTICLE VIII Election Contest permanent assignment to a very remote Barangay of Sto. Niño during the election period
and without obtaining prior permission or clearance from the Commission on Elections, ARTICLE VIII Election Contest
Manila. Petitioner's brother won in the elections. Four days later, petitioner, still sitting as Tan v. Comelec, GR 148575, Dec. 10, 2003 ISSUE Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in issuing Resolution No.
OIC-Mayor, issued a memorandum to Barba informing her that effective January 25, 5363.
1988, she would be reassigned from Poblacion, Tanjay to Barangay Sto. Niño,4 about 25 FACTS:
kilometers from Poblacion. The transfer was made without the prior approval of the Petitioner, as incumbent City Prosecutor of Davao City, was designated by the RULING:
COMELEC. Petitioner contends that memorandum did not effect a transfer, but merely a Commission on Elections ("COMELEC") as Vice-Chairman of the City Board of No. The Commission may not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due course
"re-assignment" of private respondent. Canvassers of Davao City for the 11th May 1992 synchronized national and local to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form. When a candidate files his
elections conformably with... the provisions of Section 20(a) of Republic Act No. 6646 and certificate of candidacy, the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge
ISSUE: Section 221(b) of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881). Private respondent its receipt. This is provided in Sec. 76 of the Omnibus Election Code.The Court has ruled
Whether the memorandum did not effect a transfer, but merely a "re-assignment" of Alterado, himself a candidate for the position, filed a number of cases questioning the that the Commission has no discretion to give or not to give due course to petitioner’s
private respondent. validity of the proclamation of Manuel Garcia and accusing the members of the City Board certificate of candidacy.The duty of the COMELEC to give due course to certificates of
of Canvassers of "unlawful, erroneous, incomplete and irregular canvass." Still pending is candidacy filed in due form is ministerial in character. While the Commission may look
RULING: an administrative charge, the case now before us, instituted in the COMELEC against the into patent defects in the certificates, it may not go into matters not appearing on their
No. A transfer under Sec. 24(c) of P.D. No. 807 in fact includes personnel movement from City Board of Canvassers, including herein petitioner,... for "Misconduct, Neglect of Duty, face. The question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate is thus beyond the usual and
one organizational unit to another in the same department or agency. Moreover, Sec. Gross, Incompetence and Acts Inimical to the Service." Petitioner moved to dismiss the proper cognizance of said body.
261(h) of B.P. No. 881, as amended, provides that it is an election offense for — administrative complaint against him for alleged lack of jurisdiction of the COMELEC
Any public official who makes or causes any transfer or detail whatever of any officer or thereover, he being under the Executive Department of the government. The COMELEC MAINPOINT:
employee in the civil service including public school teachers, within the election period denied petitioner's motion to dismiss. COMELEC canceling one’s certificate of candidacy without proper proceedings, are
except upon prior approval of the Commission. As the Solicitor General notes, "the word tainted with grave abuse of discretion and therefore void.
transfer or detail, as used [above], is modified by the word whatever. This indicates that ISSUE:
any movement of personnel from one station to another, whether or not in the same office Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss CASE NO. 968
or agency, during the election is covered by the prohibition. ARTICLE VIII Powers Not Given
RULING: Deputizing Law Enforcement Agencies
MAINPOINT: Reassignment of personnel within the election period without the prior No. The COMELEC's authority under Section 2(6-8), Article IX, of the Constitution is People v. Basilla – 179 SCRA 87[1989]
approval of the COMELEC is an election offense since this amounts to a transfer which is virtually all-encompassing when it comes to election matters. The administrative case
a prohibited activity. against Tan, taken cognizance of by, and still pending with, the COMELEC, is in relation FACTS:
to the performance of his duties as an election canvasser and not as a city prosecutor. As an aftermath of the May 1987 congressional elections in Masbate, complaints for
CASE NO. 965 The COMELEC's mandate includes its authority to exercise direct and immediate violations of Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP Blg. 881) were filed with the
ARTICLE VIII Election Contest supervision and control over national and local officials or employees, including members Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Masbate against the private respondents as follows:
Faelnar v. People GR 140850-51, May 4, 2000 of any national or local law enforcement agency and instrumentality of the government, Jaime and Adoracion Tayong for vote-buying; Salvacion Colambot also for vote buying;
required by law to perform duties relative to the conduct of elections. In order to help and against Melchor Yanson — for carrying of deadly weapon.
FACTS: ensure that such duly deputized officials and employees of government carry out their After preliminary investigation of the foregoing complaints, the Provincial Fiscal of
Petitioner Eugenio Faelnar filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of respective assigned tasks, the law has also provided than upon the COMELEC's Masbate filed in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Cataingan, MasbateIn three (3)
Barangay Chairman of Barangay Guadalupe, Cebu City in the May 12, 1997 barangay recommendation, the corresponding proper authority (the Secretary of the Department of separate orders respondent Judge Henry Basilla motu proprio dismissed the three (3)
elections. The following day, a basketball tournament, dubbed the "2nd JING-JING Justice in the case at bar) shall take appropriate action, either to suspend or remove from informations filed by the Provincial Fiscal because the complaint was with the fiscal and
FAELNAR'S CUP," opened at the Guadalupe Sports Complex and lasted up to April 30, office the officer or employee who may, after due process, be found guilty of violation of not with the COMELEC. The COMELEC did not investigate the case. The People moved
1997. This gave rise to a complaint for electioneering filed against petitioner and Cecilio election laws or failure to comply with instructions, orders, decision or rulings of the for reconsideration of respondent Judge's orders, without success.
Gillamac by Antonio Luy. The complaint alleged that the basketball tournament was COMELEC.
actually a campaign gimmick staged outside the campaign period which officially started ISSUE:
on May 1, 1997, in violation of the Omnibus Election Code. Luy alleged that: (1) during MAINPOINT: The power of COMELEC over deputized officers under Sec. 2 (6) of Article Whether the judge erred in dismissing the case on the ground that prosecuting offenses is
the tournament, a streamer bearing petitioner's name was placed on the facade of the IX covers not just criminal cases but also administrative cases. within the exclusive jurisdiction of COMELEC.
Guadalupe Sports Complex; (2) petitioner's name was repeatedly mentioned over the
microphone during the games; (3) the tournament was widely published in the local RULING:
newspaper; and (4) a raffle sponsored by Cecilio Gillamac was held with home appliances Yes. We note that while Section 265 of the Code vests "exclusive power" to conduct
given away as prizes. Petitioner denied participation in the tournament and claimed that preliminary investigation of election offenses and to prosecute the same upon the
its major sponsor was Gillamac Marketing, Inc. He contended that the same was purely a CASE NO. 967 Comelec, it at the same time authorizes the Comelec to avail itself of the assistance of
sporting event for the benefit of the youth. ARTICLE VIII Election Contest other prosecuting arms of the Government. Section 2 of Article IX-C of the 1 987
In its Resolution No. 97-3040, dated September 16, 1997, the COMELEC en Alauya v. Comelec, GR 158830, August 10, 2004 Constitution clearly envisage that the Comelec would not be compelled to carry out all its
banc resolved to dismiss the case. However, on motion of Antonio Luy, the COMELEC functions directly and by itself alone: (4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the President,
reconsidered its action and ordered the filing of the necessary Informations against law enforcementi agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, including the Armed
petitioner and Gillamac. Petitioner reiterates his argument in the trial court that COMELEC FACTS: Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free orderly, honest,
Resolution No. 97-3040, which dismissed the complaint against him, can no longer be Ellan Marie P. Cipriano, the duly elected SK Chairman of Barangay 38, Pasay peaceful, and credible elections. The concurrence of the President with the deputation by
reconsidered by the COMELEC. He contends that under the Rules of Procedure of the City, whose certificate of candidacy was cancelled by the COMELEC motu proprio on the Comelec of the prosecuting arms of the Government, was expressed in general terms
COMELEC, the dismissal of the complaint was immediately final and executory. ground that she was not a registered voter in the barangay where she intended to run. On and in advance in Executive Order No. 134. dated 27 February 1987, entitled "Enabling
the date of the elections, July 15, 2002, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 5363 Act for the Elections for members of Congress on May 11, 1987, and for other purposes.
ISSUE: adopting the recommendation of the Commission’s Law Department to deny due course
Whether the Comelec can reconsider cases which have been already dismissed. to or cancel the certificates of candidacy of several candidates for the SK elections, MAINPOINT:
RULING: including petitioners. The acts of such deputies within the lawful scope of their delegated authority are, in legal
Yes. 1988 COMELEC Rules of Procedure has already been amended. The 1993 Rules of Petitioner, after learning of Resolution No. 5363, filed with the COMELEC a contemplation, the acts of the Comelec itself. The only limitation the Constitution itself
Procedure, now provides: Rule 13. — Prohibited Pleadings. Sec. 1. What pleadings are motion for reconsideration of said resolution. She argued that a certificate of candidacy places upon the Comelec's authority over its deputies relates to the enforcement of such
not allowed. — The following pleadings are not allowed: xxx (d) motion for reconsideration may only be denied due course or cancelled via an appropriate petition filed by any authority through administrative sanctions. Such sanctions-e.g., suspension or removal-
of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or decision except in election offense cases. Here, registered candidate for the same position under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election may be recommended by the Comelec to the President (Sec. 2 [8], Article IX-C, 1987
there is no question that what is involved is a resolution of the COMELEC en banc in an Code in relation to Sections 5 and 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6646 and the COMELEC Constitution) rather than directly imposed by the Comelec, evidently, to pre-empt and
election offense. Hence, a motion for reconsideration of such resolution is allowed under cannot, by itself, deny due course to or cancel one’s certificate of candidacy. Petitioner avoid potential difficulties with the executive department of the Government where the
the Rules of Procedure of the COMELEC. also claimed that she was denied due process when her certificate of candidacy was prosecution and other officers deputized are ordinarily located.
MAINPOINT: cancelled by the Commission without notice and hearing. Petitioner further argued that
A motion for reconsideration of a ruling, resolution or decision of the COMELEC en banc the COMELEC en banc did not have jurisdiction to act on the cancellation of her CASE NO. 969
is allowed in cases involving election offenses. certificate of candidacy on the first instance because it is the Division of the Commission ARTICLE VIII Registration of Parties and Organization
that has authority to decide election-related cases, including pre-proclamation LDP v. Comelec, GR 161265, February 24, 2004
controversies. Finally, she contended that she may only be removed by a petition for quo
CASE NO. 966 warranto after her proclamation as duly-elected SK Chairman. FACTS:
The General Counsel of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), a registered political of its functions under Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, the same cannot be said Code.
party, informed the COMELEC by way of Manifestation that only the Party Chairman, of the issue pertaining to Atienza, et al.’s expulsion from the LP. Such expulsion is for the Respondent court issued a warrant of arrest and fixed a bail at five thousand pesos (P 5,
Senator Edgardo J. Angara, or his authorized representative may endorse the certificate moment an issue of party membership and discipline, in which the COMELEC cannot 000) as recomended by the Provincial Election Supervisor. However, before the accused
of candidacy of the party’s official candidates. The same Manifestation stated that Sen. intervene, given the limited scope of its power over political parties. could be arrested, the trial court set aside its decision on the ground that the Provincial
Angara had placed the LDP Secretary General, Representative Agapito A. Aquino, on Election Supervisor is not authorized to determine probable cause pursuant to Sec. 2 Art.
"indefinite forced leave." In the meantime, Ambassador Enrique A. Zaldivar was MAINPOINT: III of the 1987 Constitution.In another order dated November 22, 1988, the court gave
designated Acting Secretary General. However, Rep. Aquino filed his Comment, The COMELEC’s jurisdiction over intra-party disputes is limited. It does not have blanket Provincial Election Supervisor fifteen (15) days from receipt to file another information
contending that the Party Chairman does not have the authority to impose disciplinary authority to resolve any and all controversies involving political parties. Political parties charging the same offense with the written approval of the Provincial Fiscal. Upon failure
sanctions on the Secretary General. As the Manifestation filed by the LDP General are generally free to conduct their activities without interference from the state. The to comply with the order, the information was quashed. Hence, this petition.
Counsel has no basis, Rep. Aquino asked the COMELEC to disregard the same. COMELEC may intervene in disputes internal to a party only when necessary to the
discharge of its constitutional functions. ISSUE:
ISSUE: Does a preliminary investigation conducted by a Provincial Election Supervisor involving
Whether the ascertainment of the identity of political party and its officers within election offenses have to be coursed through the Provincial Fiscal now Provincial
COMELEC jurisdiction. CASE NO. 971 Prosecutor, before the Regional Trial Court may take cognizance of the investigation and
ARTICLE VIII Registration of Parties and Organization determine whether or not probable cause exists?
RULING: Lokin v. COMELEC – 674 SCRA 538[2012]
Yes. The court ruled that the COMELEC correctly stated that "the ascertainment of the RULING:
identity of [a] political party and its legitimate officers" is a matter that is well within its FACTS: No. Article IX C Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution mandates the COMELEC not only to
authority. The source of this authority is no other than the fundamental law itself, which COMELEC issued resolution giving due course to CIBAC’s manifestation of intent to investigate but also to prosecute cases of violation of election laws. This means that the
vests upon the COMELEC the power and function to enforce and administer all laws and participate in the party-list election. Respondents, President and Chairman Villanueva COMELEC is empowered to conduct preliminary investigations in cases involving election
regulations relative to the conduct of an election. In the exercise of such power and in the submitted the certified Certificate of Nomination of CIBAC to the COMELEC Law offenses for the purpose of helping the Judge determine probable cause and for filing an
discharge of such function, the Commission is endowed with ample "wherewithal" and Department. Pia Derla submitted a 2nd Certificate of Nominees including Lokin, Jr information in court. This power is exclusive with COMELEC.
"considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that will ensure the (petitioner) as party-list nominees as she affixed her signature as “acting secretary- The evident constitutional intendment in bestowing this power to the COMELEC is to
accomplishment of the great objectives for which it was created to promote free, orderly general” of CIBAC.The nomination of petitioners was unauthorized. Respondents filed insure the free, orderly and honest conduct of elections, failure of which would result in
and honest elections." with the COMELEC a “Petition to expunge from the records and/or for disqualification,” the frustration of the true will of the people and make a mere idle ceremony of the sacred
In the case at bar, the Party Chairman, purporting to represent the LDP, contends that seeking to nullify the certificate filed by Derla. Respondents contented that Derla had right and duty of every qualified citizen to vote. To divest the COMELEC of the authority to
under the Party Constitution only he or his representative, to the exclusion of the misrepresented herself as “acting secretary-general”, and not even a member of CIBAC. investigate and prosecute offenses committed by public officials in relation to their office
Secretary General, has the authority to endorse and sign party nominations. The Resolution filed by the COMELEC First division granted the petition and ordered the would thus seriously impair its effectiveness in achieving this clear constitutional mandate.
Secretary General vigorously disputes this claim and maintains his own authority. Clearly, Certificate filed by Derla to be expunge fromthe records, and declared respondents’ group MAINPOINT: The Provincial Fiscal, as such, assumes no role in the prosecution of
the question of party identity or leadership has to be resolved if the COMELEC is to as the true nominees of CIBAC. COMELEC en banc affirmed the Division’s findings as election offenses. If the Fiscal or Prosecutor files an information charging an election
ascertain whether the candidates are legitimate party standard bearers or not. the commission reiterated that Derla was unable to prove her authority to file a certificate, offense or prosecutes a violation of election law, it is because he has been deputized by
whereas respondents presented evidence that Villanueva deputized CIBAC secretary to the COMELEC. He does not do so under the sole authority of his office. In the instant
MAINPOINT: submit the Certificate of Nomination pursuant to CIBAC’s Constitution and bylaws. The case, there is no averment or allegation that the respondent Judge is bringing in the
The ascertainment of the identity of [a] political party and its legitimate officers" is a matter COMELEC en bancaffirmed thesaid Resolution, prompting Lokin Jr. (petitioner) to file Provincial Fiscal as a deputy of COMELEC. He wants the Fiscal to "approve" the
that is well within COMELEC’s authority, which vests upon the COMELEC the power and Petition for Certiorari for grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in issuing COMELEC's preliminary investigation.
function to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an the said Resolution. The petitioner wants to be recognized as the legitimate nominees
election. and representative of CIBAC party-list. CASE NO. 973
ARTICLE VIII Prosecution of Election Offenses
CASE NO. 970 ISSUE: Corpus v. Tanodbayan – 149 SCRA 281[1987]
ARTICLE VIII Registration of Parties and Organization Whether the COMELEC erred in granting the Petition for Disqualification and recognizing
Atienza v. COMELEC – 612 SCRA 761 [2010] respondents as the properly authorized nominees of CIBAC party-list.

FACTS: RULING: FACTS:

Drilon, the president of LP announced his party's withdrawal of support for the Yes. Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 provides that No change of names or alteration of the Petitioners are members of the Citizens Election Committee of Caba, La Union in the
administration of PGMA but Atienza, LP Chairman, and a number of party members order of nominees shall be allowed after the same shall have been submitted to the January 30, 1980 elections. Private respondent then sent a letter to the President
denounced Drilon's move claiming that he made the announcement without consulting the COMELEC except in cases where the nominee dies, or withdraws in writing his charging the petitioners with violation of the 1978 Election Code, specifically for
party. nomination, becomes incapacitated in which case the name of the substitute nominee electioneering and/or campaigning inside the voting centers during the election. The
Atienza hosted a party conference to discuss local autonomy and party matters, when shall be placed last in the list. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of COMELEC ordered an investigation and the Regional Election Director recommended its
convened, the party proceeded to declare all positions in the party vacant and elected Representatives who are nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered dismissal. Respondent then withdrew the complaint and stated his intention to refile with
new officers, making Atienza as the new president of LP. Drilon immediately filed a resigned. The COMELEC, despite its role as the implementing arm of the Government in the Tanodbayan. Later on, COMELEC dismissed the case for insufficiency of
petition with the COMELEC to nullify the elections. He claimed that it was illegal the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of evidence.The provincial prosecutor then started the preliminary investigation of a
considering that the party’s electing bodies, the National Executive Council (NECO) and an election has neither the authority nor the license to expand, extend, or add anything to complaint filed by respondent with the tanodbayan. The COMELEC legal assistance
the National Political Council (NAPOLCO), were not properly convened. Drilon also claims the law it seeks to implement thereby. The IRRs the COMELEC issues for that purpose entered its appearance and moved for its dismissal but it was denied. The TANODBAYAN
that the officers of LP were elected to a fixed 3 year term that was yet to end on should always accord with the law to be implemented, and should not override, supplant, asserting exclusive authority to prosecute the case, stated in a letter to the COMELEC
November 2007. COMELEC ruled in favor of Drilon, ordered the holding of a new election or modify the law. Chairman that a lawyer of the COMELEC if not properly deputized as a Tanodbayan
under COMELEC supervision. Subesequently, a meeting installed respondent Manuel A. prosecutor has no authority to conduct preliminary investigations and prosecute offenses
Roxas II (Roxas) as the new LP president. MAINPOINT: committed by COMELEC officials in relation to their office.
Atienza, et al. sought to enjoin Roxas from assuming the presidency of the LP, claiming COMELEC cannot issue implementing rules and regulations (IRRs) that provide a ground
that the NECO assembly which elected him was invalidly convened.The COMELEC for the substitution of a party-list nominee not written in Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941. ISSUE:
observed that this was a membership issue that related to disciplinary action within the Wether the power to investigate, try and prosecute election offenses committed by a
political party. The COMELEC treated it as an internal party matter that was beyond its public officer in relation to his office belongs to the COMELEC not the CFI (now RTC) or
jurisdiction to resolve. CASE NO. 972 the Tanodbayan and the Sandiganbayan.
ARTICLE VIII Prosecution of Election Offenses
ISSUE: People v. Inting – 187 SCRA 788 [1990] RULING:
Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it upheld the NECO Yes. An examination of the provisions of the Constitution and the Election Code of 1978
membership that elected respondent Roxas as LP president. FACTS: reveals the clear intention to place in the COMELEC exclusive jurisdiction to investigate
A Permanent Nursing Attendant filed a complaint against OIC-Mayor with the COMELEC and prosecute election offenses committed by any person, whether private individual or
RULING: for allegedly transferring her to a very remote barangay and without prior permission or public officer or employee, and in the latter instance, irrespective of whether the offense is
No. The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it upheld Roxas’ election as clearance from the COMELEC. After a preliminary investigation by the Provincial Election committed in relation to his official duties or not. In other words, it is the nature of the
LP president but refused to rule on the validity of Atienza, et al.’s expulsion from the party. Supervisor, a prima facie case was found, a criminal case against the OIC-Mayor was offense and not the personality of the offender that matters. As long as the offense is an
While the question of party leadership has implications on the COMELEC’s performance filed with the respondent court for violation of Sec. 261 Par. (h) of the Omnibus Election
election offense jurisdiction over the same rests exclusively with the COMELEC, in view conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses and to prosecute the same” and prosecution of election offenses as an adjunct of its mandate of ensuring a free, orderly,
of its all-embracing power over the conduct of elections. to review the recommendation or resolution of investigating officers. honest, peaceful and credible elections.

MAINPOINT: Petitioner seeks to nullify the Resolution of the Office of the Cavite Provincial Prosecutor MAINPOINT: COMELEC has the authority to avail itself the assistance of other
The Comelec has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate, try and prosecute election offenses in I.S. No. 1-99-1080, for the reason that the respondents-appellants are exempt, under prosecuting arms of the government.
committed by a public officer in relation to his office. Section 28(4) of Republic Act No. 6646, from prosecution for violation of Section 261(a)(b) CASE NO. 977- CHUA
of the Omnibus Election Code. ARTICLE IX-C SECTION 3 ; RECOMENDATORY POWERS ; DECISIONS
CASE NO. 974 PANGILINAN VS COMELEC
ARTICLE VIII Prosecution of Election Offenses ISSUE: FACTS:
COMELEC v. Silva – 286 SCRA 177[1998] Whether the COMELEC exclusive power to prosecute election cases. Pangilinan filed a petition to disqualify Belmonte, compelling the COMELEC to
FACTS: hear and decide the petition for disqualification of private respondent. Petitioner contends
Kimberly Da Silva Cerafica filed her COC for Councilor, City of Taguig for the 2013 RULING: that Section 15 of R.A. 7166 is unconstitutional, insofar as it disallows pre-proclamation
Elections. Her COC stated that she was born on 29 October 1992, or that she will be Under Article IX, Section 2(b) of the Constitution, the petitioner is empowered to controversies in the election of members of the House of Representatives because it
twenty (20) years of age on the day of the elections, in contravention of the requirement investigate and, when appropriate, prosecute election offenses. The grant by the violates Sec. 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution. The petitioner claims that the
that one must be at least twenty-three (23) years of age on the day of the elections as set Constitution to the petitioner of the express power to investigate and prosecute election Constitution vests in the COMELEC the power to hear and decide pre-proclamation
out in Sec. 9 (c) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8487 (Charter of the City of Taguig). As such, offenses is intended to enable the petitioner to assure the people of a fine, orderly, controversies without distinction as to whether the pre-proclamation controversy involves
Kimberly was summoned to a clarificatory hearing due to the age qualification. Instead of honest, peaceful and credible election. Under Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code, the election of Members of the House of Representatives or provincial or local elective
attending the hearing, Kimberly opted to file a sworn Statement of Withdrawal of COC on the petitioner, through its duly authorized legal officers, has the exclusive power to officials. Hence, the petitioner concludes, the phrase "pre-proclamation controversies" in
17 December 2012.3 Simultaneously, Olivia filed her own COC as a substitute of conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under the Omnibus Sec. 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution embraces all pre-proclamation controversies,
Kimberly. Owing to these events, the clarificatory hearing no longer pushed through. Election Code, and to prosecute the same. The petitioner may avail of the assistance of including pre-proclamation controversies involving the election of Members of the House
the prosecuting arms of the government but as held in Margarejo vs. Escoses until of Representatives.
Director Esmeralda Amora-Ladra of the Comelec Law Department recommended the revoked, the continuing authority of the Provincial or City Prosecutors stays.
cancellation of Kimberly’s COC, and consequently, the denial of the substitution of ISSUE:
Kimberly by Olivia. Relying on Comelec Resolution No. 9551,4 Director Amora-Ladra MAINPOINT: Whether COMELEC can hear and decide the petition for disqualification of
opined that it is as if no COC was filed by Kimberly; thus, she cannot be substituted. The power to grant exemptions is vested solely on the petitioner. The exercise of such private respondent
Olivia then filed the present petition for certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of a power should not be interfered with by the trial court. Neither may this Court interfere with
Temporary Restraining Order, Status Quo AnteOrder, and/or Writ of Preliminary the petitioner’s exercise of its discretion in denying or granting exemptions under the law, RULING:
Mandatory Injunction unless the petitioner commits a grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack No, Sec. 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution should be read in relation to
of jurisdiction. Sec. 2, Article IX-C of the same Constitution. The phrase "including pre-proclamation
ISSUE: CASE NO. 976 controversies" used in Sec. 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution should be construed as
Whether the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion on cancelling petitioner’s COC ARTICLE VIII Prosecution of Election Offenses referring only to "pre-proclamation controversies" in election cases that fall within the
and denying substitution. Arroyo v. DOJ – 681 SCRA 181[2012] exclusive original jurisdiction of the COMELEC, i.e., election cases pertaining to the
election of regional, provincial and city officials.
RULING: FACTS:
Yes. Firstly, subject to its authority over nuisance candidates and its power to deny due COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9266 approving the creation of a joint committee with MAIN POINT:
course to or cancel COCs under Sec. 78, Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 881, the Comelec the Department of Justice (DOJ), which shall conduct preliminary investigation on the The aforequoted provision of the Constitution vests in the COMELEC
has the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of COCs. Under the express alleged election offenses and anomalies committed during the 2004 and 2007 elections. "exclusive original jurisdiction over all contest relating to the elections, returns, and
provision of Sec. 77 of B. P. Blg. 881, not just any person, but only "an official candidate The Comelec and the DOJ issued Joint Order No. 001-2011 creating and constituting a qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and city officials." It has no jurisdiction over
of a registered or accredited political party" may be substituted. In the case at bar, Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of
Kimberly was an official nominee of the Liberal Party; thus, she can be validly substituted. electoral fraud and manipulation cases composed of officials from the DOJ and the Representatives. On the other hand, under Sec. 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution,
Moreover, Olivia complied with all of the requirements for a valid substitution. First, there Comelec. In its initial report, the Fact-Finding Team concluded that manipulation of the the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives is the "sole judge of all contests
was a valid withdrawal of Kimberly’s COC after the last day for the filing of COCs; second, results in the May 14, 2007 senatorial elections in the provinces of North and South relating to the election, returns, and qualifications" of its members.
Olivia belongs to and is certified to by the same political party to which Kimberly belongs; Cotabato and Maguindanao were indeed perpetrated. The Fact-Finding Team
and third, Olivia filed her COC not later than mid-day of election day. Moreover, in simply recommended that herein petitioners Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA), et al. to be
relying on the Memorandum of Director Amora Ladra in cancelling Kimberly’s COC and subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage. After the preliminary
denying the latter’s substitution by Olivia, and absent any petition to deny due course to or investigation, the COMELEC en banc adopted a resolution ordering that information/s for CASE NO. 978-CHUA
cancel said COC, the Court finds that the Comelec once more gravely abused its the crime of electoral sabotage be filed against GMA, et al. while that the charges against ARTICLE IX-C SECTION 3 ; RECOMENDATORY POWERS ; DECISIONS
discretion. Jose Miguel Arroyo, among others, should be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. SARMIENTO V. COMELEC
Consequently, GMA, et al. assail the validity of the creation of COMELEC-DOJ Joint FACTS:
MAINPOINT: Panel and of Joint Order No. 001-2011 before the Supreme Court. Petitioners impugn the challenged resolutions: granting the appeal from the
Comelec, inthe exercise of it adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, the Constitution27 ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Virac, Catanduanes which ordered the
mandates it to hear and decide cases first by Division and, upon motion for ISSUE: exclusion from the canvass of one (1) election return, reversing the ruling of the City
reconsideration, by the En Banc, Whether or not the creation of COMELEC-DOJ Joint Panel is valid? Board of Canvassers of Iriga City which ordered the exclusion from the canvass of six (6)
CASE NO. 975 election returns, dismissing the appeal of petitioner from the ruling of the Provincial Board
ARTICLE VIII Prosecution of Election Offenses RULING: of Canvassers of Catanduanes which ordered the inclusion in the canvass the certificate
Comelec v. Hon. Espanol, GR 149164, Dec. 10, 2003 Yes. Section 2, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution enumerates the powers and of canvass for the municipality of Virac, excluding the returns from 48 precincts, affirming
functions of the Comelec. The grant to the Comelec of the power to investigate and the ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte
prosecute election offenses as an adjunct to the enforcement and administration of all which dismissed petitioner's opposition to the composition of the said Municipal Board of
FACTS: election laws is intended to enable the Comelec to effectively insure to the people the Canvassers as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion in that, inter alia, the
Florentino A. Bautista, Lakas candidate for Mayor of Kawit, Cavite. He executed an free, orderly, and honest conduct of elections. The constitutional grant of prosecutorial Commission, sitting en banc, took cognizance of and decided the appeals without first
Affidavit-Complaint charging the incumbent Municipal Mayor Atty. Federico “Hit” Poblete power in the Comelec was reflected in Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, referring them to any of its Divisions.
and other candidate of violation of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 261 of the Omnibus otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code. Under the above provision of law, the ISSUE:
Election Code (vote buying) and filed the same with the Law Department of the power to conduct preliminary investigation is vested exclusively with the Comelec. The Whether the COMELEC act with grave abuse of discretion
COMELEC. COMELEC’s Law Department filed an Information against the respondents latter, however, was given by the same provision of law the authority to avail itself of the RULING:
with the Regional Trial Court of Cavite. In the meantime, Gerardo Macapagal and assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government. Thus, under the Omnibus Yes, pursuant to Section 3, subdivision C, Article IX of the 1987 The
Inocencio Rodelas filed a criminal complaint for violation of Section 261(a) of the Omnibus Election Code, while the exclusive jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation had COMELEC may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of
Election Code (vote selling) against the witnesses of Florentino A. Bautista. An been lodged with the Comelec, the prosecutors had been conducting preliminary procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
information was filed before the RTC. COMELEC now claims that it has the “exclusive investigations pursuant to the continuing delegated authority given by the Comelec. controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided
power” to review, motu proprio or through an appeal, the “recommendation or resolution Comelec Resolution No. 9266, approving the creation of the Joint Committee and Fact- that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en
of investigating officers” in the preliminary investigation since it has “exclusive power to Finding Team, should be viewed not as an abdication of the constitutional bodys banc.
independence but as a means to fulfill its duty of ensuring the prompt investigation and MAIN POINT:
 It is clear from the abovequoted provision of the 1987 Constitution that RULING: of the COMELEC en banc in dismissing his petition for certiorari contending that the RTC
election cases include pre-proclamation controversies, and all such cases must first be Yes, in the instant case, the COMELEC en banc did not refer the case to any acted in grave abuse of discretion.
heard and decided by a Division of the Commission. The Commission, sitting en banc, of its Divisions upon receipt of the petition. It therefore acted without jurisdiction or with ISSUE:
does not have the authority to hear and decide the same at the first instance. grave abuse of discretion. Whether the COMELEC acted in grave abuse of discretion
RULING:
CASE NO. 979 MAIN POINT: Yes, the SC ruled that the said resolution was invalid because the authority to
ARTICLE IX-C SECTION 3 ; RECOMENDATORY POWERS ; DECISIONS Section 3, subdivision C, Article IX of the 1987 The COMELEC may sit en resolve petitions for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protest, like the
CARNICOSA V. COMELEC banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite questioned order of the trial court, falls within the division of the COMELEC and not on the
FACTS: disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election COMELEC en banc.
Canicosa filed with the COMELEC a Petition to Declare Failure of Election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of MAIN POINT:
and to Declare Null and Void the Canvass and Proclamation because of alleged decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. The order denying the motion to dismiss is but an incident of the election
widespread frauds and anomalies in casting and counting of votes, preparation of election protest. If the principal case, once decided on the merits, is cognizable on appeal by a
returns, violence, threats, intimidation, vote buying, unregistered voters voting, and delay CASE NO 982 – CHUA division of the COMELEC, then, there is no reason why petitions for certiorari relating to
in the delivery of election documents and paraphernalia from the precincts to the Office of ARTICLE IX-C SECTION 3 ; RECOMENDATORY POWERS ; DECISIONS incidents of election protest should not be referred first to a division of the COMELEC for
the Municipal Treasurer. But the COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition on the ground VELAYO VS COMELEC resolution. Clearly, the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance
that the allegations therein did not justify a declaration of failure of election. FACTS: of petitioner's petition in the first instance.
ISSUE: Petitioner assails the validity of COMELEC’s en banc resolution annulling his
Whether the COMELEC en banc erred in dismissing the petition proclamation as Mayor of Gapan, Nueva Ecija. He was not given a copy of private, CASE NO 985 - CHUA
RULING: respondent's Motion for Reconsideration against said Order. Also, he was not furnished a ARTICLE IX-C SECTION 3 ; RECOMENDATORY POWERS ; DECISIONS
No, this provision applies only when the COMELEC acts in the exercise of its copy of the July 4, 1998 Order of the Comelec (2nd Division) which elevated respondent BARROSO V AMPIG
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions and not when it merely exercises purely Natividad's Motion for Reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc. All that petitioner FACTS:
administrative functions. received from the COMELEC on October 8, 1998 was its en banc resolution annulling his Ampig filed with the COMELEC, SPC 98-009, a pre-proclamation protest
MAIN POINT: proclamation. Election protests should be done in summary proceedings but not as ex- under Section 234 of the Omnibus Election Code alleging massive vote-buying, bribery,
It is only in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers that the parte because this would deny the petitioner due process. terrorism by petitioner and opening of ballot boxes outside the precincts in at least thirteen
COMELEC is mandated to hear and decide cases first by Division and then, upon motion ISSUE: (13) of the sixty-three (63) precincts in the municipality, SPC 98-124, another pre-
for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc. This is when it is jurisdictional. In the Whether the COMELEC’s resolution was invalid proclamation case under Section 241 of the Omnibus Election Code, SPA 98-359 for
instant case, as aforestated, the issues presented demand only the exercise by the RULING: petitioner's disqualification alleging election offenses committed by the latter against
COMELEC of its administrative functions. The SC ruled that said resolution was invalid because the records show that Barroso. The COMELEC first division issued a resolution dismissing SPC 98-124, and
petitioner was not furnished any notice of the pre-proclamation proceedings against him SPC 98-009.
CASE NO 980- CHUA from beginning to end. Even the COMELEC's Second Division failed to notify petitioner ISSUE:
ARTICLE IX-C SECTION 3 ; RECOMENDATORY POWERS ; DECISIONS about the promulgation of its Order dated June 9, 1998 which dismissed the pre- Whether the COMELEC first division acted with grave abuse of discretion in
RAMAS V COMELEC proclamation cases against him for being moot and academic. dismissing SPC 98-124?
FACTS: MAIN POINT: RULING:
Petitioners and private respondents were the official candidates of the NPC Petitioner Velayo is a real party in interest. As the proclaimed Mayor, No, in dismissing SPC 98-009, the Comelec, First Division, itself noted that
Lakas-NUCD for elective municipal positions of Guipos, Zamboanga del Sur. After the petitioner stands to be prejudiced by whatever action COMELEC may take on the appeals the issues raised therein were not proper for a pre-proclamation case, but should be
canvass of election returns, petitioners were proclaimed as the duly elected municipal filed by respondent Natividad. His non-inclusion as respondent and his lack of notice of made in an election protest. E.C. Case No. 15-24 is precisely the election protest.
officials therein. Private respondents seasonably filed an election protest with the RTC of the proceedings in the COMELEC which resulted in the cancellation of his proclamation MAIN POINT:
Pagadian City which ruled in their favor. Respondents thereafter filed a Motion for constitute clear denial of due process. An election contest, unlike an ordinary civil action, is clothed with a public
Immediate Execution of Decision pending Appeal; however, petitioner filed an Opposition interest. The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the candidate
to this Motion. The trial court issued an Order granting the motion for execution pending CASE NO 983 – CHUA proclaimed by the board of canvassers is the lawful choice of the people. What is sought
appeal. COMELEC concurs with the trial court’s decision, hence, this petition. ARTICLE IX-C SECTION 3 ; RECOMENDATORY POWERS ; DECISIONS is the correction of the canvass of votes, which was the basis of proclamation of the
SEBASTIAN VS COMELEC winning candidate.
ISSUE: FACTS:
Whether or not COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it Petitioner Sebastian seeks the exclusion of several election returns claiming CASE NO 986 -CHUA
concurs with the decision of the trial court. that such returns were prepared under extreme duress, intimidation and political pressure ARTICLE IX-C SECTION 3 ; RECOMENDATORY POWERS ; DECISIONS
and influence. The COMELEC unilaterally disregarded the evidence of coercion that MARUHON V COMELEC
attended the preparation of returns.
RULING: FACTS:
The Supreme Court held the it has explicitly recognized and given approval to ISSUE: Private respondent Dimaporo , knowing that he was cheated and the true
execution of judgments pending appeal in election cases filed under existing election Whether the COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion when it winner for Mayor, filed before the COMELEC a petition to annul the proclamation of
laws. All that was required for a valid exercise of the discretion to allow execution pending unilaterally disregarded the evidence of coercion that attended the preparation of returns petitioner Maruhom as the duly elected Mayor of Marogong, Lanao del Sur. Petitioner
appeal was that the immediate execution should be based “upon good reasons to be RULING: filed an answer with counter-protest in Election Case No. 11-127 special and affirmative
stated in a special order.” No, COMELEC, as a general rule, need not go beyond the face of the returns defenses and counter-protest. In his answer petitioner prayed to hold in abeyance further
MAIN POINT : and investigate alleged election irregularities. proceedings since the protest is ad cautelam or subject to the petition filed before this
The rationale why such executionis allowed in election cases is “to give as MAIN POINT: Honorable Commission. The respondent court thru Honorable Presiding Judge
much recognition to the worth of a trial judge’s decision as that which is initially ascribed A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to the examination of incomplete, Macarambon, issued the assailed order denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack
by the law to the proclamation by the board of canvassers.” falsified, or materially defective returns, which appear as such on their face. The rationale of merit and ordering the Revision Committee to report to the court for their oath taking
is that pre-proclamation controversies must be summarily decided to minimize the delay and to receive the instruction of the court in the revision of the ballots and other allied
CASE NO 981 – CHUA in the canvass and proclamation. Where the issues raised would require the COMELEC matters. Petitioner alleges that in dismissing the petition the COMELEC acted in excess
ARTICLE IX-C SECTION 3 ; RECOMENDATORY POWERS ; DECISIONS to look beyond the face of the return, the proper remedy is a regular election protest of, or with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction holding that a
GARVIDA VS SALES wherein the parties may litigate all the legal and factual issues raised by them in as much motion to dismiss an election protest case filed in the Regional Trial Court is a prohibited
FACTS: detail as they may deem necessary or appropriate. pleading.
Petitioner seeks to annul and set aside the order of the COMELEC en banc ISSUE:
suspending her proclamation as the duly elected SK chairman of Barangay San Lorenzo, CASE NO 984 – CHUA Whether COMELEC acted in excess of, or with grave abuse of discretion,
Municipality of Bangui, Ilocos Norte. Petitioner contends the jurisdiction of the COMELEC ARTICLE IX-C SECTION 3 ; RECOMENDATORY POWERS ; DECISIONS amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition.
en banc to act on the petition to deny or cancel her certificate of candidacy. SOLLER VS COMELEC RULING:
No, the denial of petitioner's motion to dismiss was based on the fact that the
ISSUE: other grounds relied therein was considered unmeritorious and not because the said
Whether the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of FACTS: motion is a prohibited pleading in electoral protest cases. While the challenged
discretion Petitioner assails the decision of the RTC in denying his motion to dismiss the COMELEC Resolution may not have been entirely correct in dismissing the petition in this
election protest of his rival that was filed in the same court and the subsequent resolution
regard, the soundness of its discretion to accord unto the trial court the competence to FACTS: Petitioner was proclaimed winner by a margin of 39 votes.2 Claiming that
resolve the factual issues raised in the controversy cannot be doubted. Resolution No. 5404, the COMELEC en banc resolved to cancel Bautista's irregularities marred the elections, respondent filed an election protest in the Municipal
MAIN POINT: certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC en banc directed the Election Officer to delete Trial Court in Cities, Antipolo City ("trial court"). Respondent sought a recount of ballots
Commission assumes the competence of the trial court to handle electoral Bautista's name from the official list of candidates. from 25 out of De La Paz's 103 precincts. The First Division granted respondent's appeal,
protest and cannot encroach on its original and exclusive jurisdiction on electoral protest ISSUE: reversed the trial court's Decision, annulled petitioner's proclamation, declared
cases involving the contested mayoralty seat. To our mind, the trial court should be Whether the COMELEC en banc had jurisdiction over such cases respondent as the duly elected Punong Barangay, and ordered petitioner to vacate the
allowed to resolve the case on the merits to be able to rule on the factual and legal RULING: contested office and to desist from performing the functions of that office.
grounds raised by the petitioner as his defenses in his Answer. Should the petitioner be No, the COMELEC en banc did not refer the case to any of its Divisions upon Petitioner sought reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc, The latter
dissatisfied with the outcome of the case in the lower court, he can still appeal, as his receipt of the petition. It therefore acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of denied petitioner's motion and affirmed the First Division's findings.
relief, to this Commission within the reglementary period provided by law. discretion when it entertained the petition and issued the order ISSUE:
MAIN POINT: Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in
CASE NO 987 – CHUA The COMELEC's exercise of its quasi-judicial powers is subject to Section 3 affirming the First Division's findings.
ARTICLE IX-C SECTION 3 ; RECOMENDATORY POWERS ; DECISIONS of Article IX-C which expressly requires that all election cases, including pre-proclamation RULING:
BALINDOG V COMELEC controversies, shall be decided by the COMELEC in division, and the motion for The petition has no merit. We hold that the Resolution of 30 September 2005
FACTS: reconsideration shall be decided by the COMELEC en banc. is valid and that the COMELEC En Banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
The COMELEC promulgated the challenged Resolution, totally excluding the issuing that ruling.
election return for Precinct 80A with Serial No. 68210015 and awarding to candidate MAIN POINT:
Balindong all the 88 votes in the election return for Precinct 47A/48A with Serial No. CASE NO 990 – CHUA The COMELEC did not Commit Grave Abuse of Discretion On petitioner's alternative
6821008, which were earlier credited by the MBC to Anwar. ARTICLE IX-C SECTION 3 ; RECOMENDATORY POWERS ; DECISIONS contention that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming
ISSUE: DE LLANA V COMELEC the findings of the First Division, the court find no merit to this claim.
Whether the COMELEC en banc had jurisdiction over pre-proclamation FACTS: CASE NO. 993
controversies at the first instance The COMELEC First Division, granted respondent’s petition for the correction ARTICLE IX-C. Section 3. Decisions
of manifest errors; directed the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Subic, Zambales to Cayetano v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 166388 and 166652, January 26, 2006
RULING: reconvene and effect the necessary corrections in the Statement of Votes by Precinct to
No, The 1987 Constitution, in Section 3, Article IX-C that election cases reflect therein the actual number of votes obtained by respondent in Precinct No. 29-A-1; Facts:
include pre-proclamation controversies, and all such cases must first be heard and annulled petitioner’s proclamation, being based on an erroneous and/or incomplete COMELEC conducted a plebiscite to convert Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila into a
decided by a Division of the Commission. The Commission sitting en banc, does not have canvass of election returns; and ordered petitioner to immediately vacate her post as the highly urbanized city wherein negative votes prevailed. Private respondents filed a petition
the authority to hear and decide the same at the first instance. third member of the Provincial Board, First District of Zambales, and to cease and desist in the aforesaid seeking the annulment of the announced results of the plebiscite with a
from discharging the duties and functions of that office. prayer for revision and recount of ballot. They assailed the results of the Plebiscite Board
MAIN POINT: ISSUE: of Canvassers (PBOC) on the grounds that there were fraud and irregularities in the
The Commission en banc does not have jurisdiction in the first instance, Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to casting and counting of votes. Petitioner Allan Peter S. Cayetano, then Congressman of
whether original or appellate, over election cases, pre-proclamation controversies and lack or excess of jurisdiction when it justified such conversion by suspending its own the District of Taguig-Pateros filed a motion to dismiss the said petition asserting that
incidents thereof. When such disputes are filed before or elevated to the Commission, rules? COMELEC has no jurisdiction over an action involving the plebiscite. The petition was
they have to be heard and adjudicated first at the division level. RULING: elevated in the COMELEC en banc after its Second Division failed to render the decision
No, The Constitution has vested to the COMELEC broad powers, involving not due to lack of required number of votes among its members. COMELEC en banc granted
CASE NO 988 – CHUA only the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct the petition of the private respondents and declared and confirmed the ratification and
ARTICLE IX-C SECTION 3 ; RECOMENDATORY POWERS ; DECISIONS of elections, but also the resolution and determination of election controversies.20 It also approval of the conversion of the Municipality of Taguig into a highly urbanized city.
JARAMILLA V COMELEC granted the COMELEC the power and authority to promulgate its rules of procedure, with Consequently, Cayetano filed before the court a petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 166388
FACTS: the primary objective of ensuring the expeditious disposition of election cases. alleging that COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in its Resolution. Likewise,
Respondent Suyat filed before the COMELEC en banc an Urgent Motion for MAIN POINT: he also filed another certiorari in G.R. No. 166652 challenging Order of COMELEC en
Issuance of Order to Reconvene, which the latter treated as a Petition for Correction of Concomitant to such powers is the authority of the COMELEC to determine banc declaring the Resolution final and executor. He argued that the revision of the
Manifest Error. Petitioner countered in his Answer that said petition should be dismissed the true nature of the cases filed before it. Thus, it examines the allegations of every plebiscite ballots cannot be relied upon the determination of the will of the electorate
for having been filed out of time and for lack of the required certification of non-forum pleading filed, obviously aware that in determining the nature of the complaint or petition, because the revision is incomplete.
shopping. The COMELEC en banc issued the assailed resolution, granting the petition of its averments, rather than its title/caption, are the proper gauges.
respondent Suyat and the proclamation of Jaramilla is annulled. Issue:
CASE NO 991 – CHUA Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in
ISSUE: ARTICLE IX-C SECTION 3 ; RECOMENDATORY POWERS ; DECISIONS excess of jurisdiction in confirming the ratification and approval of the conversion of
Whether the COMELEC en banc had jurisdiction over such cases REPOL VS COMELEC GR NO. 161418 Taguig into a highly urbanized city.
FACTS:
RULING: The Comelec First Divisio hereby directs the parties to maintain the STATUS Ruling:
It must be noted however that this provision applies only in cases where the QUO ANTE , which is the condition prevailing before the issuance and implementation of No. The court ruled that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion. It is evident
COMELEC exercises its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, and not when it merely the questioned Order of the court a quo dated January 5, 2004 in Election Case No. T- that the results of the Taguig PBOC were based not only from the total number of votes
exercises purely administrative functions. This doctrine was laid out in Castromayor v. 001, entitled, Noel Y. Repol v. Violeto Ceracas. reflected in the Final Canvassing Report but also the voting results from (1) the physical
COMELEC,9 and reiterated in subsequent cases.10 Accordingly, when the case ISSUE: count ballots; (2) the returns of the uncontested precincts; and (3) the appreciation of the
demands only the exercise by the COMELEC of its administrative functions, such as the Whether the COMELEC en banc had jurisdiction over such cases contested ballots, all summed up and tallied. Moreover, it pointed out that the findings are
correction of a manifest mistake in the addition of votes or an erroneous tabulation in the supported by evidence, are accorded, not only respect, but finality. The court stressed
statement of votes, the COMELEC en banc can directly act on it in the exercise of its RULING: that the conduct of plebiscite and determination of its result have always been the
constitutional function to decide questions affecting elections.11 No, the present controversy does not fall under any of the instances over business of the COMELEC and not the regular courts. As an independent constitutional
which the COMELEC en banc can take cognizance of the case. body exclusively charged with the power of enforcement and administration of all laws
MAIN POINT: MAIN POINT: and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and
The Petition for Correction of Manifest Errors in the case at bar alleges an The present case is not one of the cases specifically provided under the recall, the COMELEC has the indisputable expertise in the field of election and related
erroneous copying of figures from the election return to the Statement of Votes by COMELEC Rules of Procedure in which the COMELEC may sit en banc. Neither is this laws. Its acts, therefore, enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
Precinct. Such an error in the tabulation of the results, which merely requires a clerical case one where a division is not authorized to act nor a case where the members of the duties.
correction without the necessity of opening ballot boxes or examining ballots, demands First Division unanimously voted to refer the issue to the COMELEC en banc. Thus, the
only the exercise of the administrative power of the COMELEC. Hence, the Commission COMELEC en banc is not even the proper forum where Repol may bring the assailed Main Point:
en banc properly assumed original jurisdiction over the aforesaid petition. interlocutory Order for resolution. The conduct of plebiscite and determination of its results is under the jurisdiction of
COMELEC. It is an independent constitutional body exclusively charged with the power of
CASE NO 989 – CHUA enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
ARTICLE IX-C SECTION 3 ; RECOMENDATORY POWERS ; DECISIONS CASE NO 992 – CHUA election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall.
BAUTISTA V COMELEC ARTICLE IX-C SECTION 3 ; RECOMENDATORY POWERS ; DECISIONS
FACTS:
 CASE NO. 994 shall be decided by the COMELEC en banc. Under Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987
ARTICLE IX-C. Section 3. Decisions Ruling: Constitution, the COMELEC, sitting en banc, does not have the authority to decide
Munoz v. COMELEC, 495 SCRA 407 Yes. The Court agreed with the Solicitor General and stressed that the COMELEC en election cases in the first instance as this authority belongs to the divisions of the
banc is vested with authority to suspend the proclamation of the winning candidates or to COMELEC.
Facts: annul such proclamation but contend that it may in the exercise of its discretion allow
In 2004 election, Rommel Munoz and Carlos Irwin G. Baldo, Jr were candidates for mayor such proclamation or set aside its order annulling the proclamation of the winning Main Point:
of Camalig, Albay. The latter objected for the inclusion of the 26 ERs from various candidates. COMELEC can suspend the proclamation pending the resolution of the All election cases shall be heard and decided in divisions, provided that motions for
precincts, however, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) rejected the objection and petition to declare a failure of election, the same order, however, is merely provisional in reconsideration shall be decided by the COMELEC en banc.
ruled to continue its inclusion. Thereby, Baldo challenged the ruling and filed for an nature and can be lifted when the evidence so warrants.
appeal, docketed as SPC No. 04-087, raffled under COMELEC First Division. In the
pendency of the aforementioned, Munoz was proclaimed by MBC as the winning CASE NO. 998
candidate, in which Baldo filed for another petition, docketed as SPC 04-124, to annul the CASE NO. 996 ARTICLE IX-C. Section 3. Decisions
proclamation for being premature and illegal. COMELEC First Division granted the latter ARTICLE IX-C. Section 3. Decisions Maria Laarni L. Cayetano v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 193846, April 12, 2011
stating that the proclamation was made in irregular proceeding and for being precipitate Enriquel v. COMELEC, 613 SCRA 352
and premature. Such decision compelled the petitioner, Rommel Munoz to file for motion Facts:
for reconsideration. COMELEC en banc denied the motion due to lack of merit and In the 2010 automated national and local elections, petitioner Ma. Laarni L. Cayetano was
directed to constitute a new Municipal Board of Canvassers to reconvene, re-canvass, Facts: proclaimed the winning candidate for Mayor of Taguig City. Dante Tinga, a contender,
prepare, and proclaim such. Petitioner filed for an instant petition for certiorari and filed an election protest against her before the COMELEC for allegedly committing
prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary election frauds and irregularities which translated to her ostensible win as the Mayor of
restraining order. The Court issued a temporary restraining order effective immediately Issue: Taguig City. In response, she stressed the affirmative defense of insufficiency in form and
and ordered the COMELEC to cease and desist from implementing and enforcing the content of the election protest and prayed for its immediate dismissal which was denied
Resolution in SPC No. 04-124. by the COMELEC.
Ruling:
Issue: Issue:
Whether the COMELEC en banc acted with grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the Whether COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
new MBC to re-canvass all ERs and to proclaim the winner on the basis thereof despite Main Point: of jurisdiction in its decision.
the pendency of the appeal with the First Division.

Ruling: CASE NO. 997

Yes. The court ruled that the COMELEC en banc exceeded its authority and acted with ARTICLE IX-C. Section 3. Decisions Ruling:
grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the new MBC to re-canvass all ERs even Mendoza v. COMELEC, 616 SCRA 443 No. The court ruled to dismiss the petition. The general rule is that a decision or an order
before its First Division could decide on the SPC No. 04-124. By ordering the re-canvass of a COMELEC Division cannot be elevated directly to this Court through a special civil
of all the ERs in the aforementioned, in effect it rendered a decision on the merits of SPC Facts: action for certiorari. Furthermore, a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or
No. 04-087 which has pendency in the First Division. Moreover, the court pointed out that An election protest was filed on June 1, 2007 by Roberto M. Pagdanganan against the ruling of a COMELEC Division shall be elevated to the COMELEC en banc. However, a
COMELEC en banc violated the rule because it does not have the authority to hear and petitioner Joselito Mendoza. The former being the defeated candidate, contested that the motion to reconsider an interlocutory order of a COMELEC Division shall be resolved by
decide election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, at the first instance. latter was proclaimed the winner in the 2007 gubernatorial election for the province of the division which issued the interlocutory order, except when all the members of the
With regards to the proclamation of the winning candidate which has been delayed for two Bulacan due to massive electoral fraud. The protest was raffled to the COMELEC Second division decide to refer the matter to the COMELEC En Banc. Thus, in general,
years due to the cases, the First Division is directed to resolve SPC No. 04-087. Further, Division and a counter-protest was filed by the petitioner. A Resolution was issued on interlocutory orders of a COMELEC Division are not appealable, nor can they be proper
due to the grave discretion, the court ordered to constitute a new Municipal Board of December 1, 2009 to annul and set aside the petitioner’s proclamation as governor and subject of a petition for certiorari.
Canvassers to re-canvass all the election returns of Camalig, Albay; to prepare a new proclaimed Pagdanganan to be duly elected to the position by a winning margin of 4,321
Certificate of Canvass; and to declare the winning candidate for mayoralty position set a votes. Moreover, it directed the Department of Interior and Local Government to Main Point:
side. implement and ordered the petitioner to vacate the said office, to cease and desist from A decision or an order of a COMELEC Division cannot be elevated directly in the court
discharging its functions, and to cause a peaceful turn-over. Thereafter, Pagdanganan through a special civil action for certiorari. A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution,
Main Point: filed for Motion for Immediate Execution of Judgment Pending Motion for Reconsideration order, or ruling of the COMELEC Division shall be elevated in the COMELEC en banc.
COMELEC en banc does not have the authority to hear and decide election cases, whilst the petitioner filed for Opposition of Motion for Execution before the COMELEC
including pre-proclamation controversies, at the first instance. Second Division as well as motion for reconsideration pertaining to the Resolution before
the COMELEC en banc. Henceforth, on February 8, 2010, COMELEC en banc rendered CASE NO. 999
a Resolution which denied the petitioner’s motions and affirmed the Resolution of the ARTICLE IX-C. Section 4. Supervision/Regulation of Public Utilities
CASE NO. 995 Second Division. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed before the COMELEC for an Urgent Media Grants, Privileges
ARTICLE IX-C. Section 3. Decisions Motion to Recall the Resolution promulgated on February 8, 2010 arguing that the desired Unido v. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 17
Tan v. COMELEC majority was not obtained in the COMELEC en banc because only three commissioners
voted to deny the motion for reconsideration, one dissented, and the remaining three Facts:
Facts: commissioners took no part. Due to the amendments of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, a plebiscite will be held. The
In May 2001 elections, Abdusakur Tan and Abdulwahid Sahidulla were candidates for petitioner, United Democratic Opposition (UNIDO), a political organization, is campaigning
Governor and Vice-Governor, contending Yusop Jikiri and Abdel Anni. The former filed a Issue: for “NO” votes, whereas, the then President Ferdinand Marcos will campaign for “YES”
petition with the COMELEC for failure of lections in all the precincts in the Municipality of Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it rendered, and even votes through “Pulong-Pulong sa Pangulo”, a nationwide radio-television program.
Luuk, Sulu where no voting was actually held, as the registered voters never did their subsequently affirmed, the questioned Resolution notwithstanding the absence of the Pursuant to equal opportunity clause, petitioner requested COMELEC for the same prime
votes. Moreover, they also filed the same for the Municipalities of Parang and Indanan, required majority in reaching a decision. time and same number of television and radio stations in the country to be utilized for their
Province of Sulu. COMELEC en banc took cognizance of and assumed jurisdiction over campaign. COMELEC denied the aforementioned.
the petitions and issued an order suspending the proclamation of the winning candidates. Ruling:
Hence, the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) was not served with a copy of the order Yes. The grave abuse of discretion of the COMELEC was stressed in the protest that Issue:
and pursued with the proclamation of Yusop Jakiri and Abdel Anni as winning candidates. Pagdanganan filed on 1 June 2007 which overstayed with the COMELEC until the Whether the decision of the COMELEC to deny the request of UNIDO violates the equal
Aggrieved, the petitioners filed an urgent motion to annul the proclamation of the present election year when the end of the term of the contested office was at hand and protection clause.
respondents as the winners. The respondents opposed the motion, contending that such there was hardly enough time for the re-hearing that was conducted only on February
motion was appropriate only in pre-proclamation controversies. COMELEC En Banc 2010. Since the hearing time at the division had run out, and the re-hearing time at the en Ruling:
issued an order annulling the proclamation of Jakiri and Anni on its finding that the banc was fast running out, the unwanted result came about: incomplete appreciation of No. The head of the state of every country in the world must from the very nature of his
proclamation by the PBC of the winning candidates was a defiance of its Order. ballots; invalidation of ballots on general and unspecific grounds; unrebutted presumption position be accorded certain privileges not equally available to those who are opposed to
of validity of ballots. Moreover, given that the concurrence of the majority of the members him. Likewise, he/she has the grave and tremendous responsibility of planning and
Issue: of the COMELEC en banc was not achieved, it committed grave abuse of discretion in implementing the plan of government itself, either by virtue of the popular mandate given
Whether the COMELEC en banc is vested with jurisdiction to take cognizance of and issuing the questioned Resolution affirming the ruling of its Second Division. All election to him under the corresponding provisions of the Constitution and the laws or any other
resolve the amended petitions. cases shall be heard and decided in divisions, provided that motions for reconsideration
duly recognized grant of power and authority, the opposition cannot be placed at par with Facts: A Resolution was released by COMELEC which approved the issuance of temporary
him. Philippine Press Institute filed for petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the restraining order against ABS-CBN to conduct exit survey after an alleged information
issuance of temporary restraining order against the COMELEC in its Resolution No. 2772. from a trustworthy source disclosed that the latter has prepared a project to conduct
It contested that such resolution is unconstitutional and void on the ground that it violates radio-TV coverage of the elections, broadcast it immediately, and to make an exit survey
the prohibition imposed by the Constitution upon the government, and any of its agencies, to the votes for President and Vice President. Such prompted the electoral body to
CASE NO. 1000 against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. In released the resolution as it believed that the projects might conflict with the official
ARTICLE IX-C. Section 4. Supervision/Regulation of Public Utilities response, the Solicitor General on behalf of COMELEC, stated that the alleged resolution COMELEC count as well as the unofficial quick count of the National Movement for Free
Media Grants, Privileges does not require publishers any obligation to provide free print space in the news paper Elections (NAMFREL). ABS-CBN assailed the said resolution arguing that holding exit
Sanidad v. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 529 [1990] and does not provide any criminal or administrative sanctions for non-compliance. polls and reporting its results are valid exercise of freedom of speech and of the press.
Supreme Court issued a TRO against the resolution of COMELEC.
Facts: Issue:
COMELEC, by virtue of the power vested by the 1987 Constitution, the Omnibus Election 1. Whether COMELEC Resolution No. 2772 is unconstitutional. Issue:
Code, stated that R.A. 6766 entitled “An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the Whether COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess
Cordillera Autonomous Region” and other applicable election laws, promulgated Ruling: of jurisdiction when it approved the issuance of a restraining order enjoining the petitioner
Resolution No. 2167, to govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the Organic Act of 1. Yes. The court ruled that COMELEC Resolution No. 2722 is unconstitutional because or any other group, its agents or representatives from conducting exit polls during the
Cordillera Autonomous Region. Petitioner, Pablito Sanidad, who identifies himself to be a the taking of private property for public use without payment of just compensation violates election.
newspaper columnist, contested the constitutionality of Section 19 of COMELEC Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution. Likewise, the taking of print space must be
Resolution No. 2167 because its provision violates the constitutional guarantee of appraised under the rubric of expropriation of private personal property for public use. The Ruling:
freedom of expression and of the press. threshold requisites for a lawful taking of private property for public use need to be Yes. The court ruled that there is no showing that exit polls or the means to interview
examined here: one is the necessity for the taking and another is the legal authority to voters cause chaos in voting centers. Neither has any evidence been presented proving
Issue: effect the taking. The element of necessity for the taking has not been shown by that the presence of exit poll reporters near an election precinct tends to create disorder
Whether Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 violates constitutional guarantee respondent Comelec and it has not been suggested that the members of PPI are or confuse the voters. The court stressed that prohibiting the conduct of exit polls violates
of freedom of expression and of the press. unwilling to sell print space at their normal rates to Comelec for election purposes. freedom of speech and freedom of press. Exit polls, when properly conducted and
Consequently, the court also stressed that there are no actual cases or controversies and publicized, can be vital tools for the holding of honest, orderly, peaceful and credible
Ruling: that the petitioner has not claimed that it or any of its members has sustained actual or elections; and for the elimination of election-fixing, fraud and other electoral ills. In light of
Yes. The authority given by Constitution is over holders of franchises. The purpose is to imminent injury by reason of COMELEC action under Section 8, therefore the petition for the above, COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess
assure equal opportunity and equal access to media.The petitioner is not a candidate and certiorari and prohibition were dismissed. of jurisdiction in its prohibition on exit polls.
in fact in a plebiscite there are no candidates. Plebiscite issues are matters of public
concern and the people’s right to be informed must be preserved. Moreover, the people’s Main Point: Main Point:
choice of forum for discussion should not be restricted. Print Media may not be compelled to allocate free space to COMELEC. Such would Exit polls, when properly conducted and publicized, can be vital tools for the holding of
amount to prohibited taking of property without just compensation. honest, orderly, peaceful and credible elections; and for the elimination of election-fixing,
Main Point: fraud and other electoral ills.
Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and the people’s right to be informed must
be preserved CASE NO. 1003
ARTICLE IX-C. Section 4. Supervision/Regulation of Public Utilities CASE NO. 1005
Media Grants, Privileges ARTICLE IX-C. Section 4. Supervision/Regulation of Public Utilities
CASE NO. 1001 Telecom v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337 [1998] Media Grants, Privileges
ARTICLE IX-C. Section 4. Supervision/Regulation of Public Utilities SWS v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147571, May 5, 2001
Media Grants, Privileges Facts:
Osmena v. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 750 [1991] Petioners Telecommunication and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, an organization Facts:
of lawyers of radio and television broadcasting companies, and GMA Network, Inc. Social Weather Station (SWS) and Kamahalan Publishing Corporation challenged the
Facts: challenged the validity of Section 92, B.P. Blg. 881 on the ground that it is in excess of legality and implementation of Section 5.4., R.A. 9006 (Fair Election Act) which provides
Cadidates for public office, Emilio Osmena and Pablo Garcia, seek to re-examine the the power given to the COMELEC to supervise or regulate the operation of media of for surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published 15 days before the
validity of Section 11, R.A. 6646 of the Electroral Reform Law of 1987 which prohibits communication or information during the period of election. The court stated that they take election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published 7 days before the
mass media from selling or giving free of charge print space or air time for campaign or the case because GMA Network, Inc. has the requisite standing to bring the constitutional election. The former would like to conduct an election survey and publish the results
other political purposes, except to the COMELEC. They asserted that the ban did not give challenge. directly and through media while the latter seeks to make known to the public the election
equal opportunity because it worked to the grave disadvantage of the poor candidates by survey results until the last day of election.
denying them of a medium which they cannot afford to pay while their wealthy rivals can Issue:
always opt to other means of getting hold of voters. Whether there is excess of the power given to the COMELEC to supervise or regulate the Issue:
operation of media of communication or information during the period of election. Whether Section 5.4 of the Fair Election Act constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement
Issue: of freedom of speech, expression, and the press.
Whether Section 11 of R.A. 6646 is constitutional. Ruling:
No. The court ruled that COMELEC does not take over the operation of radio and Ruling:
Ruling: television stations but only the allocation of air time to the candidates for the purpose of Yes. The court ruled that Section 5.4 of the Fair Election Act constitutes an
Yes. The court ruled that it is constitutional. There is no total ban on political ads, much ensuring, among other things, equal opportunity, time, and the right to reply as mandated unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of speech, expression, and the press. With
less restriction on the content of the speech. Given the fact that print space and air time by the Constitution. Consequently, what the COMELEC is authorized to supervise or regards to media franchise, the grant of power to the COMELEC under Article IX-C
can be controlled or dominated by rich candidates to the disadvantage of poor regulate by Art. IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution is the use by media of information of Section 4 is limited to ensuring equal opportunity, time, space, and the right to reply.
candidates, there is a substantial or legitimate governmental interest justifying exercise of their franchises or permits, while what Congress (not the COMELEC) prohibits is the sale Likewise, it is also responsible for fix reasonable rates of charge for the use of media
the regulatory power of the COMELEC under Art. IX-C, Section 4. The provisions in or donation of print space or air time for political ads. facilities for public information and forms among candidates. Henceforth, the court
question involve no suppression of political ads. The only prohibit the sale or donation of stressed that the said provision is invalid because (1) it imposes a prior restraint on the
print space and air time to candidates but require the COMELEC instead to procure space freedom of expression, (2) it is a direct and total suppression of a category of expression
and time in the mass media for allocation, free of charge, to the candidates. In effect, even though such suppression is only for a limited period, and (3) the governmental
during the election period, the COMELEC takes over the advertising page of newspapers interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means other than suppression of
or the commercial time of radio and TV stations and allocates these to the candidates. freedom of expression.
CASE NO. 1004
ARTICLE IX-C. Section 4. Supervision/Regulation of Public Utilities
CASE NO. 1002 Media Grants, Privileges
ARTICLE IX-C. Section 4. Supervision/Regulation of Public Utilities ABS-CBN v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133486, January 28, 2000
Media Grants, Privileges CASE NO. 1006
Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119654, May 22, 1995 Facts: ARTICLE IX-C. Section 6. Free and Open Party System
Liberal Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 191771, May 6, 2010
 case brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for resolution," that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state
Facts: subject to review by the Supreme Court on certiorari. colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their
The COMELEC rendered Resolution No. 8646 pertaining to the deadline for the subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly
submission of petitions for registration of political parties for May 2010 elections. The said MAIN POINT: or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required by law or the granting
deadline was set on August 17, 2009. Nacionalista Party (NP) and the Nationalist The Commission (composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners), as a collegial body, institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. DBP is no doubt a
People’s Coalition (NPC), two separate political parties, who aim to form a coalition, filed had the jurisdiction. government corporation and the question of whether COA Circular 86-299 was
their petition on February 12, 2009, which is beyond the deadline. They argued that they retroactively applied to the subject transaction is thus of no moment. To begin with, there
do not fall in the deadline because “coalition” is not mentioned in the resolution. ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS was never any retroactive application of post-audit. Regardless of the result of the pre-
Henceforth, the COMELEC granted the petition. Liberal Party contested the decision of D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT audit, it cannot be denied that respondent COA is so empowered to conduct a post-audit.
COMELEC. Section 2. General Function; Powers; Examine and Audit: Government revenues
and Government expenditures
Issue: 1008. Blue Bar Coconut Phil. Tantuico – 163 SCRA 716 [1988] - MAIN POINT:
Whether “coalition” comes within the definition of a “political party” so as to apply the set JUMDAIN Sec. 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to
deadline for the submission of petitions for registration of NP and NPC. examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and
FACTS: expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the
Ruling: Sometime in 1976, the respondent Acting Chairman of the Commission on Audit initiated Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including
Yes. The court ruled that the Resolution simply states the last day of filing petitions for a special audit of coconut end-user companies, which include herein petitioners, with government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit
registration of political parties without mentioning organizations and coalitions in the way respect to their Coconut Consumers Stabilization Fund levy collections and the subsidies basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal
that the three entities are separately mentioned under Section 2(5), Article IX-C of the they had received. autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c)
Constitution and Rule 32, Section 1 of the COMELEC Rules. Henceforth, with regard to As a result of the initial findings of the Performance Audit Office with respect only to the other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such
the listing of electoral activities and deadlines for the May 10, 2010 elections; it is not in petitioners, respondent Acting COA Chairman directed the Chairman, the Administrator, non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or
any way a resolution aimed at establishing distinctions among "political parties, and the Military Supervisor of PCA and the Manager of the Coconut Consumers through the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to
organizations, and coalitions." In the absence of any note, explanation or reason why the Stabilization Fund, in various letters to them (Annexes G-2 H, I, J, L and N of petition) to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity.
deadline only mentions political parties, collect the short levies and overpaid subsidies, and to apply subsidy claims to the
settlement of short levies should the petitioners fail to remit the amount due.
Main Point: ISSUES: ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
Political parties should be understood in its generic sense that covers political Whether or not the respondent COA Chairman may disregard the PCA rules and D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT
organizations and political coalitions as well. decisions has become moot. Section 2. General Function; Powers; Examine and Audit: Government revenues
ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS RULING: and Government expenditures
D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT NO. The Constitution formally embodies the long established rule that private entities who 1010. Eslao v. COA – 236 SCRA 161 [1994] – JUMDAIN
Section 1. Qualifications; Term handle government funds or subsidies in trust may be examined or audited in their
handling of said funds by government auditors. FACTS:
In 1988, Pangasinan State University entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
1007. Mison v. COA, 187 SCRA 445 – JUMDAIN MAIN POINT: with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to evaluate
Section 2 (1) of Art IX-D of the Constitution viz. (d) such non-governmental entities government reforestation programs in Pangasinan. The evaluation project was being
FACTS: receiving subsidy or equity directly or indirectly from or through the Government which are funded by the government under an Asian Development Bank loan to the Philippines.
The case is about customs case no. 813 where the commissioner of customs, MIson, required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy In January 1989, the Board of Regents (BOR) of PSU approved and confirmed the rates
declaring illegal the seizure by elements of the Philippine Navy of the M/V "Hyojin Maru" a or equity." of honoraria and per diems for the PSU personnel involved in the project. Subsequently,
vessel of Japanese registry, and ordered the release of the vessel and its cargo to the PSU issued authority to pay P70, 375.00 representing honoraria to PSU personnel
claimants, Chan Chiu On and Cheung I. ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS engaged in the project. This amount was reduced pursuant to the National Compensation
However, the vessel was never released because it sank while in the custody of the D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT Circular (NCC) #53 which was promulgated by the Department of Budget (DBM) in June
bureau of customs and it could not be salvaged. The claimants filed a claim with the Section 2. General Function; Powers; Examine and Audit: Government revenues 21, 1988.
Commission on Audit for the payment of the vessel. and Government expenditures In July 1989, the resident auditor of PSU alleged that there were excesses in the payment
Acting thereon "(b)y authority of the Acting Chairman," Mr. Rogelio B. Espiritu, Manager, 1009. DBP v. COA – 231 SCRA 202 [1994] - JUMDAIN of honoraria based on the provisions of the Compensation Policy Guidelines (CPG) #80-4
Technical Service Office of the COA, denied the claim for the reasons set forth in his FACTS: which was promulgated also by the DBM in August 7, 1980.
registered letter to the claimant's lawyer dated November 3, 1977-captioned "Decision Respondent Commission on Audit disallowed the amount P246,539.25 representing The resident auditor argues that CPG #80-4 should be applied in this case and not NCC
No. 77-142." payment of custom duties and taxes for one (1) unit of KVA Uninterruptible Power Supply #53.
In a letter dated May 10, 1978, claimant’s counsel, Mr. David replied that said Decision (UPS) purchase by petitioner Development Bank. A public bidding was conducted out of Due to the request of PSU, DBM clarified the matter, thru a letter, saying that the basis for
No. 77-142-rendered only by the Manager, Technical Service Office of the COA, and "not the eight suppliers who participated, two bidders qualified namely Paris Manila Trading the project's honoraria should not be CPG No. 80-4 which pertains to locally funded
(by) the Acting Chairman, much less . . . the Commission on Audit" — was void because Corporation and Voltronics Industrial Corporation. Upon thorough evaluation, it was given projects but rather NCC No. 53 which pertains to foreign-assisted projects”.
the matter could validly be acted upon only by "the Commission on Audit duly constituted, to Voltronics, the offer was exclusive of custom duties and taxes. After a review of However, COA decided against the reconsideration filed by PSU and it argued the
by the appointment and qualification of its Chairman and two Commissioners," "as documents, then corporate auditor Gervacio found the subject transaction to be in order following: since under the MOA a Coordinating Committee shall be created which shall be
specifically provided by Section 2, Article XII-D of the (1973) Constitution. In a 4th and suggested that in future biddings the quotation should always mean the total price to responsible for the overall administration and coordination of the evaluation to be chaired
Indorsement dated June 22, 1987 addressed "to the Auditor, Bureau of Customs," be paid to DPB including custom and duties and/or other charges. In the meantime COA by the DENR and co-chaired by the PSU VP for Research and Development this type of
Chairman Eufemio C. Domingo, acting "FOR THE COMMISSION," reconsidered Decision Circular no. 82-299 was passed lifting the pre-audit government transaction and then the project contemplated under the MOA fits the description of a locally funded project which
No. 77-142 of Acting Commissioner of Audit Tantuico, supra. new Corporate Auditor disallowed the amount representing custom duties and taxes and is an “inter-agency activity” between DENR and PSU and therefore it also fits the
He declared that the vessel sank while in illegal custody of the Bureau of Customs, which it was affirmed by the Commission En Banc. The petitioner filed for a petition for certiorari. description of a “special project”. And (2) COA argues that the DBM ruling classifying the
"should have pre-eminently taken adequate measures to preserve" it but did not.; hence, project as foreign-assisted does not rest on solid ground since loan proceeds, regardless
he declared that "this Commission will interpose no objection" to the instant claim, subject ISSUES: of source, eventually become public funds for which the government is accountable.
to the usual auditing and accounting requirements." Petitioner seasonably filed with this Whether or not the respondent Commission erred in applying the post audit system under Hence any project funded under the ADB loan agreement is considered to be locally
Court a petition for certiorari to nullify said COA Decisions pursuant to Section 7, Article IX the COA circular no. 82-299 considering that at the time of the questioned bidding the law funded.
of the 1987 Constitution. in force was COA circular no. 86-257.
ISSUE:
ISSUES: RULING: WON the NCC #53 should govern the payment of honoraria and per diem to the
Whether or not the decision to reverse the Espiritu Decision was proper? Yes, in Section 2(1) of the Constitution expressly grants respondent Commission the personnel of PSU involved in the DENR and PSU project.
power to conduct a post-audit, to wit: Sec. 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall have the
RULING: power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the RULING:
Yes, the "Espiritu decision" was void ab initio. As manager of the COA Technical Service revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held Yes, NCC should apply not CPG 80-4. First: Special project is defined under Sec 2.1 of
Office, Mr. Espiritu obviously had no power whatever to render and promulgate a decision in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or the CPG 80-4 as “an inter-agency or inter-committee activity or an undertaking by a
of or for the Commission. Even the Chairman, alone, had not that power. It was the instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original composite group of officials/employees from various agencies which [activity or
Commission, as a collegial body, which then as now, had the jurisdiction to "(d)ecide any charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices undertaking] is not among the regular and primary functions of the agencies involved.”
There are two components of a special project (1) there should be an inter-agency or contractual relation. Quantum meruit allows recovery of the reasonable value regardless casual employees to replace the dismissed employees, allegedly due to exigency of
inter-committee activity or undertaking by a group of officials or employees who are drawn of any agreement as to value. It entitles the party to "as much as he, reasonably service.
from various agencies and (2) the activity or undertaking involved is not part of the deserves," as distinguished from quantum valebant or to "as much as what is reasonably On February 1, 1989, the governor specifically denied the allegations of petitioners that
"regular or primary" functions of the participating agencies. The first component refers to worth." their dismissal was illegal.
the group of personnel from 2 or more government agencies which will actually carry out On January 29, 1993, the MSPB rendered a decision holding that the reduction in work
the project in the field and not to the coordinating body. In this case, the project team who MAIN POINT: force was not done in accordance with civil service rules and regulations, and ordering the
will actually carry out the work is composed of only PSU personnel. Thus, the project The post-audit authority is limited to determining compliance to government laws and reinstatement of petitioners.
team is not a "composite group" as required by the definition of CPG No. 80-4 of "special regulations like checking if there is an appropriation or budget, inquiring about the legality The manifest repugnance of the action taken by Governor Paredes, Jr. was further
projects. of transactions, and checking if proper approval and documentation was followed not to exacerbated by the issuance of the highly questionable Memorandum Order No. 3-A s.
CPG 80-4 was issued 8 years before NCC#53 was promulgated. Examination of the determine which law is more applicable. 1989 dated March 20, 1989. Said memorandum provides for the hiring of casuals under
provisions of NCC No. 53 makes it crystal clear that the circular is applicable to foreign- the façade of exigency of the public service. It was also a blatant violation of Section 14 of
assisted projects only. Pertinent provision of NCC#53 states that : prescribe/authorize the the Rules on Personnel Actions and Policies which succinctly states that the names of
classification and compensation rates of positions in foreign-assisted projects (FAPs) ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS permanent employees laid off shall be entered in a reemployment list for the appropriate
including honoraria rates for personnel detailed to FAPs and guidelines in the D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT occupation.
implementation thereof pursuant to Memorandum No. 173 dated 16 May 1988 19. Section 2. General Function; Powers; Examine and Audit: Government revenues Pursuant to a Motion for Clarification filed by petitioners, the MSPB issued an Order dated
Clearly, NCC No. 53 amended the earlier CPG No. 80-4 by carving out from the subject and Government expenditures April 19, 1993 which directed the Provincial Government of Agusan del Sur to pay
matter originally covered by CPG No. 80-4 all "foreign-assisted [special] projects." 1012. Polloso v. Gangan, GR 140563, July 14, 2000 - JUMDAIN petitioners their back salaries and other money benefits for the period that they had been
The MOA between PSU and DENR also state that the project is part of the commitment FACTS: out of the service until their reinstatement.
with the ADB under the Forestry Sector Program Loan and the DERN certification which National Power Corporation (NPC) hired by way of service contract, Atty,Benemerito
states that the project being done by PSU and other state universities are foreign funded Satorre, a private lawyer to perform and provide legal functions and services. ISSUE:
under the ADB/OECF Forestry Sector Program Loan Satorre was to receive 21,749 as monthly salary with representation and transportation Whether respondent COA, in the exercise of its power to audit, can disallow the payment
Second: Under the Administration Code of 1987, the Compensation and Position allowance of 5,300. of back wages of illegally dismissed employees by the Provincial Government of Agusan
Classification Bureau of the DBM "shall classify positions and determine appropriate In January 1995, the unit auditor of NPC issued a Notice of Disallowance for the payment del Sur which has been decreed pursuant to a final decision of the Civil Service
salaries for specific position classes and review appropriate salaries for specific position of the services rendered by Atty Satorre because it violates COA Circular No 86-255 Commission.
classes and review the compensation benefits programs of agencies and shall design job which requires that contract of services should have the written conformity and
evaluation programs." acquiessence of the Solicitor General or Corporate Counsel and the concurrence of the RULING:
COA is not authorized under its constitutional mandate to substitute its own judgement for Commission on Audit (COA). No, the COA is bereft of power to disallow the payment of petitioners' back wages. Orders
any applicable law or administrative regulation with the wisdom or propriety of which, Petitioner, Dante Polloso submitted a letter-explanation refuting the alleged violation of the respondent Commission on Audit are set aside. FIRST. The ruling of the
however, it does not agree, at least before such law or regulation is set aside b the contained in the Notice of Disallowance and sought reconsideration. respondent COA is based on its finding that bad faith attended the dismissal of
authorized agency of government or by the courts This was denied by COA. Hence the instant petition which refutes the reasons provide by petitioners. A careful perusal of said Decision will disclose that the MSPB never made a
Note: “COA post audit involves doing the same kind of work under pre-audit and looking COA why it issued the Notice of Disallowance. categorical finding of fact that former Governor Paredes acted in bad faith and hence, is
at exactly the same disbursement vouchers and supporting documents already available Petitioner argues that the phrase “handling of legal cases” should be construed to mean personally liable for the payment of petitioners' back wages. SECOND. The case at bar
even prior to payment, except that it is intentionally done later, or AFTER execution and as conduct of cases or handling of court cases or litigation and not to other legal matters, brings to the fore the parameters of the power of the respondent COA to decide
payment of transactions” such as legal documentation, negotiations, counseling or right of way matters administrative cases involving expenditure of public funds. THIRD. In the case at bar, the
action taken by COA in disallowing the further payment by the Provincial Government of
MAIN POINT: ISSUE: Agusan del Sur of backwages due the petitioners amended the final decision of the
The post-audit authority is limited to determining compliance to government laws and WON COA-Circular 86-255 applies to the nature of hiring of Atty. Sattore who handled MSPB.
regulations like checking if there is an appropriation or budget, inquiring about the legality only right of way matters and did not handle court cases.
of transactions, and checking if proper approval and documentation was followed not to MAIN POINT:
determine which law is more applicable. RULING: The COA is endowed with enough latitude to determine, prevent, and disallow irregular,
Yes, the COA circular was issued recognizing the problem of hiring private lawyers or law unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures of government
practitioners to render legal services for them and/or to handle their legal cases in funds. It is tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the
ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS consideration of fixed retainer fees, at times in unreasonable amounts, paid from public government's, and ultimately, the people's property. The exercise of its general audit
D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT fund despite numerous laws that restrict the practice. The court said the circular was a power is among the constitutional mechanisms that gives life to the check and balance
Section 2. General Function; Powers; Examine and Audit: Government revenues safeguard to prevent the irregular, unnecessary, excessive and extravagant or system inherent in our form of government.
and Government expenditures unconscionable expenditure.
1011. J.F.F. Manacop v. CA – 266 SCRA 235 [1997] - JUMDAIN
FACTS: MAIN POINT: ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
Petitioner Manacop Construction Corporation constructed a perimeter fence along MIA The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT
road in order to prevent squatters from entering the area. settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of Section 2. General Function; Powers; Examine and Audit: Government revenues
The construction was done without Notice to Proceed due to the need and urgency of the funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of and Government expenditures
project. its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled 1014. Aguinaldo v. Sandiganbayan – 265 SCRA 121 [1996] - JUMDAIN
After the 1986 February Revolution, a new general manager was appointment to MIA and corporations with original charters, and on a post- audit basis: constitutional bodies, FACTS:
95% of the fence worth Php 282,068.00 was already constructed by the petitioner. commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution. Petitioner is the Provincial Governor of Cagayan. At the time material to this decision he
A letter from the petition demanding payment for work done was sent to the GM of MIA. was serving his first term as Governor of that province.
However, the GM denied the request of the petitioner. This prompted petitioner to file a ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS In 1990, the Commission on Audit (COA) found that claims of petitioner for intelligence
complaint before the trial court which granted the petition and ordered MIA to pay D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT operations in 1988 and 1989 in the amounts of P400,000 and P350,000, respectively, had
petitioner the amount of the partially completed project based on quantum meruit since Section 2. General Function; Powers; Examine and Audit: Government revenues been charged to the 20% Development Fund and that some of the claims were covered
there was an absence of written contract between the parties. and Government expenditures by disbursement vouchers with only reimbursement receipts to support them, most of
Respondent MIA protested against this decision in so far as basing the payment on 1013. Uy v. COA, GR 130685, March 21, 2000 – JUMDAIN which were signed by only one person, while other claims had no supporting papers at all.
quantum meruit when the trial court should have referred the computation to the COA For this reason the audit team submitted a report (SAO Report No. 90-25), recommending
based on what was done in Eslao v COA. FACTS: the following measures to be taken:
The CA affirmed that petitioners should be paid but it set aside the trial court decision to Petitioners were among the more than sixty permanent employees of the Provincial Require the submission of the required documents covering claims for intelligence
base the payment on quantum meruit and referred it to COA. Engineering Office, Province of Agusan del Sur, who were dismissed from the service by activities, before making payment. Require claimant to complete the
then Governor Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. when the latter assumed office, allegedly to scale documentation on payments made with incomplete papers otherwise, refund of the
ISSUE: down the operations of the said office. same should be made. Stop provincial officials from using the 20% Development
WON Manacop construction corporation should be paid based on quantum merit On July 11, 1988, a petition for reinstatement was filed before the Merit Systems Fund for purposes other than for development projects under MLG Circular No. 83-
Protection Board (MSPB) alleging that Governor Paredes was motivated by political 4.
RULING: vengeance when he dismissed them and hired new employees to replace them. It On February 3, 1992, the COA Director, Feliciano B. Clemencio, filed with the Office of
Yes, the CA decision is set aside and the RTC decision is reinstated. The court settled the appears that during the pendency of the petition for reinstatement, Governor Paredes the Ombudsman a complaint, alleging “anomalies consisting of irregular/illegal
issue that petitioners should be paid for the construction made which arose from a quasi- issued Memorandum Order No. 3-A dated March 20, 1989 providing for the hiring of disbursements of government funds.” Named respondents in the complaint were
petitioner and the members of the Provincial Board of Cagayan, the Assistant Provincial Whether or not the distribution of dividends under the SLP is valid. No, the HDMF is a GOCC performing proprietary functions with original charter or created
Treasurer and the Accountant. by special law, PD 1752 amending PD 1530. As such, HDMF is covered by the Civil
In a resolution dated May 31, 1994 the Ombudsman found that, in all, petitioner had RULING: Service pursuant to Article IX, Section 2(1) of the 1987 Constitution, and therefore,
distributed the amount of P750,000 to the military, police and civilian informers to fight No, the beneficiaries or cestui que trust of the Fund are the DBP officials and employees excluded from the coverage of RA 6971. Since RA 6971 intended to cover only GOCCs
insurgency. who will retire. Retirement benefits “can only be demanded and enjoyed when the incorporated under the general corporation law, the power of administrative officials to
There is prima-facie evidence that he has put such missing funds to personal use employee shall have met the last requisite, that is, actual retirement under the Gratuity promulgate rules in the implementation of the statute is necessarily limited to what is
and therefore liable for malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Plan.” In this case, dividends were distributed to employees even before retirement. intended and provided for in the legislative enactment. Hence, the Supplemental Rules
Revised Penal Code. Likewise there is also prima-facie evidence to charge As Chairman Zalamea himself noted, neither the Gratuity Plan nor our laws on retirement clarified that GOCCs performing proprietary functions which are “created, maintained or
respondent Governor Aguinaldo with violation of Section 3 , paragraph (3) of R.A. allow the partial payment of retirement benefits ahead of actual retirement. It appears acquired in pursuance of a policy of the state, enunciated in the constitution or by law,
3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). that DBP sought to circumvent these restrictions through the SLP, which released a and those whose officers and employees are covered by the Civil Service” are excluded
Two cases of Malversation of Public Funds under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code portion of an employee’s retirement benefits to him in the form of a loan. from the coverage of RA 6971. Therefore, even if petitioner HDMF granted the
were accordingly filed against petitioner on August 16, 1994. Productivity Incentive Bonus before the Supplemental Rules were issued clarifying that
Upon motion of petitioner, the Sandiganbayan ordered the Office of the Ombudsman to MAIN POINT: petitioner was excluded from the coverage of RA. 6971, the employees of HDMF did not
reinvestigate the cases. Severance of employment is a condition for the release of retirement benefits. Retirement acquire a vested right over said bonus because they were not entitled to it under RA 6971
benefits are not meant to recompense employees who are still in the employ of the
ISSUE: government. That is the function of salaries and other emoluments. Retirement benefits MAIN POINT:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to are in the nature of a reward granted by the State to a government employee who has The validity of the Supplemental Rules Implementing RA 6971, the SC held that said rules
quash and directing the preventive suspension of the petitioner given the COA’s findings given the best years of his life to the service of his country. issued by the Secretary of DOLE and Secretary of Finance were in accord with the
and post-audit clearances, including the COA Chairman’s confirmation? intendment and provisions of RA 6971.
ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
RULING: D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
Yes, the petitioner failed to submit certain documents required by COA rules to support Section 2. General Function; Powers; Examine and Audit: Government revenues D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT
claims for disbursements. His counter-affidavit falls short of the requirements of COA and Government expenditures Section 2. General Function; Powers; Examine and Audit: Government revenues
Circular No. 88-293 which, while allowing the use of “mere certification” to support 1016. Home Development Mutual Fund v. COA, GR 142297, June 15, 2004 – and Government expenditures
liquidation vouchers (Par. VII(G)), nonetheless requires the prescribed form to state that JUMDAIN 1017. DBP v. COA – 498 SCRA 537 [2006] - JUMDAIN
“the details and supporting documents are in our custody and kept in our confidential file FACTS: FACTS:
and may be audited if the circumstances so demand.” 22 Nov. 1990: RA 6971, “An Act to Encourage Productivity and Maintain Industrial Peace In 1988, DBP purchased 5 Mitsubishi L-300 vans and 14 Mitsubishi Lancer cars worth a
by Providing Incentives to Both Labor and Capital,” was approved and took effect on 9 total of P5,525,000 for its 5 regional offices and 14 branches pursuant to its modernization
MAIN POINT: Dec. 1990. The Secretary of Labor and Employment and the Secretary of Finance program. During this period, DBP was undergoing a process of rehabilitation and the
COA’s approval of petitioner’s disbursements only relates to the administrative aspect of promulgated the Rules Implementing RA 6971. Pursuant to Sec. 1 Coverage, the Rules vehicles were utilized to bolster its efforts at fund generation which required the
the matter of his accountability but it does not foreclose the Ombudsman’s authority to shall apply to: mobilization of its personnel in order to reach out to a wider base of clientele.
investigate and determine whether there is a crime to be prosecuted for which petitioner is a. All business enterprises with or without existing duly recognized or In its 1992 Annual Audit Report, COA included these transactions among its adverse
answerable. certified labor organization, including GOCC performing proprietary audit findings alleging DBP’s non-compliance with Letter of Instruction No. 667 and Letter
functions of Implementation No. 29 which require Presidential approval for purchase of transport.
ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS b. All employees and workers including casual, regular, rank-and-file, The auditor recommended the filing of administrative charges against the responsible
D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT supervisory and managerial employees officers but it was never effected for the responsible officers later ceased to be connected
Section 2. General Function; Powers; Examine and Audit: Government revenues 21 Nov. 1991: HDMF granted Productivity Incentive Bonus equivalent to one month salary with the agency.
and Government expenditures plus allowance to all its personnel pursuant to RA 6971 and its Implementing Rules. The In 1998, the COA Auditor issued a Notice of Disallowance on the subject transaction. This
1015. DBP v. COA, 422 SCRA 459 [2004] - JUMDAIN HDMF granted said bonus despite the advice of Undersecretary Salvador Enriquez of impelled DBP, through their President and CEO’s letter, to move for the lifting of the
FACTS: Dept. Of Budget and Management (DBM) to all GOCCs and governmental financial disallowance of P5,525,000.00. The purchase was justified as necessary for its
Development Bank of the Philippines (“DBP”) seeks to set aside COA Decision which institutions (GFIs) with original charters performing proprietary functions to defer payment modernization program since it was undergoing a process of rehabilitation at the time and
disallowed in audit the dividends distributed under the Special Loan Program (“SLP”) to of the productivity incentive bonus to their employees, pending the issuance of a definite that their branches were in dire need of additional vehicles for improved mobility to
the members of the DBP Gratuity Plan. ruling by the Office of the President. support its thrust of providing financial assistance to small and medium enterprises in the
The DBP is a government financial institution with an original charter, Executive Order No. 27 Dec. 1991: DOLE and Dept. Of Finance issued Supplemental Rules Implementing RA countryside to generate employment and spur economic development.
81, as amended by Republic Act No. 8523 (“DBP Charter”). 6971 DBP assailed COA Decision No. 2001-151 which denied its motion for the lifting of the
In 1983, the Bank established a Special Loan Program availed thru the facilities of the Section 1.—Paragraph (a) Section 1, Rule II of the Rules Implementing RA disallowance. The Commission affirmed the subject disallowance for want of prior
DBP Provident Fund and funded by placements from the Gratuity Plan Fund. This 6971, shall be amended to read as follows: Presidential approval contrary to Letter of Implementation No. 29 and LOI No. 667.
Special Loan Program was adopted as “part of the benefit program of the Bank to provide Coverage. These Rules shall apply to:
financial assistance to qualified members to enhance and protect the value of their (a) All business enterprises with or without existing duly ISSUE:
gratuity benefits” because “Philippine retirement laws and the Gratuity Plan do not allow certified labor organizations including government-owned and controlled Whether or not COA committed GADALEJ in disallowing the purchase of motor vehicles
partial payment of retirement benefits.” The program was suspended in 1986 but was corporations performing proprietary functions which are established solely for by DBP.
revived in 1991 thru DBP Board Resolution No. 066 dated January 5, 1991. business or profit or gain and accordingly excluding those created,
Under the Special Loan Program, a prospective retiree is allowed the option to utilize in maintained or acquired in pursuance of a policy of the state, enunciated RULING:
the form of a loan a portion of his “outstanding equity” in the gratuity fund and to invest it in the constitution or by law, and those whose officers and employees No, COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the purchase of motor
in a profitable investment or undertaking. The earnings of the investment shall then be are covered by the Civil Service. vehicles by DBP.Based on Letter of Instruction No. 667 and Letter of Implementation No.
applied to pay for the interest due on the gratuity loan which was initially set at 9% per 29 Nov. 1996: the grant of productivity incentive bonus to the HDMF personnel was 29, prior Presidential authorization is required before DBP, being a government-owned
annum subject to the minimum investment rate resulting from the updated actuarial study. disallowed in audit under Notice of Disallowance. The disallowance was based on COA and controlled corporation, could purchase the subject vehicles. Verily, Letter of
The excess or balance of the interest earnings shall then be distributed to the investor- Decision No. 96-288, stating that RA 6971 does not apply to GOCCs or to GFIs with Instruction No. 667 is not a "mere technicality" as DBP contends, otherwise,
members. original charters performing proprietary functions, such as the HDMF. administrative agencies would be free to utilize such funds freely as long as they can
Pursuant to the investment scheme, DBP-TSD paid to the investor-members a total of 28 May 1997: HDMF, through its President and CEO Zorayda Alonzo, requested for the justify their use through the mere invocation of laudable purposes. Since the disallowance
P11,626,414.25 representing the net earnings of the investments for the years 1991 and lifting of the disallowance arguing that RA 6971 applies to HDMF employees since was made pursuant to the applicable law, it cannot be assailed as an act of grave abuse
1992. The payments were disallowed by the Auditor under Audit Observation coverage of the law includes GOCCs performing proprietary functions, and the of discretion.
Memorandum No. 93-2 dated March 1, 1993, on the ground that the distribution of income supplemental rules excluding it from coverage was issued after the HDMF had already
of the Gratuity Plan Fund (GPF) to future retirees of DBP is irregular and constituted the granted the productivity incentive bonus to its employees.
use of public funds for private purposes which is specifically proscribed under Section 4 of 16 June 1998: COA affirmed the audit disallowance in its Decision No. 98-245 MAIN POINT:
P.D. 1445. DBP, being a government-owned and controlled corporation, could purchase the subject
Chairman Antonio of DBP also asked COA to lift the disallowance of the P11,626,414.25 ISSUE: vehicles because it is not a "mere technicality" as DBP contends, otherwise,
distributed as dividends under the SLP on the ground that the latter was simply a normal Whether or not the Supplemental Rules are valid. administrative agencies would be free to utilize such funds freely as long as they can
loan transaction. justify their use through the mere invocation of laudable purposes. Since the disallowance
RULING: was made pursuant to the applicable law, it cannot be assailed as an act of grave abuse
ISSUE: of discretion.
 The only clear reference to pre-audit requirement is found in Section 2, paragraph 1, free to private individuals. Needless to stress, courts do not, as they cannot, allow by
ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS which provides that a post-audit is mandated for certain government or private entities judicial fiat the conversion of special funds into a private fund for the benefit of private
D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT with state subsidy or equity and only when the internal control system of an audited entity individuals.
Section 2. General Function; Powers; Examine and Audit: Government revenues is inadequate. In such situation, the COA may adopt measures, including temporary or
and Government expenditures special pre-audit, to correct the deficiencies. MAIN POINT:
1018. Nava v. Palattao – 499 SCRA 745 [2006] – JUMDAIN Article VI, Section 29 (3) of the 1987 Constitution, restating a general principle on
ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS taxation, enjoins the disbursement of a special fund in accordance with the special
FACTS: D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT purpose for which it was collected, the balance, if there be any, after the purpose has
COA conducted an audit of the DECS Region 11 Offices and found that the money Section 2. General Function; Powers; Examine and Audit: Government revenues been fulfilled or is no longer forthcoming, to be transferred to the general funds of the
allotted to for the improvement of 155 HS have been spent for purchase of Science and Government expenditures government. If only to stress the point, P.D. No. 1234 expressly stated that coconut levies
Laboratory Tool and Devices (SLDT) by 7 school superintendents. 1020. Candelario L. Versoza Jr. v. Guillermo N Carague, GR 157838, 7 are special funds to be remitted to the Treasury in the General Fund of the State, but
Respondent question the validity of the COA’s audit. February 2012 – JUMDAIN treated as Special Accounts.
Court ruled that COA has the authority and duty to examine, audit and settle all accounts
pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of fund and property FACTS: Case No. 1022 – Lim, RD
owned by or pertaining to the government. MR of 2011 Decision affirming COA’s 1998 and 2003 ruling that petitioner is personally Topic: COA - Jurisdiction
It has the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination and to and solidarily liable for Php881,819.00 (overprice of computers purchased by CDA) Caltex v. COA – 208 SCRA 726 [1992]
establish the required techniques and methods. The contention of the respondents are Petitioner’s counsel (petitioner’s son) confirmed demise of petitioner in 2010 FACTS:
untenable since they fail to show that the audit made by COA was irregular. Candelario Versoza – former Exec. Dir. Of Cooperative Development Agency In 1989, COA sent a letter to Caltex directing it to remit to OPSF its collection of the
Guillermo Carague – Chairman of COA additional tax on petroleum
ISSUES: DAP-TEC modified initial result of technical evaluation of computers to favour bidder authorized under PD 1956 and pending such remittance, all of its claims from the OPSF
Was the audit conducted by COA valid? TETRA. Petitioner signed documents for purchase. shall be held in abeyance.
Petitioner requested COA for the early release of its reimbursement certificates from the
RULING: ISSUES: OPSF covering claims with
Yes, COA has the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination and WON COA violated its own rules and jurisprudence in the determination of overpricing the Office of Energy Affairs. COA denied the same.
to establish the required techniques and methods; COA’s findings are accorded not only ISSUE:
respect but also finality, when they are not tainted with grave abuse of discretion RULING: Whether of not petitioner can avail of the right to offset any amount that it may be required
COA always has the authority to define the scope of their audit. This is based on the two No, 1997 COA Memorandum which had guidelines on evidence to support audit findings under the law to remit to
cases (Nava vs Palattao & Dela Llana vs. COA). The second sentence is wrong since of overpricing provided that audit findings on overpricing are to be given to audited the OPSF against any amount that it may receive by way of reimbursement.
what the constitutional provision provides is that only a post-audit is needed. agency RULING:
Cannot give Memo retroactive effect; Audit was conducted in 1993 It is a settled rule that a taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claims that he may
MAIN POINT: Brand is irrelevant on basis of finding of technical personnel have against the government.
COA has the authority and duty to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the Taxes cannot be the subject of compensation because the government and taxpayer are
revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of fund and property owned by or MAIN POINT: not mutually debtors and
pertaining to the government. The COA shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to define creditors of each other and a claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or
the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required judgment as is allowed to be
ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those set-off.
D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or The oil companies merely acted as agents for the government in the latter’s collection
Section 2. General Function; Powers; Examine and Audit: Government revenues unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties. since taxes are passed unto
and Government expenditures the end-users, the consuming public.
1019. Gualberto De Llana v. COA, GR 180989, 7 Feb. – JUMDAIN ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS FACTS:
D. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT In 1989, COA sent a letter to Caltex directing it to remit to OPSF its collection of the
FACTS: Section 2. General Function; Powers; Examine and Audit: Government revenues additional tax on petroleum
This is a Petition in pursuant to Section 7, Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution, seeking to and Government expenditures authorized under PD 1956 and pending such remittance, all of its claims from the OPSF
annul and set aside Commission on Audit (COA) Circular No. 89-299, which lifted its 1021. Philippine Coconut v. Republic – 663 SCRA 514 [2012] – JUMDAIN shall be held in abeyance.
system of pre-audit of government financial transactions. 1022. Petitioner requested COA for the early release of its reimbursement certificates from the
The rationale for the circular was, first to reaffirm the concept that fiscal responsibility FACTS: OPSF covering claims with
resides in management as embodied in the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines; The declaration of martial law in September 1972 saw the issuance of several presidential the Office of Energy Affairs. COA denied the same.
and, second, to contribute to accelerating the delivery of public services and improving decrees (“P.Ds.”) purportedly designed to improve the coconut industry through the ISSUE:
government operations by curbing undue bureaucratic red tape and ensuring facilitation of collection and use of the coconut levy fund particularly P.D. Nos. 755, 961 and 1468. Whether of not petitioner can avail of the right to offset any amount that it may be required
government transactions, while continuing to preserve and protect the integrity of these Charged with the duty of collecting and administering the Fund was PCA. Later, PCA under the law to remit to
transactions. entered into an Agreement for the Acquisition of a Commercial Bank for the Benefit of the the OPSF against any amount that it may receive by way of reimbursement.
As a taxpayer, Petitioner alleged that pre-audit duty on the part of the COA cannot be Coconut Farmers of the Philippines. Under paragraph 8 of the second agreement, PCA RULING:
lifted by mere circular, considering the pre-audit is a constitutional mandate enshrined in agreed to expeditiously distribute the FUB (First United Bank) shares purchased to such It is a settled rule that a taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claims that he may
Section 2 of Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution. Moreover, he claims that because of the “coconut farmers holding registered COCOFUND receipts” on equitable basis. have against the government.
lack of pre-audit by COA, serious irregularities in the government transactions have been Then came the 1986 EDSA event. One of the priorities of then President Corazon C. Taxes cannot be the subject of compensation because the government and taxpayer are
committed. Aquino’s revolutionary government was the recovery of ill-gotten wealth reportedly not mutually debtors and
amassed by the Marcos family and close relatives, their nominees and associates. creditors of each other and a claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or
ISSUE: The PCGG instituted before the Sandiganbayan a recovery suit against petitioners. As judgment as is allowed to be
Whether or not it is the constitutional duty of COA to conduct pre-audit before the found by the Sandiganbayan, the PCA appropriated, out of its own fund, an amount for set-off.
consummation of government transaction. the purchase. Petitioners COCOFED et al. and Ursua uniformly scored the The oil companies merely acted as agents for the government in the latter’s collection
Sandiganbayan for abusing its power of judicial review and wrongly encroaching into the since taxes are passed unto
RULING: exclusive domain of Congress when it declared certain provisions of the coconut levy the end-users, the consuming public.
No, the petitioner’s allegations find no support in the Section 2 of Article IX-D of the 1987 laws and PCA administrative issuances as unconstitutional. FACTS:
Constitution. In the said provision, it did not mention that it requires the COA to conduct a In 1989, COA sent a letter to Caltex directing it to remit to OPSF its collection of the
pre-audit of all government transactions and for all government agencies. The only clear ISSUE: additional tax on petroleum
reference to pre-audit requirement is found in Section 2, paragraph 1, which provides that Whether the coconut farmers may own the coconut levy fund which was reclassified into authorized under PD 1956 and pending such remittance, all of its claims from the OPSF
a post-audit is mandated for certain government or private entities with state subsidy or private fund through P.D. Nos. 755, 961 and 1468. shall be held in abeyance.
equity and only when the internal control system of an audited entity is inadequate. In Petitioner requested COA for the early release of its reimbursement certificates from the
such situation, the COA may adopt measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, to RULING: OPSF covering claims with
correct the deficiencies. NO, the coconut levy funds are in the nature of taxes and can only be used for public the Office of Energy Affairs. COA denied the same.
MAIN POINT: purpose. Consequently, they cannot be used to purchase shares of stocks to be given for ISSUE:
Whether of not petitioner can avail of the right to offset any amount that it may be required retirement gratuity, he has not received in full the benefits due him from his Officials of Manila Who Have Been Elected for Three (3) Consecutive Terms in the
under the law to remit to retirement.chaniiisboas Same
the OPSF against any amount that it may receive by way of reimbursement. Issue: Position. Section 2 thereof provides:
RULING: Whether COA has the jurisdiction to withhold a portion of Petitioner’s terminal leave SEC. 2. The EPSA shall consist of a Plaque of Appreciation, retirement and gratuity pay
It is a settled rule that a taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claims that he may Held: remuneration equivalent to the actual time served in the position for three (3) consecutive
have against the government. Yes, COA is given the "exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article terms,
Taxes cannot be the subject of compensation because the government and taxpayer are to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the technique and methods subject to the availability of funds as certified by the City Treasurer. ….xxx…..
not mutually debtors and required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditingrules and regulations. As can Pursuant to the ordinance, the City made partial payments to some former city
creditors of each other and a claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or be gleaned from the foregoing provisions of the Constitution, state audit is not limited to councilors including herein petitioners the total amount of P9, 923,257.00.
judgment as is allowed to be the auditing of the accountable officers and the settlement of accounts, but includes On August 8,2005, Atty. Gabriel J. Espina (Atty. Espina), Supervising Auditor of the City
set-off. accounting functions and the adoption in the audited agencies of internal controls to see of
The oil companies merely acted as agents for the government in the latter’s collection to it, among other matters, that the correct fees and penalties due the government are Manila, issued Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) No. 2005-100(05)07(05) stating
since taxes are passed unto collected. that
the end-users, the consuming public. The verification of the correctness of the evaluation and computation of the fees and Ordinance No. 8040 is without legal basis and the amount granted as monetary reward is
penalties collectible under the Land Transportation Law (R.A. No. 4136) are parts of the excessive and tantamount to double compensation. After evaluation of the AOM, the
CALTEX PHILIPPINES VS CA functions of the COA, which examines and audits revenue accounts (The Government Director,
G.R. 925585 MAY 8, 1992 Auditing Code of the Philippines, P.D. No. 1445, sec. 60). When any person is indebted to Legal and Adjudication Office (LAO)-Local of the COA issued a Notice of Disallowance.
Davide, J.: any government agency, the COA may direct the proper officer to withhold the payment of Upon review, the COA rendered the assailed the decision sustaining ND (Notice of
FACTS: any money due such person or his estate to be applied in satisfaction of the indebtedness Disallowance) No. 06-010-100-05. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
In 1989, COA sent a letter to Caltex directing it to remit to OPSF its collection of the (P. D. No. 1445, sec. 37). Likewise, under the Manual on Certificate of Settlement and The
additional tax on petroleum Balances, a government auditor is empowered to order the withholding of the payment of COA opined that the monetary reward under the EPSA is covered by the term
authorized under PD 1956 and pending such remittance, all of its claims from the OPSF any money due a person determined to be liable for disallowances, suspensions, and compensation.
shall be held in abeyance. other deficiencies in the accounts audited Though it recognizes the local autonomy of LGUs, it emphasized the limitations thereof
Petitioner requested COA for the e set forth
Case No. 1024 – Lim, RD in the Salary Standardization Law (SSL). It explained that the SSL does not authorize the
Facts: Topic: COA - Jurisdiction grant
In 1989, COA sent a letter to Caltex directing it to remit to OPSF its collection of the Philippine Airlines v. COA – 245 SCRA 39 [1995] of such monetary reward or gratuity. It also stressed the absence of a specific law passed
additional tax on petroleum authorized under PD 1956 and pending such remittance, all of Facts: by
its claims from the OPSF shall be held in abeyance. Petitioner requested COA for the PAL is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, Congress which ordains the conferment of such monetary reward or gratuity to the former
early release of its reimbursement certificates from the OPSF covering claims with the principally engaged in the air transport business, both domestic and international. At the councilors. In response to the question on its jurisdiction to rule on the legality of the
Office of Energy Affairs. COA denied the same time of the filing of the petition on February 8, 1990, majority of its shares of stock was disbursement, the COA held that it is vested by the Constitution the power to determine
owned by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), a government corporation. whether
SSUE: To assure itself of continuous, reliable and cost-efficient supply of fuel, PAL adopted a government entities comply with laws and regulations in disbursing government funds and
Whether of not petitioner can avail of the right to offset any amount that it may be required system of bidding out its fuel requirements under a multiple supplier set-up whereby PAL to
under the law to remit to awarded to the lowest bidder sixty percent (60%) of its fuel requirements and to the disallow irregular disbursements.
the OPSF against any amount that it may receive by way of reimbursement. second lowest bidder the remaining forty percent(40%), provided it matched the price of The petitioners come before the court claiming that the respondent committed a grave
RULING: the lowest bidder. abuse of
It is a settled rule that a taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claims that he may COA advised PAL to desist from bidding the company's fuel supply contracts, considering discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ruled that the monetary
have against the government. that existing regulations require government-owned or controlled corporations and other award
Taxes cannot be the subject of compensation because the government and taxpayer are agencies of government to procure their petroleum product requirements from PETRON given under the EPSA partakes of the nature of an additional compensation prohibited
not mutually debtors and Corporation. under
creditors of each other and a claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or the Salary Standardization Law, and other existing laws, rules and regulations, and not a
judgment as is allowed to be Issue: GRATUITY voluntarily given in return for a favor or services rendered purely out of
set-off. Whether COA committed grave abuse of discretion by exceeding its jurisdiction in generosity of
The oil companies merely acted as agents for the government in the latter’s collection extending the application of the department order to PAL to procure fuel from Petron. the giver or grantor.
since taxes are passed unto
the end-users, the consuming public. Held:
Yes COA was correct in ruling that Department Order No. 19 applied to PAL as a
Issue: government agency at the time, it nonetheless gravely abused its discretion in not Case No. 1025 – Lim, RD
Whether petitioner can avail of the right to offset any amount that it may be required under exempting PAL therefrom. One reason was that bidding gave the best and lowest prices. Topic: COA - Jurisdiction
the law to remit to the OPSF against any amount that it may receive by way of If compelled to purchase all of its fuel needs from PETRON, PAL stood to lose some CIR v. COA – 218 SCRA 203 [1993]
reimbursement. P34,055,377.00; indeed, a considerable amount for a corporation trying to effect a Facts:
financial turnabout, and consequently an additional burden to the riding public which has On February 8, 1989, respondent Commission on Audit (COA) rendered COA Decision
Held: to eventually shoulder the added operating costs. No. 740 disallowing in audit the payment of informer's reward to petitioner Savellano in
It is a settled rule that a taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claims that he may Its multiple supplier set-up was designed precisely to meet every contingency that might the NCA case on the ground that payment of an informer's reward under Section 281 of
have against the government.Taxes cannot be the subject of compensation because the disrupt its fuel supply. It bespoke of foresight, careful planning and sound business the National Internal Revenue Code is conditioned upon the actual recovery or collection
government and taxpayer are not mutually debtors and creditors of each other and a judgment on the part of PAL. As a business operation heavily dependent on fuel supply, of revenues, and no such revenue or income was actually realized or recovered on any
claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is allowed to be set- for PAL to rely solely on a single supplier would indeed be impracticable. To compel it to benefit accrued to the government, since two (2) government agencies were involved.
off.The oil companies merely acted as agents for the government in the latter’s collection do so would amount to a grave abuse of discretion on its part as this might well lead to The income realized by the BIR out of the withholding taxes paid by the NCA was a
since taxes are passed unto the end-users, the consuming public. irregular, excessive or unconscionable expenditures, the very evil sought to be avoided in reduction of the income of the latter, resulting in a zero effect in revenues realized or
the creation of the COA. recovered. Respondent COA also impugned the propriety of the claim for informer's
Case No. 1023 – Lim, RD This, however, is so much water under the bridge. PAL's corporate complexion having reward based on inter-governmental violations. In its view, allowance of claims of the kind
Topic: COA - Jurisdiction changed during the pendency of the instant petition from government-controlled to private would not only place a premium upon violations committed by government agencies but
Mamaril v. Domingo – 227 SCRA 206[1993] ownership, we dismiss the petition for being moot and academic. also induce collusion among government offices in order to obtain the informer's reward. It
Facts: reasoned that if the State cannot be held responsible for the tortious acts of its employees
Petitioner was formerly an Evaluator/Computer of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) at IVeloso v. Commission on Audit unless the latter acted as special agents, with more reason it should not be held liable to
its San Pablo City Branch. In the course of the performance of his duties, he committed GR. 193677 pay informer's reward upon violations committed by government agencies.
errors in his evaluation and computation, resulting in the under collection of registration, Facts: Issue:
license and other miscellaneous fees and penalties. Petitioner availed of the Early On December 7, 2000, the City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8040 entitled An Whether COA’s claim to invalidate the reward given to informants is valid
Retirement Program under RA 6683. As a result of the decision of the COA, holding that Ordinance Authorizing the Conferment of Exemplary Public Service Award to Elective Held:
the amount of P44,515.90 be withheld from petitioners terminal leave pay other than his Local Supreme Court set aside COA’s claim and affirmed the reward to be given to informants.
 limitations thereof set forthin the Salary Standardization Law (SSL). It explained that the utilized in accordance with law and regulations, and safeguarded against loss or wastage
That the informer's reward was sought and given in relation to tax delinquencies of SSL does not authorize the grant of such monetary reward or gratuity. It also stressed the through illegal or improper disposition, with a view to ensuring efficiency, economy and
government agencies provides no reason for disallowance. The law on the matter makes absence of a specific law passed by Congress which ordains the conferment of such effectiveness in the operations of government.
no distinction whatsoever between delinquent taxpayers in this regard, whether private monetary reward or gratuity to the former councilors. In response to the question on its After the change in administration due to the February 1986 revolution, grave irregularities
persons or corporations, or public or quasi-public agencies, it being sufficient for its jurisdiction to rule on the legality of the disbursement, the COA held that it is vested by the and anomalies in the government's financial transactions were uncovered. Hence, on 31
operation that the person or entity concerned is subject to, and violated, revenue laws, Constitution the power to determine whether government entities comply with laws and March 1986, the COA issued Circular No. 86-257, which reinstated the pre-audit of
and the informer's report thereof resulted in the recovery of revenues. It is elementary that regulations in disbursing government funds and to disallow irregular disbursements. The selected government transactions. The selective pre-audit was perceived to be an
where the law does not distinguish, none must be made. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos petitioners come before the court claiming that the respondent committed a grave abuse effective, although temporary, remedy against the said anomalies.
distinguere debemos of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Two years later, or on 22 July 2011, COA issued Circular No. 2011-002, which lifted the
Respondent COA considers the payment of informer's reward in this case as placing a Issues: pre-audit of government transactions implemented by Circular No. 2009-002. In its
premium upon violations committed by government agencies and therefore, improper. At Whether the COA has authority to disallow the disbursement of local government funds. assessment, subsequent developments had shown heightened vigilance of government
first blush, it would appear that by paying the informer's reward, the government punishes agencies in safeguarding their resources.
itself for violations committed by its own agencies. This, however, is more apparent than Held: On 15 January 2008, petitioner filed this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. He alleges
real. The delinquencies of these agencies are not condoned, much less rewarded. It is the Under the 1987 Constitution, however, the COA is vested with the authority to determine that the pre-audit duty on the part of the COA cannot be lifted by a mere circular,
person whose information led to the discovery of their transgressions who is being whether government entities, including LGUs, comply with laws and regulations in considering that pre-audit is a constitutional mandate enshrined in Section 2 of Article IX-
rewarded. Although this results in a reduction in the amount of revenues actually disbursing government funds, and to disallow illegal or irregular disbursements of these D of the 1987 Constitution. He further claims that, because of the lack of pre-audit by
received, the net effect is that the government still gains from the remaining amount paid, funds. Sec. 2 par 2 of Article IX-D of the Constitution. COA, serious irregularities in government transactions have been committed, such as the
which otherwise would have been lost to it. Thus, LGUs, though granted local fiscal autonomy, are still within the audit jurisdiction of P728-million fertilizer fund scam, irregularities in the P550-million call center laboratory
the COA.The Court find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COA in issuing the project of the Commission on Higher Education, and many others.
assailed decisions. It is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of
Case No. 1026 – Lim, RD administrative authorities, especially one which is constitutionally-created not only on the Issue:
Topic: COA - Jurisdiction basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise in the Whether the COA’s power includes the duty to conduct pre-audit
CSC v. Pobre, GR 160568, Sept. 15, 2004 laws they are entrusted to enforce.
Facts: Case No. 1028 – Lim, RD Held:
Respondent Hermogenes Pobre is a former government official who retired from the Topic: COA - Jurisdiction Petitioner's allegations find no support in the afore quoted Constitutional provision. There
government service three times. He first retired as commissioner of COA on March 31, Boy Scout of the Philippines v. COA, GR 177131, 7 June 2011 is nothing in the said provision that requires the COA to conduct a pre-audit of all
1986. He entered the government and retired as chairman of the Board of Accountancy. government transactions and for all government agencies. The only clear reference to a
He was then appointed as associate commissioner of the PRC of which he eventually ACTS: This case arose when the COA issued Resolution No. 99-011on August 19, 1999 pre-audit requirement is found in Section 2, paragraph 1, which provides that a post-audit
retired as chairman. The first two times he retired he received his terminal leave pay both ("the COA Resolution"), with the subject "Defining the Commissions policy with respect to is mandated for certain government or private entities with state subsidy or equity and
times. On his third retirement Pobre claimed payment of his terminal leave based on his the audit of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines." In its whereas clauses, the COA only when the internal control system of an audited entity is inadequate. In such a
highest monthly salary as PRC chairman but to be reckoned from the date he first entered Resolution stated that the BSP was created as a public corporation under Commonwealth situation, the COA may adopt measures, including a temporary or special pre-audit, to
the government service as budget examiner. He invoked section 13 of commonwealth act Act No. 111, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 460 and Republic Act No. 7278; that correct the deficiencies.
186. Doubtful of the claim, the PRC chairperson sought the opinion of COA and CSC. The in Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Supreme Hence, the conduct of a pre-audit is not a mandatory duty that this Court may compel the
CSC then said that all Pobre was entitled to were his terminal leave benefits based on Court ruled that the BSP, as constituted under its charter, was a "government-controlled COA to perform. This discretion on its part is in line with the constitutional pronouncement
only his accured leave credits from the date of his assumption to office as PRC chairman corporation within the meaning of Article IX(B)(2)(1) of the Constitution"; and that "the that the COA has the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination.
and not his total terminal leave credits. On appeal CA ruled that COA has jurisdiction over BSP is appropriately regarded as a government instrumentality under the 1987 When the language of the law is clear and explicit, there is no room for interpretation, only
the matter not CSC. Administrative Code." The COA Resolution also cited its constitutional mandate under application. 19 Neither can the scope of the provision be unduly enlarged by this Court.
Issue: Section 2(1), Article IX (D).Finally, the COA Resolution reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DISMISSED.
Whether CSC has exclusive jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of respondents claim for
terminal leave. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the COMMISSION Case No. 1030 - Lim, RD
Held: PROPER HAS RESOLVED, AS IT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE,to conduct an annual Topic: COA – Settle Government Accounts
No. while the determination of the leave benefits is within the functions of the CSC the financial audit of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines in accordance with generally accepted Philippine Operations, Inc. v. Auditor General, 94 Phil 868 [1953-1954]
duty to examine accounts and expenditures relating to such benefits properly pertain to auditing standards, and express an opinion on whether the financial statements which
COA. Where government expenditures are involved, CSC cannot claim exclusive include the Balance Sheet, the Income Statement and the Statement of Cash Flows Facts:
jurisdiction simply because leave matters are involved. Thus even SC recognizes CSC’s present fairly its financial position and results of operations. POI entered into a barter agreement with the Bureau of Prisons whereby it agreed to
jurisdiction over the case, its power is not exclusive as it is shared with COA. The COA deliver to the Bureau a sawmill, complete, with a diesel fuel engine, a stop saw edge and
and CSC are equally pre-eminent in their respective spheres. Neither one may claim BE IT RESOLVED FURTHERMORE, that for purposes of audit supervision, the Boy log turner, etc., and two LCMs in good turning condition, in exchange for 350,000 board
dominance over the others. In case of conflicting rulings it is the judiciary which ascertains Scouts of the Philippines shall be classified among the government corporations feet of sawed lumber.
which shall prevail. In this case there are no conflicting rulings because COA has yet to belonging to the Educational, Social, Scientific, Civic and Research Sectorunder the The receipt that an employee of the Bureau of Prisons issued for the sawmill and its
render its opinion on the PRC’s query regarding Pobre’s claim for terminal leave benefits. Corporate Audit Office I, to be audited, similar to the subsidiary corporations, by accessories discloses following unsatisfactory conditions. Due to the effect, the Bureau
The SC finds it prudent to abstain from any pronouncements on this issue and wait for employing the team audit approach would not be able to complete the delivery of the sawed lumber.
COA to rule on respondent’s claim. The Attorney of POI claim with the Auditor General demanding cash payment plus
ISSUE: damaged incurred. The Auditor denied the claim because the agreement entered into was
Case No. 1027 – Lim, RD Whether COA have jurisdiction over BSP? one of barter and no money consideration came to mind and that the Bureau of Prisons
Topic: COA - Jurisdiction was willing to perform its part of the obligation.
Veloso v. Commission on Audit GR. 193677 HELD:
Facts: After looking at the legislative history of its amended charter and carefully studying the Issue:
On December 7, 2000, the City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8040 entitled An applicable laws and the arguments of both parties, [the Supreme Court found] that the Whether the Auditor General has jurisdiction over unliquidated claim
Ordinance Authorizing the Conferment of Exemplary Public Service Award to Elective BSP is a public corporation and its funds are subject to the COA's audit jurisdiction. The
Local Officials of Manila Who Have Been Elected for Three (3) Consecutive Terms in BSP Charter (Commonwealth Act No. 111, approved on October 31, 1936), entitled "An Held:
the Same Position. Pursuant to the ordinance, the City made partial payments to some Act to Create a Public Corporation to be Known as the Boy Scouts of the Philippines, and The Auditor General has no jurisdiction or power to take cognizance of claims for
former city councilors including herein petitioners the total amount of P9, 923,257.00. On to Define its Powers and Purposes" created the BSP as a "public corporation" unliquidated damages , we now come to the question as to whether under the provisions
August 8,2005, Atty. Gabriel J. Espina (Atty. Espina), Supervising Auditor of the City of of the Constitution and the laws enacted thereafter by Congress, such power may not be
Manila, issued Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) No. 2005-100(05)07(05) stating considered as having been lodged in the Auditor General. An examination of the
that Ordinance No. 8040 is without legal basis and the amount granted as monetary Case No. 1029 – Lim, RD provisions of the Constitution fails to disclose any power vested in or granted to the
reward is excessive and tantamount to double compensation. After evaluation of the Topic: COA - Jurisdiction Auditor General to consider claims. All that is vested in the Auditor General is the
AOM, the Director, Legal and Adjudication Office (LAO)-Local of the COA issued a Notice Dela Llana v. COA – 665 SCRA 176 [2012] settlement of accounts. "Accounts," because of the absence of any reasons to the
of Disallowance. Upon review, the COA rendered the assailed the decision sustaining ND Facts: contrary, must be deemed to have the same meaning as accounts under the laws in force
(Notice of Disallowance) No. 06-010-100-05. The motion for reconsideration was likewise On 26 October 1982, the COA issued Circular No. 82-195, lifting the system of pre-audit before the approval of the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the Auditor
denied. The COA opined that the monetary reward under the EPSA is covered by the of government financial transactions, albeit with certain exceptions. The circular affirmed General the right to consider claims. After the promulgation of the Constitution, the power
term compensation. Though it recognizes the local autonomy of LGUs, it emphasized the the state policy that all resources of the government shall be managed, expended or was granted under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 327. We have examined this
law, and we find nothing therein to show that the term "moneyed claims," the jurisdiction NHC v. COA – 226 SCRA 55 [1993]
over which is granted the Auditor General, should not be interpreted in the same sense Case No. 1035- Lim, RD
that it was understood prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Facts: Topic: COA – Define Scope and Techniques of Auditing Procedures
For the foregoing considerations, the petition for review is hereby dismissed, with costs Our government forged an agreement on financial cooperation with the Republic of Danville Maritime v. COA,175 SCRA 701 [1989]
against the petitioner. Germany. The agreement empowered the NHA (National Housing Authority) and the
KFW (Kreditanstalt Fur Weideraufbau) to be the lender or the project sponsor of the Facts:
Urban Housing Dagat Dagatan Project II. Petitioner seeks to set aside the letter-directive of respondent Commission on Audit (COA
However, despite all the negotiations and contracts, the project was not completed as for brevity) disapproving the result of the public bidding held by the Philippine National Oil
Case No. 1031- Lim, RD scheduled. Thus, an extension of the contracts was made since the NHA did not appear Company (PNOC for brevity) of the sale of its tanker-vessel "T/T Andres Bonifacio" on the
Topic: COA – Settle Government Accounts to have much choice. Several extensions were made which triggered the difficulties ground that only one bidder submitted a bid and to direct COA to approve the said sale.
ICNA v. Republic, 21 SCRA 40 [1967] experienced by the NHA.
Issue:
Facts: Issue: Whether the public respondent COA committed a grave abuse of discretion when it ruled
The Insurance Company of North America filed an action for recovery for the insured Whether the COA has the authority to disallow a duly entered contract and substitute its that there was a failure of bidding when only one bid was submitted and subsequently
value of shipment allegedly lost in the custody of the carrier United States Lines Co., or of own judgment or disposition in lieu of the decision of the management or governing body ordered a rebidding.
the lighter operator, Luzon Stevedoring Corporation , or of the arrastre operator, Bureau of the Govt. entities
of Customs, an agency of the defendant, Republic of the Philippines. Held:
The RP and the Bureau moved to dismiss the complaint by claiming state immunity of the Held: COA Circular No. 88-264 there should at least be two (2) bidders, otherwise there is a
suit. However, the court in lieu of a decision rendered in Mobil Philippines Exploration In Caltex Philippines, Inc. v. COA, We recognized the authority of COA to disallow failure of bidding.
Inc., vs Bureau of Customs and Customs Arrastre denied the petition to dismiss. irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable (IUEEU) expenditures. Negotiated sale may only be undertaken under the failure of the second bidding. Only the
We ruled: "Since the COA is responsible for the enforcement of the rules and regulations, SC can review the decisions made by COA
Issue: it goes without saying that failure to comply with them is a ground for disapproving the We see no reason to disturb the interpretation given by the COA to the term "public
Whether the plaintiff should have filed its claim to the Auditor General payment of the proposed expenditure." bidding" and what constitutes its "failure." No less than the Constitution has ordained that
The nature of the terminal phrase of the Dagat Dagatan project does not require the the COA shall have exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination,
Held: expertise of a foreign consultant and that the finishing stage merely requires simple establish the techniques and methods required therefore, and promulgate accounting and
In the decided case against the Compania General de Tabacos, it was said that the advisory stage that can be undertaken by the NHA or DPWH in-house technical staff or at auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of
money claims not easily determinable and which calls for the application of judgment and the most a local consultant. The postulates of our Constitution are not merely platitudes, irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or use of
discretion upon the measure of damages are not within the competence of the Auditor in which we should honor only in rhetorics but not in reality. The power to contract in a government funds and properties.
General to decide. However, those, which claim is already fixed and readily determinable, foreign load does not carry with it the authority to bargain away the ideals of our
can be addressed directly to the Auditor General. This is the case of the present petition. Constitution.
Since there was an assertion of th existence of a specific and fixed indebtedness on the Case No. 1036- Lim, RD
part of the Govt., it should be lodged with the Auditor General. Case No. 1034- Lim, RD Topic: COA – Promulgate Accounting and Auditing Rules
Topic: COA – Settle Government Accounts Leycano v. COA, 482 SCRA 215
Case No. 1032- Lim, RD Euro-Med v. Province of Batangas, 495 SCRA 30 [2006]
Topic: COA – Settle Government Accounts Facts:
Dingcong v. Guingona, 162 SCRA 782 [1988] Facts: Petitioner Manuel Leycano, Jr. was the Provincial Treasurer of Oriental Mindoro and at
Petitioner Euro-Med Laboratories, Phil., Inc. filed a complaint against Provice of Batangas the same time a member of the Provincial School Board (PSB) of that province. 1 During
Facts: for unpaid balance still due to the petitioner. Respondent alleged that some payments it his tenure, he was appointed by the PSB as a member of its Inspectorate Team which,
Petitioner, Atty. Praxedio P. Dingcong, was the former Acting Regional Director of had already made were not reflected in the computation set forth in the complaint and that according to him, had the function of "monitoring the progress of PSB projects."
Regional Office No. VI of the Bureau of Treasury in Iloilo City, after public bidding, it was continuously exerting genuine and earnest efforts "to find out the true and actual In the year 1995, several checks were issued to various private contractors in connection
contracted, admittedly on an "emergency labor basis," the services of one Rameses amount owed." with the repair, rehabilitation, and construction projects covered by the Special Education
Layson, a private carpenter and electrician on "pakyao" basis for the renovation and At the conclusion of petitioner's presentation of evidence, respondent filed a motion to Fund (SEF) 2 of Oriental Mindoro in the several public schools.
improvement of the Bureau of Treasury Office, Iloilo City. dismiss 7 the complaint on the ground that the primary jurisdiction over petitioner's money The Special Audit Team, COA Regional Office No. IV, headed by State Auditor Joselyn
When petitioner retired on 17 January 1984, among the items disallowed by the Resident claim was lodged with the Commission on Audit (COA). Respondent pointed out that Cirujano (the Auditor), subsequently audited selected transactions under the SEF of the
Auditor was the amount of P6,574.00 from the labor contracts with Layson, by reducing petitioner's claim, arising as it did from a series of procurement transactions with the Province of Oriental Mindoro, among which were the abovementioned projects (the
the latter's daily rate from P40.00 per day to P18.00 daily. province, was governed by the Local Government Code provisions and COA rules and projects).
Petitioner appealed to the Chairman of the Commission on Audit, who affirmed the regulations on supply and property management in local governments. Respondent The Special Audit Team found deficiencies in the projects, hence, it issued the questioned
disallowance as being "excessive and disadvantageous to the government," but argued that the case called for a determination of whether these provisions and rules Notices of Disallowance holding petitioner, along with Sangguniang Panlalawigan
increased Layson's daily rate to P25.00 thereby reducing the total amount disallowed to were complied with, and that was within the exclusive domain of COA to make. Member Remedios Marasigan and Schools Division Superintendent Benjamin Cruz, liable
P4,276.00. Despite petitioner's request for reconsideration, respondent Commission for signing the Certificates of Inspection (the dates of which have not been alleged by
remained unmoved, hence, the instant appeal. Issue: either party) relative to the projects and thereby falsely attesting to their 100% completion.
Whether it is the COA or RTC which has primary jurisdiction to pass upon petitioner's
Issue: money claim against the Province of Batangas. Issue:
Whether the disallowance is invalid for being a usurpation of management function and Whether petitioner is held accountable for the said project
an impairment of contract Held:
We rule that it is the COA which does. Therefore, we deny the petition. Held:
Held: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination In light of this function of the Inspectorate Team, its members may be held liable by the
The Decision of the Commission on Audit is hereby SET ASIDE requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of an administrative body, relief COA for any irregular expenditure of the SEF if their participation in such irregularity can
COA is vested with power and authority, and is also charged with the duty to examine, must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the courts is had be established. While petitioner, in his capacity as member of the Inspectorate Team, is
audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the expenditures or uses of funds owned by, or even if the matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction. 10 It applies where a claim not an accountable officer as contemplated in Section 101 of P.D. No. 1445, 5 which
pertaining to the Govt., or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities. is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of the states:
The COA found that the labor contract which they disallowed, was excessive and thus claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been SEC. 101. Accountable officers; bond requirement. — (1) Every officer of any
disadvantageous to the Govt. however, the court found out that that the rate given is not placed within the special competence of an administrative agency. In such a case, the government agency whose duties permit or require the possession or custody of
necessarily disadvantageous. The Bureau of Treasury hired Layson since he was the one court in which the claim is sought to be enforced may suspend the judicial process government funds or property shall be accountable therefor and for the safekeeping
submitted the lowest price in the auction for the contract. Thus, it being found not pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view 11 or, if the parties thereof in conformity with law.
disadvantageous, the decision of COA was set aside and ordered the petitioner to refund would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice. 12 (2) Every accountable officer shall be properly bonded in accordance with law, he
the disallowed item. This case is one over which the doctrine of primary jurisdiction clearly held sway for may, nonetheless, be held liable by the COA under the broad jurisdiction vested on it by
although petitioner's collection suit for P487,662.80 was within the jurisdiction of the RTC, the Constitution "to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and
13 the circumstances surrounding petitioner's claim brought it clearly within the ambit of receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or
Case No. 1033- Lim, RD the COA's jurisdiction. pertaining to, the Government." 6 In addition, the authority of the COA to hold petitioner
Topic: COA – Settle Government Accounts liable is also implied in its duty to "promulgate accounting and auditing rules and
regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, them by the other respondent, then the Commanding General, Philippine Army, Fort Further, in National Center for Mental Health Management v. Commission on Audit , the
excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds Bonifacio, Rizal, Romeo Espino. term “irregular”, as with the terms “unnecessary,” “excessive,” and “extravagant,” was
and properties." The basis for such a petition was that under the Constitution, the Auditor General is not explained in reference to expenditure of funds or uses of property. Its determination is
Furthermore, Section 340 of the Local Government Code (LGC) clearly provides: only vested with the duty to examine or audit all expenditures of funds of the Government, situational taking into consideration circumstances of time and place, behavioral and
SECTION 340. Persons Accountable for Local Government Funds. — Any officer of the but also to audit or investigate and "bring to the attention of the proper administrative ecological factors, as well as political, social and economic conditions. In this light, it
local government unit whose duty permits or requires the possession or custody of local officer expenditures of funds or property which in this opinion are irregular, unnecessary, cannot be said that the additional expense incurred for the construction were irregular or
government funds shall be accountable and responsible for the safekeeping thereof in excessive, or extravagant." It is their contention that under the above, it is incumbent on excessive, unnecessary or unconscionable since it was spent for the benefit of PSU. The
conformity with the provisions of this Title. Other local officers who, though not the Auditor General to determine whether criminal responsibility for the anomaly additional expense was also within the Approved agency Estimates. Further, there is no
accountable by the nature of their duties, may likewise be similarly held accountable and discovered in the course of his audit or examination of the accounts lies. showing that petitioner was ill-motivated, or that she had personally profited or sought to
responsible for local government funds through their participation in the use or application profit from the transactions
thereof. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Issue:
DOCTRINE: PROMULGATE ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING RULES Whether the investigation of the cases by the Provincial Fiscal encroached upon the
powers of the Auditor General Case No. 1040- Lim, RD
Case No. 1037- Lim, RD Topic: COA – Decide Administrative Cases Involving Expenditures and Public
Topic: COA – Decide Administrative Cases Involving Expenditures and Public Held: Funds
Funds Such a contention lacks merit. City of Basilan v. Hechanova, 58 SCRA 711 [1974]
NCMH v. COA, 265 SCRA 390 [1996] There is the explicit requirement then that there be no expenditure of public funds except
in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. Though the power of the purse belongs to Facts:
Facts: the legislative, they are not in a position to oversee and supervise the actual release of The City of Basilan, by ordinance created the position of Assistant City Auditor in1954.
An increase in its budgetary allocation of from P145 million in 1987 to P191 million in each and every appropriation. That is where the Auditor General comes in. He serves as Private respondent Miguel Antonio was appointed to this position. In 1964, the city
1988 enabled petitioner NCMHM, headed by Dr. Brigida Buenaseda, to finally undertake the necessary check to make certain that no department of the government exceeds the abolished the position by through another ordinance, deleting the position from the
the rehabilitation, apparently long overdue, of various facilities in the NCMHM. statutory limits of the appropriation to which it is entitled. plantilla and specifying no compensation for the office. Respondents contested the
Soon after most of the work was accomplished, the NCMHM Nurses Association lodged The exclusive jurisdiction of the Auditor General refer to auditorial requirements and authority of the City of Basilan to abolish the position, hence Antonio continued to
with the Office of the Ombudsman a complaint against petitioners for alleged approval but not to the criminal liability, if any, of the persons involved in an alleged discharge the functions of his office.
mismanagement of funds. At the same time, the group asked the COA to undertake an irregular or anomalous disbursement of public funds. The authority of the Fiscal to
audit of the NCMHM. Acting on the request, the COA directed an audit, covering the investigate whether a criminal act has been committed or not in the disbursement of Issue:
transactions made in 1988 and the first four (4) months of 1989, to be conducted by a public funds is not included in the administrative findings of the Auditor General. Whether the City of Basilan can dissolve the office of Assistant City Auditor by ordinance
Special Audit Team ("SAT"). On 27 July 1992, the SAT submitted its SAO (Special Audit
Office) report that states that a use of bulk of the budget was unnecessary, extravagant Case No. 1039- Lim, RD Held:
and/or excessive. While the incurrence of these expenditures made the physical Topic: COA – Decide Administrative Cases Involving Expenditures and Public NO . The office of Assistant City Auditor is dissimilar from that of a city employee. It
surroundings pleasant, it left some basic hospital needs unattended to or given minimal Funds comes within the purview of the Auditor General, a constitutionally created position. Itis a
attention. Salva v. Carague, 511 SCRA 258 position primarily under the General Auditing Office. Therefore, the City of Basilan does
The SAO report and the evaluation report was brought to COA en banc for review and not have sole jurisdiction over the position, much less the power to abolish it.
was denied for alleging that there was an overpricing, splitting, violation of rues of public Facts:
bidding, and unlawful alterations of dates”. Hence, this petition alleged that COA to have Petitioner Dr. Teresita L. Salva, President of the Palawan State University(formerly
committed Grave Abuse of Discretion, that they denied due process and that the findings Palawan State College [PSC]), is being held personally liable by the Commission on Audit
found in the SAO report was not substantiated evidence but by suspicion. (COA) for the disallowance made on the construction of Phase II,Multi-Purpose Building Case No. 1041- Lim, RD
of the PSC in the amount of P274,726.38 Topic: COA – Jurisdiction
Issue: In 1992, the PSC and the Integrand Development Construction, Inc. (IDCI)entered into a Luciano Veloso v. Commisssion on Audit, GR 193677, 6 September 2011
Whether the expenditures were considered to be was unnecessary, extravagant and/or Construction Agreement for the construction of the PSC Multi-Purpose Building (Phase II)
excessive for the price of P1,685,883.45 When the COA-Technical Audit Specialist (COA-TAS) Doctrine: Power of COA to audit government agencies cannot be taken away
reviewed the contract, it found excess amounts attributed to the costs of items of
Held: mobilization/demobilization and earth fill and compaction. Facts:
The Court ruled: in passing, nothing before us suggests, even remotely, that the In COA Decision No. 95-211 dated March 28, 1995, petitioner, together with PSCVice- The city council of Manila enacted City Ordinance No. 8040 authorizing the grant of an
disbursements have been made for personal or selfish ends. Petition GRANTED in President Francisco M. Romantico and PSC Accountant Carolina S. Baloran, were held Exemplary Public Service Award (EPSA) to elective officials of the City of Manila who
accordance with the circular that defines unnecessary, extravagant and/or excessive is. jointly and severally liable for the amount of P274,726.38 which was the excess amount. have been elected for 3 consecutive terms. The award includes gratuity pay amounting to
COA Circular 88-55-A states: The COA further affirmed said disallowance in COA Decision No. 2000-273dated 3 years worth of salary subject to availability and minimal restrictions. Petitioners Veloso
"2.2 The service mission, size, systems, structure, strategy, skills, style, spirit and September 26, 2000, with the modification that Romantico and Baloran were excused et al were recipients of the EPSA and correspondingly received gratuities from the City of
financial performance of government agency are the primary considerations in from any liability, while Engineers Norberto S. Dela Cruz and Lucy JanetPasion, and the Manila.
determining whether or not their expenditures are irregular, unnecessary, excessive or IDCI Manager, were included as persons liable for the amount. Respondent Commission on Audit evaluated the EPSA program and found it excessive
extravagant." 20 and in contrast to provisions of the Salary Standardization Law (SSL). In a Decision by
Then COA Chairman Francisco Tantuico, Jr., 21 comments: Issue: the respondent commission, the disbursement of the EPSA to petitioners were deemed
"The terms 'irregular,' 'unnecessary,' 'excessive,' and 'extravagant,' when used in Whether petitioner should be held personally liable for the disallowed amount illegal. The petitioners contest this decision, positing that the Commission on Audit has
reference to expenditures of funds or uses of property, are relative. The determination of ofP274,726.38? committed grave abuse of discretion in interfering with LGU’s in the disbursement of the
which expenditure of funds or use of property belongs to this or that type is situational. EPSA. They also contend that the COA has no authority to disapprove payments simply
Circumstances of time and place, behavioral and ecological factors, as well as political, Held: because they are unreasonable, citing Guevara vs.Gimenez.
social and economic conditions, would influence any such determination. Viewed from Petitioner is found liable under Section 103 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 or the
this perspective, transactions under audit are to be judged on the basis of not only the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines. Under this provision, an official or Issue:
standards of legality but also those of regularity, necessity, reasonableness and employee shall be personally liable for unauthorized expenditures if the following Whether the COA have the authority to disallow the disbursement of local government
moderation." requisites are present, to wit: (a) there must be an expenditure of government funds or fund thus committing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by
use of government property; (b) the expenditure is in violation of law or regulation; and(c) disallowing the disbursement of the EPSA pursuant to Ordinance 8040
the official is found directly responsible.
Case No. 1038- Lim, RD According to COA, applying the provision above, since the petitioner directly caused such Held:
Topic: COA – Decide Administrative Cases Involving Expenditures and Public diversion which resulted in the use of additional equipment and expense, then she should YES . Article IX-D of the Constitution gives a broad outline of the powers and functions of
Funds be personally liable for the resulting additional expense. But court found that her only the COA, to wit: The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to
Ramos v. Aquino, 39 SCRA 256 [1971] participation is to approve the Approved Agency Estimates (AAE) prepared by PSU examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and
Engineers Norberto S. dela Cruz and Lucy Janet R. Pasion. She cannot be held expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the
Facts: personally liable for the disallowance simply because she was the final approving Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including
Appellants, assailed the jurisdiction of respondent Benjamin Aquino, then Provincial Fiscal authority of the transaction in question. Also, being the president of PSU does not government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit
of Rizal, to conduct the preliminary investigation of the alleged commission of automatically make her the party ultimately liable in case of disallowance of expenses for basis.
malversation through falsification of Public, official and commercial documents imputed to questionable transactions of her agency
The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to RULING:
define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods
required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including Yes. Respondent deputy sheriff ought to have been guided by his superior’s advice
those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, ARTICLE 11 regarding the withdrawal of the subject foreclosure case. As the enforcement arm of the
extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and judiciary, deputy sheriffs must at all times be circumspect in the performance of their
properties. NO. Section 11, Chapter 4, Subtitle B, Title I, Book V of the Administrative CASE NO. 1118 duties and must be fully aware of the responsibilities entailed in their functions and the
Code of 1987 states that the jurisdiction of the COA Under the first paragraph of the Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers, Section 1. Public Office propriety needed afforded them. Respondent’s act of signing the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale
above provision, the COA's audit jurisdiction extends to the government, or any of its Hipolito vs Mergas A.M. No. P-90-412. March 11, 1991 apparently for and in behalf of his superior is a clear case of insubordination and gross
subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled misconduct. His alleged partiality in favor of the mortgagors to help them settle their
corporations with original charters. obligation cannot be countenanced by this Court.

FACTS: MAIN POINT:

Respondent Mergas is a deputy sheriff of the Regional Trial Court in Manila. He was Deputy Sheriffs must at all times be circumspect in the performance of their duties and
charged for swindlling or estafa by the complainant Hipolito, an applicant for a small scale must be fully aware of the responsibilities entailed in their functions and the propriety
mining permit. needed afforded them.

In an investigation conducted, the complainant approached Sheriff Mergas to help her on CASE NO. 1120
the application with the Bureau of Mines for a small scale mining permit for pumice. The
Respondent accepted the request although application for mining permit is beyond his Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers, Section 1. Public Office
duty as a deputy sheriff of the court. Consequently, sheriff filed the application in behalf of Almario v. Resus – AM NO. P941076 [1999]
Hipolito with the Bureau of Mines in Pampanga during his office hours. In connection to
the application, respondent sheriff received from Marisol Hipolito the sum of P14,200.00
which was spent for the application fee and other related fees including travel expenses, FACTS:
food and other expenses in following up the application. The respondent further claimed
that Marisol Hipolito still owes him P3,400.00. Judge Almario, then Presiding Judge of RTC Cavite, charged Clerk of Court Resus and
Stenographic Reporter Saclolo of his court with gross misconduct after he discovered
ISSUE: anomalies on LRC Cases Nos. NC-453 to 458 and GLRO Case No. 8340. In an
investigation, The transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of the ex-parte hearing which
took place in the office of respondent Resus in LRC Cases Nos. NC-453 to 458 was
Whether or not Sheriff Mergas is guilty of malfeasance in office. found out to be a "ghost proceeding". This is after Judge Almario suspected an irregularity
on the venue of the hearing wherein Mrs. Enriquez was said to have testified. The hearing
RULING: allegedly conducted in Silahis Hotel in Manila, instead of Cavite. He was not convinced
since Mrs. Enriquez was no longer physically fit to travel long distance trips. According to
Yes. The court ruled that respondent committed acts which may be called "moonlighting" Judge Diaz, there was no falsification of TSN in LRC Cases Nos. NC-455 to 458 was
and which are contrary to civil service rules and regulations. He observed that respondent committed, since respondent Saclolo neither signed the alleged falsified or ghost
is not supposed to be following up extraneous matters outside Manila, in other transcript nor certified to its truth and correctness. Judge Almario also charged both
government offices and for private individuals, to the prejudice of his work in the judiciary respondents with falsification of the TSN in GLRO Case No. 8340 by making it appear
as a deputy sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. that a hearing in that case. It was further proven that the hearing was conducted by Clerk
of Court Resus on 8 June 1994 what seemed to be erroneous was the insertion into the 8
MAIN POINT: June 1994 TSN of Prosecutor Vida’s cross-examination questions propounded during the
second hearing held sometime after the receipt by the court of the Notice of Appearance
of the OSG. Judge Diaz recommended the dismissal of the falsification charges but
"Moonlighting" is not normally considered as a serious misconduct. However, because of issued to reprimand the respondents. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
the nature of his position held by Sheriff Mergas. It obviously amounts to a malfeasance in however reversed the decision of Judge Diaz, stating that the advance preparation of the
office. Public service requires utmost integrity and strictest discipline. TSN in the LRC cases was an attempt to falcify the documents of the court that
respondent Saclolo may be held liable for this anomalous and wrongful conduct.
CASE NO. 1119 Nevertheless respondent Resus, even assuming that he did not have a hand in the
preparation of the said TSN, became an accomplice and by his failure to report the
Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers, Section 1. Public Office anomalous deed.
Bornasal, Jr. v. Montes – 280 SCRA 181 [1997]
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Whether or not respondents are liable for the falcification of the Transcript of
Petitioner charged respondent deputy sheriff with certain unauthorized acts relative to a Stenographic Notes.
petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
RULING:
Respondent effected a notice of sheriff’s sale and its publication after withdrawal of the
petition for extrajudicial foreclosure or real estate mortgage was submitted by FFDC as Yes. There was a clear conspiracy to fabricate the transcript of stenographic notes of an
petitioner/mortgagee. alleged reception of evidence. Hence, Saclolo, deserves to be dismissed from the service
for her grave misconduct in preparing in advance a TSN of a hearing yet to take place
Respondent deputy sheriff invoked good faith that his issuance of the Notice of Sheriff’s and in inserting it into the records of the case even though the hearing did not push
Sale and its subsequent publication were prompted by the vehement request of Spouses through. Reus furthermore, must be held answerable for willfully turning a blind eye on
Calderon. Saclolo’s acts of preparing the said TSN in advance and attaching it to the records of the
LRC cases.
ISSUE:
MAIN POINT:
Whether or not the Respondent Deputy Sheriff is liable for his unauthorized acts.
Clerk of court is mandated to safeguard the integrity of the court and its proceedings, and Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers, Section 1. Public Office FACTS:
to maintain the authenticity and correctness of court records. His willful and intentional Re; AWOL of Antonio Macalintal, AM 99-11-06-SC [2000]
failure to obey this mandate constituted grave misconduct which warrants dismissal from Petitioner was a Municipal Cashier of Office of Municipal Treasurer in Sultan Kudarat,
the service. FACTS: obliged with the cash collections and cash advances. He allegedly failed to audit from his
appointment on July 1, 1975- March 17, 1986. Petitioner apparently had daily collections
CASE NO. 1121 Antonio Macalintal, an employee of the Supreme Court, was held to answer his amounting to P247,753.28.7 Under office rules, petitioner was supposed to turn over the
Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers, Section 1. Public Office unauthorized absences. Respondent explained that he was suffering from illness and collections to Municipal Treasurer Jose B. Galvez, but he failed to do so since Galvez was
Juan v. People, GR 132378 [2000] financial difficulties due to his loan which was remain unpaid. Macalintal contended that then on leave of absence. The audit team in this case did not found any shortage from the
he had never been involved to any offense since his employment. He alleged that his the cash collections. However the audit team found shortage in his cash advances
FACTS: financial difficulties worsened when his salaries and other benefits were withheld by virtue amounting to 249, 829.25. Wherein, the petitioner was only able to liquidate the amount of
of his unauthorized absences. He pleaded that the withheld salaries be given to him and 29,083.57. The petitioner was demanded to provide the missing funds and required send
that he be spared from the strict implementation of the penalty for his absenteeism, him to send written explanation. Petitioner alleged that his liability was only 30,000-40,000
Petitioner Rogelio Juan, a Barangay Chairman, was charged for violation of Section 261-
promising to be more punctual in reporting for work in the future. only. Resultantly, petitioner was charged with malversation of public funds in the
(o) of the Omnibus Election Code. Barangay Chair Juan for willfully and unlawfully used
Information filed with respondent Sandiganbayan.
VHF radio transceiver, an equipment or apparatus owned by the barangay government of
Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City, for election campaign or for partisan political activity. ISSUE:
Atty Bernabe filed a complaint against the said elected official. Petitioner contended that ISSUE:
their cases are not subject to Section 13 of RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Whether or not Macalintal is liable for absenteeism.
Act, which mandates the preventive suspension of indicted public officials. Whether or not Municipal Cashier Estrellas shall be held liable for the shortage in the
cash advances.
RULING:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Yes. Mr. Macalintal admitted having incurred unauthorized absences which was
Whether or not petitioner's violation against the Omnibus Election Code constitutes a amounted amounted to 149 days in the year 1999 alone, that more than that allowed by
violation against RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. law in a given period. Under Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991; of the Civil Yes. is accountable and responsible for public funds entrusted to him by reason of his
Service Commission, an officer or employee in the civil service shall be considered position, with grave abuse of confidence and taking advantage of his public position as
RULING: habitually absent if he incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days such, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, embezzle and
monthly leave credits under the leave law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at take away from said public funds the total amount P218,349.99, Philippine Currency,
least three (3) consecutive months during the year. which is misappropriated and converted to his own personal use, to the damage and
Yes. Any public officer who uses under any guise whatsoever, directly or indirectly
prejudice of the government in the aforestated amount.
government property or facility for any election campaign or for any political activity. This
acts constitutes fraud against the Government. According to Section 13, R.A. 3019, any MAIN POINT:
offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a simple MAIN POINT:
or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is By his habitual absenteeism, Mr. Macalintal has caused inefficiency in the public service.
pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Although the court understand his plight, it does not excuse his total disregard of his An accountable public officer may be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct
official duties. evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is a shortage in his
MAIN POINT: accounts which he has not been able to explain the funds or property by reason of the
duties of his office.
Public officer’s unauthorized and unlawful use of government property in their custody, in
the pursuit of personal interests constitute fraud against the government; thus, the present ==================================================================
CASE NO. 1123
case is covered by Section 13 of RA 3019. Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers, Section 1. Public Office
Estrella v. Sandiganbayan, GR 125160 [2000] Computation:
CASE NO. 1122
CASH COLLECTION
Petitioner audit: 247,753.28
Audit team calculation 250,148.97
NO SHORTAGE, in fact there was excess amount of 2,395.69 which was carried over
and deducted to the cash advances.

CASH ADVANCES FINDINGS:

1. Petitioner- 220,804.25
2. Driver- 14,025
3. Mrs. Pancreas- 15,000
TOTAL 249,829.25

COMPUTATION OF TOTAL SHORTAGE IN CASH ADVANCE

From 249,829.25, ONLY 29,083.57 WAS LIQUIDATED.
2,395.69 (excess from cash collection) +29,083.57 (liquidated) = 31,479.26
31, 479.26- 249,829= 218,349.74 (Total Shortage from cash advances)
 the incident to his superior and filed a motion to cite respondent in contempt of court for MAIN POINT:
CASE NO. 1124 preventing the arrest of Rowena. In retaliation, Respondent was required complainant to
Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers, Section 1. Public Office explain why he should not be cited in contempt of court for allegedly making a false report. Habitual tardiness cannot be countenanced for it impairs efficiency and hampers public
Malbas v. Blanco, A.M. No. P-99-1350 [2001] Failing to appear before the court, Judge Leomo issued warrant of arrest against SPO4 service. By reason of the nature of the functions of office, officials and employees of the
Manaois. Complainant now file additional charges against Leomo. The court administrator Judiciary must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional cannon that public
FACTS: required respondent to answer the charges before him. Respondent denied all the allegations office is a public trust.
stating that complaints are wild imagination. Respondent further averred that he charged
complainant with contempt of court because the latter made a false report which blemished his
Complaint was filed against Sheriff Blanco and other sheriffs of RTC Rizal for implementing a CASE NO. 1127
name.
misrepresented case of writ of demotion. The MTC of Rizal issued a writ of demolition Sheriff Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers, Section 1. Public Office
Gatlabayan sent a notice to vacate to occupants. Previously however, complainants sent a ABAKADA v. Purisima – 562 SCRA 251[2008]
letter to Sheriff Gatlabayan informing him that they were not the defendants in Civil Case No. ISSUE:
93-3208 (Civil Case No. 1189 in MTC) but in Civil Case No. 93-2819 (Civil Case No. 1174 in FACTS:
MTC). That their case is pending with the Court of Appeals. On August 3, 1996, Respondent Whether or not Judge Leomo committed abuse of judicial authority.
Sheriffs together with 30 armed men arrived to Sitio Sagingan to implement the writ of
Congress enacted RA 9335 to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the
demolition. During the event, the complainant insisted that their property was not subjected to RULING: Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). It intends to exceed their
the writ of demolition in the case of execution but rather their case was still on pending on the
revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a
court of appeals.Despite this, respondent sheriffs demolished all the houses in the area
YES. The allegations in the complaint were proven by the evidence on record. Undoubtedly, Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board (Board).
including the houses of the complainants. The Complainant filed with the Supreme Court the
respondent obstructed the normal course of law enforcement. By preventing Rowenas arrest, It covers all officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least six months of service,
instant complaint against Blanco et al. for the damages caused by the misrepresented case.
respondent also unduly interfered in the criminal proceedings against Rowena. Certainly, such regardless of employment status. Petitioners seeks the suspension of the law contending that
RTC conducted an investigation. Sheriff Blanco stated that he and Gatlabayan informed the
conduct caused unnecessary delay in the administration of justice of which respondent is duty- by establishing a system of rewards and incentives, the law "transforms the officials and
complainants about the execution but the latter did not file any comment or opposition.
bound to uphold. employees of the BIR and the BOC into mercenaries and bounty hunters" as they will do their
However, this claims of Sheriff Blanco was reversed by Sheriff Gatbayan in his admission that
best only in consideration of such rewards. Thus, the system of rewards and incentives invites
he received a letter from the complainants that they were not parties to Civil Case No. 1189.
Respondent aggravated his offense by issuing an order requiring complainant to explain why corruption and undermines the constitutionally mandated duty of these officials and employees
The court called both parties to further the investigation. However, the complainant failed to
he should not be cited in contempt of court for allegedly making a false report. Such act to serve the people with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.
appear during the investigation and Respondents manifested that the complainants were no
longer interested to pursue the case. Hence, Judge Rivera recommended to acquit the betrayed an abuse of judicial authority as it was meant to justify his intervention in Rowenas
Sheriffs. The Office of the Court Administrator, after evaluation, did not agree with the arrest. Expectedly, when the complainant failed to appear during the hearing of the contempt ISSUE:
recommendation of the investigating judge. proceedings, respondent ordered his arrest.
Whether or not petitioner's contention was a valid ground for prohibiting RA9335 which
ISSUE: MAIN POINT: imposes the reward system in BIR and BOC.

Whether or not Sheriff Blanco is liable for the misrepresented writ of execution Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of any litigation or dispute RULING:
pending before another court or administrative agency.
RULING: No. Petitioners’ claim that the implementation of RA 9335 will turn BIR and BOC officials and
CASE NO. 1126 employees into "bounty hunters and mercenaries" is not only without any factual and legal
basis; it is also purely speculative. Public service is its own reward. Nevertheless, public
Yes. Respondent Gatlabayan admitted that he was informed by the complainants that they are
officers may by law be rewarded for exemplary and exceptional performance. A system of
not included in the demolition. Thus, it becomes hardly believable that he failed to inform Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers, Section 1. Public Office incentives for exceeding the set expectations of a public office is not anathema to the concept
respondent Blanco of such fact, considering that respondent Gatlabayan joined respondent Re; Gideon Alibang, AM 2003-11-SC [2004] of public accountability. In fact, it recognizes and reinforces dedication to duty, industry,
Blanco in the demolition. Hence, respondent Blanco cannot claim that at the time he enforced
efficiency and loyalty to public service of deserving government personnel.
the writ of demolition, he had no personal knowledge nor was he informed that the property FACTS:
being occupied by the complainants was not the subject of Civil Case No. 1189 but of another
ejectment case in which Chemical Fibers, Inc. is also the plaintiff. MAIN POINT:
Gideon M. Alibang, employee of Hall of Justice, Davao City, incurred habitual tardiness during
the first semester of 2003. In the court's report, he committed tardiness 13 times in January A system of incentives for exceeding the set expectations of a public office is not anathema to
2003 and 11 times in February 2003.Forthwith, the court required him to explain in writing the concept of public accountability. In fact, it recognizes and reinforces dedication to duty,
within five days from notice why no disciplinary action should be taken against him. Alibang industry, efficiency and loyalty to public service of deserving government personnel.
MAIN POINT: admitted having incurred habitual tardiness for the same duration. He explained that on
December 10, 2002, his wife gave birth to their third child. Later that month, their house helper
CASE NO. 1128
The failure of sheriffs to verify complainants’ allegation that they were not parties to the case in left them. For two months he was forced to do all the household chores before reporting for
Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers, Section 1. Public Office
which the writ of execution was issued manifests blatant irresponsibility, for which they must be work. Adding to his woes then was the heavy traffic caused by the construction of Buhangin
Salumbides v. OMB, GR 180917 [2010]
meted with the appropriate penalty by their acts, the sheriffs committed grave misconduct, underpass, thus taking him a longer time to travel to his office. He asked for consideration and
oppression and conducted themselves in a manner highly prejudicial to the best interest of the apologized for his belated explanation.
service. FACTS:
ISSUE:
CASE NO. 1125 Vicente Jr. (Salumbides) and Glenda (Arana), Municipal Legal Officer/Administrator and
Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers, Section 1. Public Office Municipal Budget Officer, respectively, of Tagkaywayan, Quezon, along with Mayor Vicente III
Whether or not Alibang is liable for the habitual tardiness.
Manaois v. Lemeo, AM MTJ-03-1492 [2003] (Salumbides) were charged administratively in connection with the construction of a two-
classroom building for the Tagkawayan Municipal High School, without the required
RULING: appropriation of the Sangguniang Bayan, and without public bidding, the funds for which they
FACTS:
sourced from the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses/Repair and Maintenance of
Yes. The records show that Alibang did incur tardiness 13 times in January 2003 and 11 times Facilities (MOOE/RMF) for the year 2002, as was allegedly done by the previous
Judge Leomo was charged with grave misconduct, acts constituting obstruction of justice, and
in February 2003. This is habitual tardiness punishable under the Civil Service Rules. As administration. Construction proceeded, and even after the project was included in the list of
abuse of authority by the petitioner SPO4 Manaois. According to Manaois, he received correctly found by Atty. Candelaria, none of the reasons relied upon by respondent to justify his projects to be bidder, no bidders participated. The other members of the Sangguniang Bayan
received warrant of arrest against Rowena C. Corpuz. Rowena went to his office to inquire habitual tardiness merits our consideration. We have consistently ruled that moral obligations, then filed with the Office of the Ombudsman an administrative case for Dishonesty, Grave
about a vehicle clearence. Remembering her name was on the warrant, he asked if she has a performance of household chores and traffic problems are not sufficient reasons to excuse Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and
pending case in the said court. After confirming, he showed her the warrant and declared that habitual tardiness, although in certain cases these may be considered to mitigate violation of the Commission on Audit (COA) Rules and the Local Government Code. The OMB
she is under arrest. Immediately, Rowena went to her companion, Judge Leomo who was administrative liability. By being habitually tardy, respondent fell short of the stringent standard denied the prayer to place petitioner et al. under preventive suspension pending investigation.
waiting on his vehicle. Respondent then confronted complainant then left afterwards. At the of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the civil service, specially the By Order dated February 1, 2005, approved on April 11, 2005, it denied the motion for
same day, Complainant was informed by the Leomo that he surrendered Rowena in PNP administration of justice. reconsideration but dropped the mayor and Coleta, both elective officials, as respondents in
Office and would inform the RTC judge for her arrest. Complainant the following day reported
the administrative case, the 2004 elections having mooted the case. The Office of the
Ombudsman approved the September 9, 2005 Memorandum absolving Jason and Aquino, and MAIN POINT:
finding petitioners guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and imposed a six-month suspension upon
them. Article 11 Section 2 is an exclusive list and may not be increased or reduced by legislative Facts: Gonzales was the Tanodbayan or Special Prosecutor. He forwarded a letter-complaint
enactment. Ombudsman as enumerated refers to rank and not to the office. Thus, its Deputies to Justice Fernan which is said to be from a concerned employee of the Supreme Court. The
ISSUE: cannot be included in list of impeachable officer. letter was originally addressed to Gonzales referring to the charges for disbarment sought by
Miguel Cuenco against Justice Fernan, and asking Gonzales to do something about it. The
Whether or not Salumbides is liable for his negligence of duty. Supreme Court furnished a copy to Gonzales, the per curiam Resolution of the Court,
CASE NO. 1130 dismissing the charges made by Cuenco against Justice Fernan for lack of merit. In that
Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers, Section 2. Officers Subject to Removal by resolution, Cuenco was asked to show why he should not be held liable for making serious
RULING:
Impeachment accusations against Fernan.
Impeachable Officer in a Quo Warranto Proceeding
Yes. The court ruled that as municipal legal officer, petitioner Salumbides failed to uphold the Republic vs. Sereno, G.R. 237428
law and provide a sound legal assistance and support to the mayor in carrying out the delivery Issue: Whether a member of the Supreme Court may be disbarred during his term of office.
of basic services and provisions of adequate facilities when he advised the mayor to proceed
FACTS:
with the construction of the subject projects without prior competitive bidding. As pointed out by
Ruling: No. A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a member of the
the Office of the Solicitor General, to absolve Salumbides is tantamount to allowing with
Respondent Sereno served UP LAW from November 1986- May 31, 2006 and concurrently Philippine bar as a qualification for the office held by him and who may be removed from office
impunity the giving of erroneous or illegal advice, when by law he is precisely tasked to advise
employed as legal counsel of the Republic in two international arbitrations from October 2003 only by impeachment cannot be charged with disbarment during the incumbency of such public
the mayor on matters related to upholding the rule of law. Indeed, a legal officer who renders a
to 2006. During her application as Associate Justice, JBC reconsidered her nomination as a officer. During his incumbency as public officer, he cannot be charged criminally with any
legal opinion on a course of action without any legal basis becomes no different from a lay
private practitioner which did not compel her from submitting her SALN. On 2012, the position offense which carries with it the penalty of removal from office, or any penalty service of which
person who may approve the same because it appears justified.
of Chief Justice was declared vacant, and the JBC directed the applicants to submit would amount to removal from office. Members of the Supreme Court are not entitled to
documents, including all previous SALNs for government service applicants. SALN of Sereno immunity from liability for possible criminal acts or for allege violation of Canons of Judicial
MAIN POINT: Ethics or other supposed misbehavior; Observance of a fundamental procedural requirement
was found to be lacking. Impeachment complaint was filed by Atty. Larry Gadon against
Sereno, alleging that She failed to make truthful declarations in her SALNs. OSG seeks to oust before such liability may be determined and enforced. It follows that a fiscal or other
Public officer binds himself to faithfully perform the duties of the office and use reasonable skill Sereno from her position as CJ on the ground that Sereno failed to show that she is a person prosecuting officer should forthwith and motu proprio dismiss any charges brought against a
and diligence, and to act primarily for the benefit of the public. Thus, in the discharge of duties, of proven integrity which is an indispensable qualification for membership in the Judiciary Member of the Court. The remedy of a person with a legitimate grievance is to file
a public officer is to use that prudence, caution, and attention which careful persons use in the under Section 7(3), Article VIII of the Constitution. Respondent argued that the Chief Justice impeachment proceedings. Only when the tenure of the SC Justice be terminated by
management of their affairs. may be ousted from office only by impeachment. She further contends that the use of the impeachment may he then be held to answer either criminally or administratively for any wrong
phrase "may be removed from office" in Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not signify or misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate proceedings.
CASE NO. 1129 that Members of the Supreme Court may be removed through modes other than impeachment.
Main Point: A public officer whose membership in the Philippine Bar is a qualification for the
Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers, Section 2. Officers Subject to Removal by ISSUE: office held by him and removable only be impeachment cannot be charged with disbarment
Impeachment during his membership; Nor can he be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any
Ombudsman v. CA – 452 SCRA 714 [2005] Whether or not the Court can assume jurisdiction over the quo warranto against an other Court where the penalty is removal
FACTS: impeachable officer such like the respondent whose impeachment complaint is pending before
HOR. Case NO. 1132
Complaint was filed against Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, Arturo Mojica for sexual
harassment, extortion and oppression. Upon receipt of the complaint, Ombudsman directed RULING:
Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) to investigate the allegations. FFIB, later in its ARTICLE XI: SEC 3. Procedure for Impeachment
report, found the evidence against Petitioner strong on the charges. The FFIB report was
Yes. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over an action for quo warranto as stated in
referred by the Ombudsman to a constituted Committee of Peers. The Committee of Peers Marcoleta v. Brawner
Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution. An action for quo warranto is judicial or proceeding
initially recommended that the investigation be converted into one solely for purposes of
traditionally lodged in the courts. Furthermore, Quo warranto and impeachment are not
impeachment. However, this recommendation was denied by the Ombudsman after careful
mutually exclusive remedies and may even proceed simultaneously. Quo warranto complaint Facts: Rodante D. Marcoleta filed a complaint for disbarment against respondents
study, that the Deputy Ombudsmen and The Special Prosecutor are not removable through
was filed on the grounds of insufficient documents filed before JBC during her application as Commissioners Resurreccion Z. Borra and Romeo A. Brawner of the Commission on Elections
impeachment. The Ombudsman moreover, directed the Committee of Peers to evaluate the
Chief Justice. This bostered to the fact that she should no longer have considered for interview (Comelec) charging them with violating Canons 1 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and
merits of the case and if warranted by evidence, to conduct administrative and criminal
and eventually appointment. Canons 4, 5, 6 and 17 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. The ponencia was written by
investigations immediately thereafter. Respondent Mojica was removed from the office stating
that evidence were strong and his continuance of office would prejudice his case as he was Commissioner Borra while Commissioner Brawner concurred. The dispute was elevated to the
harassing some witnesses of the case. Petitioner filed for certiorari before CA for the erroneous MAIN POINT: Comelec En Banc. The latter affirmed the decision of the Comelec’s First Division. Brawner, in
removal of office. CA in this case posited that Ombudsman and other constitutional officers his answer asserted that the complainant should have filed an appeal via petition for certiorari
who are required by the Constitution to be members of the Philippine Bar and are removable Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an invalidly appointed or invalidly elected to the Supreme Court, and that being members of a constitutional body he and Borra ―are
only by impeachment, are immunized from liability possibly for criminal acts or for violation of impeachable official may be removed from office supposed to be insulated from a disbarment complaint for being impeachable officer For his
the Code of Professional Responsibility or other claimed misbehaviour. This was rendered by part, Borra contends that the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canons of Judicial Ethics cannot
the doctrine of stare decisis where an obiter dictum was enunciated relative to the present be made to apply to him and Brawner because they are not members of the judiciary.
case. However, this was assailed by the Ombudsman contending that Deputy ombudsman is Marcoleta argues that respondents cannot take refuge in their being impeachable public
not an impeachable officer listed in Section 2 of Article 11. officers to insulate them from any disbarment complaint. For him ―the insulation from
disbarment complaint of impeachable public officers when referring particularly to the members
of the Comelec applies only to the majority of its members who should all be members of the
ISSUE:
Philippine bar, citing Section 1 (1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution

Whether or not Ombudsman was correct on its judgement against accused.

RULING:
Issue: Whether Borra and Brawner are supposed to be insulated from a disbarment case for
Yes. SC ruled that contention of the Ombudsman was in accordance with the constitution. It is being impeachable officers
Case NO. 1131
immediately apparent that, as enumerated in Sec. 2 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, only
the following are impeachable officers: the President, the Vice President, the members of the
Supreme Court, the members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman. CA’s ARTICLE XI: SEC 3. Procedure for Impeachment
decision cannot weight in this case since the adherence to the precedent of the court which it
Ruling: Yes. At the time the present complaint was filed, respondents and three other
referred its decision were only an obiter dictum or merely opinions of the judges which does not In re Gonzales
embody the resolution or determination of the court. commissioners were all lawyers. As an impeachable officer who is at the same time a member
of the Bar, respondent Borra must first be removed from office via the constitutional route of Main Point: Sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Batasan Rules are valid exercises of the Batasan’s oath to Arroyo as President of the Philippines. That same afternoon, Estrada and his family left
impeachment before he may be held to answer administratively for his supposed errant power to promulgate its own rules of procedure. The power of the committee to determine Malacañang and transmitted a signed letter appointing then Vice-President Arroyo as Acting
resolutions and actions. As regards respondent Brawner then who had already passed, the whether a complaint is sufficient in form and substance is akin to a court having the power to President. Several cases were filed against Estrada in the Office of the Ombudsman. Estrada
determine whether to give due course or not. It is not part of the “initiation” phase of the filed with the Supreme Court a petition for prohibition which sought to enjoin the Ombudsman
case is already moot.
impeachment which is the one governed by Section 3, Article 13 of the 73 constitution. The from conducting any further proceedings in cases filed against him, not until his term as
Batasan can always modify its own rules. president ends. He also filed a petition for quo warranto praying for judgment confirming him to
Main Point: An impeachable officer who is a member of the Bar cannot be disbarred without be the lawful and incumbent President of the Philippines “temporarily unable to discharge the
first being impeached. duties of his office.”
Case NO. 1134

Case NO. 1133 Issue: Whether Erap can be criminally prosecuted notwithstanding the termination of his
ARTICLE XI: SEC 3. Procedure for Impeachment
impeachment proceeding in the Senate
ARTICLE XI: SEC 3. Procedure for Impeachment Francisco v. House of Representatives
Ruling: Yes. Petitioner reiterates the argument that he must be first convicted in the
impeachment proceedings before he could be criminally prosecuted. This provision thus does
Romulo v. Yniguez
not require that Erap’s conviction in the impeachment proceedings be a condition precedent to
his prosecution, trial and punishment for the offenses he is now facing before the Ombudsman.
In addition, when impeachment proceedings have become moot and academic due to the
Facts: The House of Representatives directed the Committee on Justice “to conduct an
resignation of the President, the proper criminal cases may now be filed against him. Since the
investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the
Facts: Petitioners represent 1/5 of the Batasang Pambansa. They came up with a resolution impeachment court was functus officio, it would be unreasonable to demand that he be first
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).” On June 2,
for the impeachment of President Marcos. The resolution was referred to the Committee of impeached then convicted before he may be criminally prosecuted. To do so would result to his
2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint (first impeachment
Justice, Human Rights and Good Governance. At the same day as when the resolution was perpetual bar to prosecution. He would have been in a better situation than a non-sitting
complaint) against Chief Justice Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of this Court. The
submitted, it was dismissed by the Committee for insufficiency in form and substance. The President, who has not been subjected to impeachment proceedings, and yet he can be the
House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13 that the first impeachment complaint was
object of criminal prosecution.
resolution was then archived. The petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of sections “sufficient in form,” but voted to dismiss the same on October 22 for being insufficient in
4,5,6,8 of the Batasan Rules as violative of the section 3, article 13 of the 73 constitution which substance. A second impeachment complaint was filed with the Secretary General of the
says that a complaint for impeachment need only be endorsed by 1/5 of the members of the House against Chief Justice Davide, Jr. on October 23 (4 months and 3 weeks since the first Main Point: Section 3 (7) of Article XI conveys two uncomplicated ideas – first, it tells us that
Batasan. Petitioners submit that all these violate section 3, Article 13 of the 73 constitution one). Since the first impeachment complaint never made it to the floor for resolution, HOR judgment in impeachment cases has a limited reach, i.e., it cannot extend further than removal
because it delegates to a small body (the committee) the power whether or not an concludes that the one year bar prohibiting the initiation of impeachment proceedings against from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, and
impeachment proceeding will move forward when in fact such power is exercised solely by the the same officials could not have been violated as the first impeachment complaint had not second, it tells us the consequence of the limited reach of a judgment in impeachment
Batasan as a collegial body. Furthermore, petitioners contend that section 8 of the Rules is an been initiated as the HOR has yet to act on it. Opposing petitioners on the other hand proceedings considering its nature, i.e., that the party convicted shall still be liable and subject
illegal condition precedent before an impeachment may proceed because it mandates the interpreted the word “initiate” to mean the filing of the complaint. Since there was already a first to prosecution, trial and punishment according to law.
endorsement of the majority of all the members of the Batasan when in fact the constitution complaint that never got through the Committee, no impeachment complaint maybe filed until
requires only the endorsement of 1/5 of its members. In fine, what petitioners are asking is that the lapse of the 1 year period.
the court order respondent to recall the resolution calling for the impeachment of Marcos from Case NO. 1136
the archives and order the conduct of the impeachment trial.
Issue: Whether the second impeachment complaint is barred under Section 3(5) of Article XI
ARTICLE XI: SEC 3. Procedure for Impeachment
of the Constitution.
Issue: Whether the court may order the recall and compel the Batasan to proceed with the
impeachment trial Gutierrez v. Committee
Ruling: Yes. The court held that it falls within the one year bar provided in the Constitution.
Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing of the impeachment
Ruling: No. It is worth noting that when the resolution was placed on archive, Congressman complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice, the initial action taken thereon, the
Mitra moved for recall of the resolution before the Batasan itself which the latter dismissed. To meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has
ask the courts to compel the Batasan to recall the resolution and proceed with the been initiated in the foregoing manner, another may not be filed against the same official within Facts: On July 22, 2010, private respondents Risa Hontiveros, et al filed an impeachment
impeachment trial is to encroach on a coordinate branch of the government. Furthermore, a one year period following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. complaint against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, which was indorsed by Rep. Kaka Bag-
assuming the Batasan may be compelled, proceeding with the trial would just be a futile ao and Rep. Bello. This was included in the Order of Business once the sessions started. On
activity. This is because the 73 constitution, in the same section 3, Article 13 thereof, requires a August 3, 2010, private respondents Renato Reyes, Jr. et al also filed another impeachment
vote of 2/3 of the members of the Batasan for Marcos to be convicted. However, as has been Main Point: The Constitution prohibits the initiation of more than one “impeachment
proceeding” within one year. The “impeachment proceeding” is not initiated when the complaint complaint, indorsed by Rep. Colmenares, Casino, etc. The House adopted provisionally the
said, the report of the committee dismissing the complaint was affirmed by the majority of the 14th Congress’ Rules of Procedure and included the complaint in the Order of Business. The
Batasan (as manifested by the dismissal of Mitra’s petition to recall the resolution from the is transmitted to the Senate for trial because that is the end of the House proceeding and the
beginning of another proceeding, namely the trial. Neither is the “impeachment proceeding” cases were referred to the House Committee on Justice. The same found both complaints
archives). If the required majority vote for the commencement of the trial cannot be obtained, sufficient in form. Thereafter, 15th Congress’ Rules of Procedure was approved. Then, Omb.
what more for the 2/3 required for conviction? initiated when the House deliberates on the resolution passed on to it by the Committee,
because something prior to that has already been done. The action of the House is already a Gutierrez filed a motion to reconsider the resolution finding the complaints sufficient in form but
further step in the proceeding, not its initiation or beginning. Rather, the proceeding is initiated this was denied for being premature. Subsequently, the House Committee on Justice found the
It would not serve any useful purpose to order the Batasan Committee on Justice to recall from or begins, when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice for complaints sufficient in substance. These complaints allege culpable violation of the
the archives the complaint for impeachment of Pres. Marcos since the Batasan had already action. This is the initiating step which triggers the series of steps that follow. Constitution and betrayal of public trust. 6 days after, Gutierrez filed this present petition
approved the committee’s action. applying for injunctive reliefs. On September 2010, the SC En Banc resolved to issue a status
quo ante order. The parties filed their comments and conducted oral arguments.
Case NO. 1135
The Batasan Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Cases is not unconstitutional. The court said
in Arturo de Castro vs. Committee on Justice, et al. “beyond saying that the Batasan may Issue: Whether the one-year bar provision in Art. XI, Sec.3 par 5 of the Constitution applies.
initiate impeachment by a vote of at least one-fifth of all its members and that no official shall ARTICLE XI: SEC 3. Procedure for Impeachment
be convicted without the concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the members thereof, the Ruling: No. Article XI, Section 3, paragraph (5) of the Constitution reads: “No impeachment
Constitution says no more.” The Batasan pursuant to its power to adop rules of its proceedings Estrada v. Desierto proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one
may adopt, as it did adopt, necessary rules of procedure to govern impeachment proceedings. year.” Omb. Gutierrez contends that the one-year bar would start from the filing of the 1st
The rules it adopted providing for dismissal of a cmplaint for impeachment which is not impeachment complaint against her on July 22, 2010. So she claims that a second
sufficient in form or substance, or when sufficient grounds for impeachment do not exist, or Facts: An impeachment case was filed against Erap after several allegations of corruption
were made against him before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. The impeachment trial was impeachment complaint may only be lodged against her 1 YEAR AFTER JULY 22, 2010. But if
probable cause has not been established, or requiring a majority vote of all members of the we remember, there was a 2nd impeachment case filed against her in August 2010. For the
Batasan for the approval of the resolution setting forth the Articles of Impeachment, are not put to a halt after the public prosecutors tendered their collective resignation before the
Impeachment Tribunal caused by the decision of 11 Senators not to open the second one-year bar rule to apply, the word “INITIATE” has a technical meaning. Francisco v. House
inconsistent with the provision of Section 3 of Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution. states that the term “initiate” means to file the complaint and take initial action on it. The
envelope. The next day, EDSA 2 commenced and a chain of resignations from the military, the
police, and the cabinet ensued. The Supreme Court declared the seat for presidency as initiation starts with the filing of the complaint which must be accompanied with an action to set
vacant, saying that Estrada “constructively resigned his post.” Chief Justice administered the the complaint moving. It refers to the filing of the impeachment complaint coupled with
Congress’ taking initial action of said complaint. The initial action taken by the House on the Issue: Whether PD 1486 creating the Sandiganbayan is unconstitutional for violating the equal relation to his office, the RTC hearing the criminal case, pending at the time of the
complaint is the referral of the complaint to the Committee on Justice. From the records of the protection clause insofar as appeals would be concerned promulgation of the Asuncion rule, shall conduct a preliminary hearing to determine the
Constitutional Commission, to the amicus curiae briefs of two former Constitutional existence or absence of this material fact. If this material fact is found to be present, the RTC
Commissioners, it is without a doubt that the term "to initiate" refers to the filing of the shall order the transfer of the case to the Sandiganbayan and the latter shall proceed to hear
Ruling: No. The classification satisfies the that it “must be based on substantial distinctions
impeachment complaint coupled with Congress' taking initial action of said complaint. This the case as if the same had been originally instituted with it. If it be determined that fact is
which make real differences; it must be germane to the purposes of the law; it must not be
action is the referral of the complaints to the Committee on Justice. Having concluded that the absent, the RTC seized with the case shall proceed with the trial and render judgment on the
limited to existing conditions only, and must apply equally to each member of the class. The
initiation takes place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachment case. The RTC applied these holdings in the criminal case at bar by conducting a hearing
constitution specifically makes mention of the creation of a special court, the Sandiganbayan,
complaint to the House Committee on Justice or, by the filing by at least one-third of the solely to ascertain if petitioner had committed the offense charged in relation to his office. It
precisely in response to a problem, the urgency of which cannot be denied, namely, dishonesty
members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House, the was later ruled that petitioner had committed the offense charged while in the performance of
in the public service. It follows that those who may thereafter be tried by such court ought to
meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has his official function. Thus, the RTC modified its earlier order and deleted the clause dismissing
have been aware as far back as January 17, 1973, when the present Constitution came into
been initiated, another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same official within the case and forwarded it to the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner opposed the transmittal of his case
force, that a different procedure for the accused therein, whether a private citizen as petitioner
a one year period. In other words, the mere filing of the complaints is not the “initiation” to the Sandiganbayan but was denied and hence, petitioner instituted this proceeding for
is or a public official, is not necessarily offensive to the equal protection clause of the
contemplated by the Constitution. The filing of the impeachment complaint merely STARTS the certiorari seeking the same relief. Petitioner contends that jurisdiction over the case was fixed
Constitution.
initiation. It must be completed by an act of the House. The Court, of course, does not in the RTC which contained no averment that he had committed the felony in relation to his
downplay the importance of an impeachment complaint, for it is the matchstick that kindles the office, and that such jurisdiction is not determined by the result of the evidence presented at
candle of impeachment proceedings. The filing of an impeachment complaint is like the lighting Main Point: The 1971 Constitutional Convention was fully aware of the continuing need to the trial.
of a matchstick. Lighting the matchstick alone, however, cannot light up the candle, unless the combat the evils of graft and corruption; hence, the creation of Sandiganbayan under Sec. 4).
lighted matchstick reaches or torches the candle wick. Referring the complaint to the proper In fact, as early as 1955 an anti-graft law, R.A. 1379, was already thought necessary. This was
Issue: Whether the RTC had correctly applied the Asuncion rule considering that the absence
committee ignites the impeachment proceeding. With a simultaneous referral of multiple followed in 1960 by the Anti-Graft Act, R.A. 3019, whose validity was upheld in Morfe v. Mutuc.
of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC became apparent to the RTC after completion of the trial
complaints filed, more than one lighted matchsticks light the candle at the same time.
and submission of the case for decision.
Case NO. 1138
What is important is that there should only be ONECANDLE that is kindled in a year, such that
Ruling: Yes. RTC’s initial assumption of jurisdiction over the offense charged in this case did
once the candle starts burning, subsequent matchsticks can no longer rekindle the candle
ARTICLE XI: SEC 4. Sandiganbayan not prevent it from subsequently declaring itself to be without jurisdiction, that lack of
jurisdiction having become apparent from subsequent proceedings in the case.
. Referral of the complaint to the proper committee is not done by the House Speaker alone
Lecaros v. Sandiganbayan
either, which explains why there is a need to include it in the Order of Business of the House. It
Main Point: Offenses fall within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
is the House of Representatives, in public plenary session, which has the power to set its own
whenever the two requisites concur: (a) the offense must have been committed by the accused
chamber into special operation by referring the complaint or to otherwise guard against the
public officer in relation to his office; and (b) the penalty prescribed for the offense charged is
initiation of a second impeachment proceeding by rejecting a patently unconstitutional
higher than prision correctional or imprisonment for six (6) years or a fine of Six Thousand
complaint. The proceeding is initiated or begins, when a verified complaint is filed and referred Facts: Mayor Francisco Lecaroz (petitioner) was charged with the crime of grave coercion in Pesos (P6,000.00). This is true even though the information originally filed before the RTC did
to the Committee on Justice for action. This is the initiating step which triggers the series of an information file before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information not aver that the accused public officer had committed the offense charged in relation to his
steps that follow.” principally on the ground that the respondent court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case and office.
that it should have been filed with the ordinary courts in Marinduque where the alleged crime
What the Constitution contemplates is that only one impeachment PROCEEDING should be was committed. Respondent court denied the motion. Hence, petitioner instituted this
proceeding for certiorari seeking the same relief Case NO. 1140
filed against the impeachable officer per year. The constitution talks about PROCEEDING, not
complaints. Hence, multiple complaints are allowed as long as they are consolidated. The
objective is that the impeachable officer will only be subject of 1 impeachment proceeding a Issue: Whether the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is limited to criminal and civil cases ARTICLE XI: SEC 4. Sandiganbayan
year. But it may be composed of different, but consolidated, complaints. involving graft and corrupt practices of public officers.
Balmadrid v. Sandiganbayan
Main Point: It becomes clear that the consideration behind the intended limitation refers to the Ruling: No. Section 5 of Article XIII (1973) gave to the legislature broad discretion to grant
element of time, and not the number of complaints. The impeachable officer should defend jurisdiction to the Sandiganbayan not only over graft and corrupt practices but also over “such Facts: The Superintendent and Cashier of the Government-owned Catanduanes Agricultural
himself in only one impeachment proceeding so that he will not be precluded from performing other offenses committed by public officers and employees, including those in government and Industrial College (CAIC) were indebted to Jesus and Mila Balmadrid, suppliers of school
his official functions and duties. Similarly, Congress should run only one impeachment owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law.” construction materials. The Superintendent and Cashier fraudulently issued 4 CAIC checks to
proceeding so as not to leave it with little time to attend to its main work of law-making. The Pursuant to this, broad powers were given to the Sandiganbayan through P.D. No. 1486. the Balmadrids. The Superintendent, Cashier, and the Balmadrids were tried and found guilty
doctrine laid down in Francisco that initiation means filing and referral remains congruent to the by the Sandiganbayan of violating Section 3€ of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
rationale of the constitutional provision. Act). The Balmadrids allege that as private citizens, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction
over them.
Case NO. 1137
Main Point: Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan under the Constitution not only covers criminal and
Issue: Whether the contention of the Balmadrids over Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction holds
civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices committed by public officers and employees but
ARTICLE XI: SEC 4. Sandiganbayan merit.
also cover other crimes committed by them in relation to their office. The intention of the
framers of the New Constitution is patent from the explicit language thereof as well as from
Nunez v. Sandiganbayan Section 1 of the same Article XIII titled “Accountability of Public Officers.” Ruling: No. The court held that in case private individuals are charged as co-principals,
accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, they shall be tried jointly with
said public officers and employees (Section 4, P.D. 1606)
Case NO. 1139

Main Point: Private persons may be charged together with public officers to avoid repeated
Facts: Nunez was accused before Sandiganbayan of estafa. Upon being arraigned, he filed a ARTICLE XI: SEC 4. Sandiganbayan
and unnecessary presentation of witnesses and exhibits against conspirators in different
motion to quash on constitutional and jurisdictional grounds. Sandiganbayan denied the motion
venues, especially if the issues involved are the same. It follows therefore that if a private
as well as the motion for reconsideration. Hence the petition for certiorari and prohibition
Cunanan v. Arceo person may be tried jointly with public officers, he may also be convicted jointly with them, as in
assailing the validity of Presidential Decree 1846 creating the Sandiganbayan. He contends
the case of the present petitioners.
that the creation of Sandiganbayan is violative of the due process, equal protection, and ex
post facto clauses of the Constitution. The Sandiganbayan proceedings violates petitioner’s
right to equal protection, because – appeal as a matter of right became minimized into a mere Case NO. 1141
matter of discretion; – appeal likewise was shrunk and limited only to questions of law, Facts: Petitioner Ferdinand Cunanan was charged for murder before the RTC of Pampanga.
excluding a review of the facts and trial evidence; and – there is only one chance to appeal The Information alleged that petitioner was a police officer and it contained no averment that ARTICLE XI: SEC 4. Sandiganbayan
conviction, by certiorari to the Supreme Court, instead of the traditional two chances; while all he had committed the offense charged in relation to his public office. After completion of the
other estafa indictees are entitled to appeal as a matter of right covering both law and facts and trial and submission of the case for submission, the Supreme Court held that in the event an
to CA and SC. information failed to allege that an accused-public officer had committed the offense charged in Binay v. Sandiganbayan
Facts: Pursuant to Section 4, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution, Presidential Decree No. Ruling: No. The fact that Layus is getting an amount less than that prescribed for SG 27 is Ruling: Yes. RA 3019 does not state that the public officer concerned must be suspended only
1486 created an Anti-Graft Court known as the Sandiganbayan. Since then the jurisdiction of entirely irrelevant for purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Even if the in the office where he is alleged to have committed the acts with which he has been charged. It
the Sandiganbayan has undergone various changes, the most recent of which were effected petitioner is receiving a rate within SG 25, it should not be construed to mean that she falls is also the ministerial duty of the court to issue an order of suspension upon determination of
through Republic Act Nos. 7975 and 8249. Petitioner Jejomar Binay seeks to annul, among within the classification of SG 25. the validity of the information filed before it. The court reiterated that the preventive suspension
others, the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying his motion to refer Criminal Case Nos. is not a penalty since if acquitted, the accused is reinstated to his previous position plus back
21001, 21005 and 21007 to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati and declaring that the wages. The order of suspension under RA 3019 is different from the power of Congress to
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over said cases despite the enactment of R.A. No.7975. discipline its members under the Constitution. The constitutional provision is a punitive
According to Mayor Binay when the offense was charged he was paid a salary which merits a measure imposed by the Senate or HOR upon an erring member. On the other hand, R.A.
grade lower than Grade "27". Main Point: The Court has categorically ruled that 5th class municipality mayors fall under the 3019 does not exclude from its coverage the members of Congress and that, therefore, the
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan did not err in thus decreeing the assailed preventive suspension order.
Issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan, under RA 7975 and RA 8249, exercises exclusive original
jurisdiction over criminal cases involving municipal mayors Case NO. 1143 Main Point: The authority to order the preventive suspension of an incumbent public official
charged with violation of the provisions of RA. No. 3019 has both legal and jurisprudential
support. In issuing the preventive suspension of petitioner, the Sandiganbayan merely adhered
Ruling: Yes. The Court does not subscribe to the manner by which petitioners classify Grades. ARTICLE XI: SEC 4. Sandiganbayan
to the clear and unequivocal mandate of the law, as well as the jurisprudence in which the
The grade depends upon the nature of one's position — the level of difficulty, responsibilities,
Court has, more than once, upheld Sandiganbayan’s authority to decree the suspension of
and qualification requirements thereof — relative to that of another position. It is the official's
Abbot v. Mapayo public officials and employees indicted before it.
Grade that determines his or her salary, not the other way around. It is possible that a local
government official's salary may be less than that prescribed for his Grade since his salary
depends also on the class and financial capability of his or her respective local government Case NO. 1145
unit. Nevertheless, it is the law which fixes the official's grade. Municipal Mayors are classified
as Grade "27" under the Compensation & Position Classification Act of 1989. Therefore, when Facts: In that case, petitioner Engr. Abbot filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of ARTICLE XI: SEC 5. Ombudsman
the offense was charged against Mayor Binay the Sandiganbayan exercised exclusive original Appeals, claiming that the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion for not dismissing
jurisdiction over it. Both laws RA 7975 and RA 8249 (by virtue of transitory provision) retains the information for Malversation thru Falsification of Public Document. The Court of Appeals
jurisdiction over Binay’s cases. refused to take cognizance of the case, holding that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Baluyot v. Holganza
the petition. Recognizing the amendments made to PD No. 1606 by RA No. 7975, we
Main Point: Binay claims that the filing of the information in the Sandiganbayan was a sustained the Court of Appeal’s position since Section 4 of PD No. 1606 has expanded the
"subsequent happening or event" which cannot oust the RTC of its jurisdiction.This rule has no Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction to include petitions for mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
application here for the simple reason that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case. corpus, injunction, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
Facts: During a spot audit conducted by a team of auditors from the Philippine National Red
Jurisdiction never attached to the RTC. When the information was filed before the RTC, R.A. Cross (PNRC) headquarters, a cash shortage was discovered in the funds of its Bohol chapter.
No. 7975 was already in effect and, under said law, jurisdiction over the case pertained to the Issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari and The chapter administrator, Francsica Baluyot, was held accountable for the shortage.
Sandiganbayan. Office of the Ombudsman is not estopped to file the case in the prohibition Thereafter, Paul Holganza, in his capacity as a member of the board of directors of the Bohol
Sandiganbayan after already filing it with the RTC because it merely made a mistake in the chapter, filed an affidavit-complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman charging petitioner of
choice of the proper forum. Jurisdiction is determined by law and not by the consent or malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
agreement of the parties. The filing of the information in the Sandiganbayan did not put Ruling: Yes. Congress enacted RA 7975, An Act toStrengthen the Functional and Structural
petitioners in double jeopardy even though they had already pleaded "not guilty" to the Organization of theSandiganbayan, Amending for that Purpose Presidential DecreeNo. 1606,
information earlier filed in the RTC. The first jeopardy never attached in the first place, the RTC as Amended, which took effect 6 May 1995. In Sec. 4(c) thereof, the jurisdiction of the
not being a court of competent jurisdiction. Sandiganbayan was expanded to include petitions for the issuance of writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid Issue: Whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over a private voluntary organization such as
of its appellate jurisdiction. the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC)

Ruling: Yes. The court held that the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) is a government
owned and controlled corporation, with an original charter under Republic Act No. 95, as
Main Point: The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was expanded in RA 7975 to include amended. As such, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the filed affidavit-complaint against
Case NO. 1142 petitions for the issuance of writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, the petitioner.
injunction, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
ARTICLE XI: SEC 4. Sandiganbayan Main Point: The test to determine whether a corporation is a government owned or controlled
Case NO. 1144 or private in nature is simple. Is it created by its own charter for the exercise of a public
function, or by incorporation under the general corporation law? Those with special charters
Mayor Layus v. Sandiganbayan
are government corporations subject to its provisions
ARTICLE XI: SEC 4. Sandiganbayan

Case NO. 1146

Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan

ARTICLE XI: SEC 5. Ombudsman

Facts: Mayor Layus (Petitioner) asks the Supreme Court settle the issue of jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan in criminal cases against mayors of fifth class municipalities and nullify the Garcia v. Ombudsman
assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan's Fifth Division. Petitioner was charged with estafa
through falsification of public documents before the Sandiganbayan and claimed that at the Facts: Petitioner Azucena B. Garcia was Department Manager III for administration of the
time of the alleged commission of the crime, she was only receiving a monthly salary Facts: Miriam Defensor Santiago was criminally charged before the Sandiganbayan for National Development Company (NDC), a government corporation. NDC initiated a program of
equivalent to SG 25 under R.A. No. 6758; hence, she falls outside the original and exclusive allegedly approving applications for legalization of the stay of a number of aliens in the early retirement of its personnel. Those who availed themselves of early retirement or
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, which has jurisdiction over civil servants with SG 27 or over. Philippines. She was charged in relation to her position as the Commissioner of the separation were given tax-exempt retirement and separation benefits. Petitioner availed herself
Commission on Immigration and Deportation. Pursuant to the information filed with the of the program, and applied for early retirement under Republic Act No. 1616. NDC approved
Sandiganbayan, Presiding Justice Garchitorena suspended Miriam from her position as the application, and in due course paid petitioner her retirement benefits. However, private
Senator of the Philippines and from any gov’t position she was holding for 90 days. This is in respondents, who were controller, disbursing officer, and assistant general manager of NDC
the form of a preventive suspension pending investigation of the case before the deducted withholding tax on the amount of provident fund benefits given to petitioner
Issue: Whether Sandiganbayan erred in assuming jurisdiction over the petitioner. Sandiganbayan. corresponding to her share over and above her personal contribution. Petitioner protested
private respondents’ action and requested them to refund the taxes withheld and remitted to
Issue: Whether the issuance of the suspension was a valid act by the Sandiganbayan the Bureau of Internal Revenue, claiming that such amount was tax exempt. Due to private
respondents’ refusal to grant her request, petitioner filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a disadvantageous to the gov’t. The charge was for the alleged overpricing of various school him is sufficient to establish probable cause. Thus, petitioners may not compel the
complaint against them for causing her undue injury. The Ombudsman dismissed petitioner’s equipment purchased. Because of the complaint, region VIII of respondent COA audited the Ombudsman to order the production of certain documents, if in the Ombudsman’s judgment
complaint. Hence, this appeal for certiorari. operations and accounts of the School. COA found that there was a malversation of public such documents are not necessary in order to establish the guilt, or innocence, of the accused.
funds, citing the purchase of certain supplies and equipment done through a negotiated
contract and not thru competitive public bidding. The agency failed to ascertain the
Issue: Whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s Case NO. 1150
reasonableness of the contract prices thus, COA recommended the filing of both criminal and
complaint
admin cases against persons liable, including petitioner and his approval of the RIV for the
purchase. Petitioner and two co-respondents were charged guilty for their overpriced ARTICLE XI: SEC 5. Ombudsman
Ruling: No. The Supreme Court held that private respondents merely complied with their duty purchases.
under the law. They were guided by the prevailing opinion of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
Carandang v. Desierto
that provident fund benefits above the employee’s personal contribution were taxable, and
Issue: Whether the petition for certiorari seeking for reversal of the Ombudsman’s conclusion
hence, it was their duty to withhold the corresponding income taxes thereon. On the contrary,
will prosper. Facts: RPN-9 (Radio Philippines Network) is a private corporation duly registered with the
to grant petitioner’s request for exemption for the withholding tax would have subjected private
respondents to liability for malfeasance in office, if not for violation of the Tax Code, or the Anti- SEC. Benedicto, a stockholder thereof, entered into a compromise agreement with the PCGG
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Ruling: No. The court held that it is beyond the ambit of this Court’s authority to review the whereby he ceded to the government his shares of stock in RPN with an outstanding capital of
power of the Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it. The 72.4% (which was later discovered to be only 32.4%). Meanwhile, the President appointed
Ombudsman is constitutionally mandated to investigate and prosecute matters falling within his Carandang as a general manager and chief operating officer of RPN. He was charged with
Main Point: The Ombudsman acted correctly in dismissing petitioner’s complaint because grave misconduct before the Ombudsman on the ground of him, as general manager of RPN,
jurisdiction. Another reason for dismissing the instant petition is that this is an appeal under
private respondents had not acted in bad faith or with gross negligence in deducting entered into contract with AF Broadcasting, Inc. despite his being an incorporator, director and
Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act. The court has declared Section 27 to be unconstitutional
withholding tax from petitioner’s provident fund benefits share over and above her personal stockholder of this said corporation; that he help financial and material interest in a contract
for increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in the Constitution
contribution. The latter’s change of opinion, while favoring petitioner, will not make the that had required the approval of his office; and that the transaction is prohibited under Section
without its advice and consent. Moreover, even if said provision had not been declared
Ombudsman’s act prior thereto amount to bad faith as they relied on the prevailing legal 7 (a) and Section 9 of RA No. 6713, thereby rendering him administratively liable for grave
unconstitutional, it still does not grant a right of appeal to parties aggrieved by orders and
opinion on the issue. Hence, they could not be held criminally liable therefor. misconduct. Carandang sought the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against him
decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases as in fact said Section mentions only appeals
from "all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the on the ground that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction over him because RPN was not a
Case NO. 1147 Ombudsman." GOCC. Consequently, he insists that he is not a public official, hence he is not subject to the
administrative authority of the Ombudsman and the criminal jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

ARTICLE XI: SEC 5. Ombudsman Main Point: The Supreme Court ordinarily does not interfere with the discretion of the
Ombudsman to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has Issue: Whether the Ombudsman can validly charge petitioner Carandang as a public official
been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the
Lapid v. CA
corresponding information with the appropriate courts. This rule is based not only upon respect Ruling: No. RPN is not a GOCC. Due to the inability to resolve the issue regarding the actual
for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the shares owned by the PCGG, the conclusion that the government held majority shares finds no
Facts: A complaint was filed in the Ombudsman charging petitioner Gov. Manuel M. Lapid and Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise the functions of the courts will be factual or legal basis. Hence, Carandang is not subject to the administrative authority of the
5 other government officials with alleged dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial grievously hampered by immeasurable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory Ombudsman and the criminal jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
to the best interest of the service for allegedly having conspired between and among proceedings conducted by the Office of the of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed
themselves in demanding and collecting from various quarrying operators in Pampanga a before it, in as much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they would
control fee, control slip, or monitoring fee without a duly enacted provincial ordinance be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting Main Point: The law defines what GOCC are. Section 2 of PD 2029 states that a GOCC is a
authorizing the collection thereof and without issuing receipts for its collection. The attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a stock or a non-stock corporation, whether performing governmental or proprietary functions,
Ombudsman rendered a decision finding guilty the petitioner for his conduct for which they are private complainant. which is directly chartered by a special law, or if organized under the general corporation law is
meted out the penalty of 1 year suspension without pay. Department of Interior and Local owned or controlled by the government directly or indirectly through a parent corporation or
Government (DILG) implemented the assailed decision of the Ombudsman. Proceeding from subsidiary corporation, to the extent of at least a majority of its outstanding capital stock or of
the premise that the decision of Ombudsman had not yet been become final, the petitioner Case NO. 1149 its outstanding voting capital stock.
argued that the DILG prematurely implemented the assailed decision.
ARTICLE XI: SEC 5. Ombudsman Case NO. 1151
Issue: Whether the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman is immediately executory pending
appeal. Mamburao v. Ombudsman ARTICLE XI: SEC 5. Ombudsman

Ruling: No. Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act provides that any order, directive or decision of Facts: Petitioner Mamburao, Inc., represented by their manager Peter Messer, applied for a
Lacson v. Executive Secretary
the Office of the Ombudsman imposing a penalty of public censure or reprimand, or P6 Million loan with the Balagtas branch of Landbank of the Philippines in order to finance the
suspension of not more than one month’s salary shall be final and unappealable. It is clear construction of a restaurant in Bocaue, Bulacan. Upon knowing that the loan would be reduced
from the above provision that the punishment imposed upon petitioner, i.e. suspension without to 3M because of the re-appraisal ordered by private respondent Abella, petitioners withdrew
pay for one year, is not among those listed as final and unappealable, hence, immediately their application. Petitioners sought to re-apply for a loan at the Baliuag branch of the LBP.
executory. Under these rules, the decision imposing a penalty of one year suspension without Fernandez, being the head of the Northern and Central Luzon Banking Group, ordered the
pay on petitioner Lapid is not immediately executory. rollback of their application to the Provincial Lending Center headed by Nanny Garcia.
Petitioners claim that when Messer went to Garcia’s office, she commented that she will
recommend the denial of their loan accusing Mamburao of establishing a front for prostitution Facts: A complaint-affidavit was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman against non-
Main Point: A judgment becomes final and executor by operation of law. The fact that the presidential appointees and career service officials of respondent Philippine Estates Authority
where the main merchandise are GROs. The application was subsequently denied. Petitioners
Ombudsman Act gives parties the right to appeal from its decisions should generally carry with (PEA) for overpricing the contract for the construction of the Central Boulevard Project. Acting
subsequently filed charges against respondents for slander, libel, falsification and use of
it the stay of these decisions pending appeal. Otherwise, the essential nature of these on the complaint, the Ombudsman proceeded with the investigation of both the criminal and
falsified documents, and perjury. However, the ombudsman dismissed their complaints.
judgments as being appealable would be rendered nugatory the administrative aspects of the case. The Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC)
requested the Ombudsman for authority to conduct administrative disciplinary proceedings
Issue: Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ against the petitioners and other individuals involved in the Project. Petitioners claimed, among
Case NO. 1148
complaints. other jurisdictional issues, that because they are not presidential appointees, it is only the
Ombudsman which has jurisdiction over them.
ARTICLE XI: SEC 5. Ombudsman
Ruling: No, the Ombudsman has the power to dismiss a case outright without conducting a
preliminary investigation. It is beyond the ambit of this court to review the exercise of Discretion Issue: Whether it is the Ombudsman who should conduct the investigation on the charge of
Tirol v. COA of the Ombudsman of his constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers. overpricing of the Project against petitioners.

Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari under RA 6770 Sec. 27 (Ombudsman Act of Main Point: If the Ombudsman may dismiss a complaint outright for lack of merit, it Ruling: No. The Court has repeatedly ruled that the power of the Ombudsman to investigate
1989). Petitioner is was the former DECS Regional Director of Region VIII. He was charged necessarily follows that it is also within his discretion to determine whether the evidence before offenses involving public officials is not exclusive, but is concurrent with other similarly
with the violation of RE 2019 Sec. 3(g) for entering into a contract alleged to be
authorized agencies of the government in relation to the offense charged. Therefore, with Issue: Whether the Ombudsman has the authority to grant immunity from prosecution to surveyor. The TB dismissed the complaint, however, on the ground that his jurisdiction
respect to petitioners, the Ombudsman may share its authority to conduct an investigation witnesses extended only to govt. owned corps. Organized under a special law. Petrophil is a corporation
concerning administrative charges against them with other agencies. under the Gen. Corp. Code. It was acquired by the govt. to carry out its oil and gasoline
programs. Quimpo filed a petition for certiorari, questioning the decision of the TB.
Ruling: Yes. RA No. 6770 specifically empowers the Ombudsman to grant immunity “in any
Main Point: The Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with similarly authorized agencies. hearing, inquiry or proceeding being conducted by the Ombudsman or under its authority, in
Issue:
the performance or in the furtherance of its constitutional functions and statutory objectives.” In
Whether Petrophil is a government owned or controlled corporation whose employees fall
the exercise of his investigatory and prosecutorial powers, he enjoys the same latitude of
Case NO. 1152 within the jurisdiction of the Tanodbayan for purposes of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices
discretion in determining what constitutes sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable
Act
cause and the degree of participation those involved or the lack thereof. His findings and
ARTICLE XI: SEC 5. Ombudsman conclusion on these matters are not ordinarily subject to review by the courts except when he
Ruling:
gravely abuses his discretion, which petitioner has failed to establish in this case.
Yes, while it may be that Petrophil was not originally created as a GOCC, Petrophil a
People v. Morales subsidiary of PNOC and thus shed off its private status. It is now funded and owned by the
Main Point: Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the performance of a ministerial duty govt. as in fact, it was acquired to perform functions related to governmental programs and
Facts: The National Centennial Commission (NCC) and the Bases Conversion Development imposed by law upon the respondent. In matters involving the exercise of judgment and policies on oil. It was acquired not temporarily but as a permanent adjunct to perform essential
Authority (BCDA) organized the Philippine Centennial Expo ’98 Corporation or Expocorp discretion, mandamus may only be resorted to, to compel the respondent to take action; it government related functions.
whose primary purpose was to operate, administer, manage and develop the Philippine cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way discretion is to be exercised.
Centennial International Exposition 1988. The centennial project was marred by numerous Main Point:
allegations of anomalies, among them, the lack of public biddings. This led to an information For purposes of prosecution under the AntiGraft Act, the Tanodbayan has jurisdiction to
filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against respondent Morales, acting president of entertain and prosecute complaint against employees of corporations which started as private
Expocorp. In the proceeding before the Sandiganbayan, Morales moved for the dismissal of corporations but were later on acquired by the Government as subsidiaries of a government
the case for lack of jurisdiction over his person and over the offense charged. He alleged that owned corporation, e.g., Petrophil which is a subsidiary of PNOC.
Expocorp is a private corporation and that he is not a public employee or official. The Office of
the Special Prosecutor, representing the People, insisted that Expocorp is a government- Case No. 1154 – Encarnacion
owned corporation since its articles of incorporation showed that of its ten listed subscribers, Art. XI. Sec. 6. Appointments Case No. 1156 – Encarnacion
BCDA held stocks valued at ₱99,999,100.00, while the stocks held by the rest of the Ombudsman v. CSC, GR No. 162215, July 20, 2007 Art. XI. Sec. 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor
subscribers had a total value of ₱900.00. The People further argued, based on the Court’s Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 160 SCRA 843 (1988)
ruling in Salvador H. Laurel v. Aniano A. Desierto, that NCC Chairman Laurel was a public Facts:
officer; thus, Morales was likewise a public officer since his appointment flowed from the This Court is once again called upon to settle a controversy between two independent Facts:
former’s exercise of his authority as chairman of both NCC and Expocorp. constitutional bodies and delineate the limits of their respective powers. This controversy Petitioner sought to restrain the Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan Raul Gonzales from
traces its roots to Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo’s letter dated July 28, 2003 to the Civil proceeding with the prosecution and hearing of criminal cases against him on the ground that
Service Commission (CSC) requesting the approval of the amendment of qualification said cases were filed by said Tanodbayan without legal and constitutional authority.
Issue: Whether Exocorp should be considered a public office for the Sandiganbayan to have
standards for Director II positions in the Central Administrative Service and Finance and
jurisdiction over the case Issue:
Management Service of the Office of the Ombudsman. This refers to [the Office of the
Ombudsman’s] proposed qualification standards (QS) for Director II position in the Central Whether the Tanodbayan has the authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to direct
Ruling: No. Exocorp is a private corporation as found by the Sandiganbayan. It was not Administrative Service and Finance Management Service, Office of the Ombudsman. That the the filing of criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan.
created by a special law but was incorporated under the Corporation Code and was registered eligibility for the position be changed from Career Executive Service (CES) to Relevant
with SEC. Although the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) owned shares of its Eligibility for Second Level Position. The CSC did not grant the request for approval of the Ruling:
shares, was one of Expocorp’s original incorporators, the Board of Directors allowed Global to qualification standards for the position of Director II at the Central Administrative Service and No, under the present constitution, the special prosecutor is a mere subordinate. The special
buy majority of its unused and unsubscribed shares two months after its incorporation. With Finance Management Service, Office of the Ombudsman. prosecutor cannot initiate the prosecution of cases but only conduct the same if instructed to
BCDA as a minority stockholder, Expocorp cannot be characterized as a government-owned or do so by the Ombudsman.
controlled corporation (GOCC). As such, Morales, as Expocorop’s president who now stands Issue:
charged for violating Section 3€ of RA. No. 3019 in this capacity, is beyond the Whether CSC can substitute its own standards for those of the department or agency and Main Point:
Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. whether the Ombudsman can establish qualifications standards for his office. The incumbent Tanodbayan (called Special Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution and who is
supposed to retain powers and duties NOT GIVEN to the Ombudsman) is clearly without
Ruling: authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases with the
Main Point: Since the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) is a minority Sandiganbayan, except upon orders of the Ombudsman.
No, since the responsibility for the establishment, administration and maintenance of
stockholder of Expocorp, the latter cannot be characterized as a GOCC. GOCCs must be
qualification standards lies with the concerned department or agency, the role of the CSC is
owned by the government, and in the case of a stock corporation, at least a majority of its
limited to assisting the department or agency with respect to these qualification standards and
capital stock must be owned by the government.
approving them. Qualification standards are used as guides in appointment and other
personnel actions, in determining training needs and as aid in the inspection and audit of the Case No. 1157 – Encarnacion
Case NO. 1153 personnel work programs. They are intimately connected to the power to appoint as well as to Art. XI. Sec. 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor
the power of administrative supervision. Thus, as a corollary to the Ombudsman’s appointing Acop v. Ombudsman, GR No. 120422, September 27, 1995
and supervisory powers, he possesses the authority to establish reasonable qualification
ARTICLE XI: SEC 5. Ombudsman Facts:
standards for the personnel of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Eleven (11) suspected members of the notorious robbery gang, "Kuratong Baleleng," were
Quarto v. Marcelo Main Point: killed in an alleged shootout. Senior Police Officer (SPO) 2 Eduardo de los Reyes of the
Under the Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman is an independent body as a guaranty of Central Intelligence Command (CIC) made an expose', stating that there was no shootout. De
Facts: The DPW Secretary created a committee to investigate alleged anomalous transactions this independence, the Ombudsman has the power to appoint all officials and employees of the los Reyes stated that the eleven (11) suspected members of the "Kuratong Baleleng" gang
involving the repairs and/or purchase of spare parts of DPWH service vehicles with the DPWH Office of the Ombudsman, except his deputies. This power necessarily includes the power of were victims of summary execution. Respondent P/Chief Supt. Job A. Mayo, Jr., in a letter-
Internal Audit Service to conduct the investigation. It was discovered that several emergency setting, prescribing and administering the standards for the officials and personnel of the complaint addressed to the Ombudsman, charged petitioners and several others with murder
repairs and/or purchases of spare parts of hundreds of DPWH service vehicles, which were Office. in connection with the killing of the eleven (11) suspected "Kuratong Baleleng" gang members.
approved and paid by the government, did not actually take place. The committee then filed
before the Office of the Ombudsman complaints charging the petitioner, the respondents, who The petitioners concede that it is the Ombudsman, and not the Office of the Special
are officials and employees of the DPWH, and other private individuals who purportedly Case No. 1155 – Encarnacion Prosecutor, which has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation on the complaint
benefitted from the anomalous transactions. The Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan Art. XI. Sec. 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor filed against them.
several information charging the said DPWH officials and employees with plunder, estafa Quimpo v. Tanodbayan – 146 SCRA 137 [1986]
through falsification of documents and violation of Section 3€, RA No. 3019. On the other hand, Issue:
the Ombudsman granted the respondents’ request for immunity in exchange for their Facts: Whether the Office of the Special Prosecutor is a subordinate agency of the Ombudsman and
testimonies and cooperation in the prosecution of the cases filed. Quimpo filed a complaint with the Tanodbayan (TB), charging G. Dimaano, manager and is, in fact, separate and distinct from the Ombudsman.
analyst of Petrophil with violation of RA 3019 for their refusal to pay Quimpo’s fees as
Ruling: Issue: Facts:
No, when one considers that by express mandate of paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI of the Whether or not an Ombudsman can oblige the petitioners by virtue of subpoena duces tecum The PRC issued the Table of Results of those who failed the May 1993 CPA Licensure
Constitution, the Ombudsman may "exercise such other powers or perform functions or to provide documents relating to personal service and salary vouchers of EIIB employers. Examinations. On page 11 thereof, petitioner was listed as having failed with an average of
duties as may be provided by law," it is indubitable then that Congress has the power to place 50%. However, later that year, the petitioner indicated under question no. 18 of the Personal
the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Office of the Ombudsman. In the same vein, Ruling: Data Sheet (CSC form no. 212) that she passed the May 1993 Examination with a rating of
Congress may remove some of the powers granted to the Tanodbayan by P.D. No. 1630 and Yes. A government privilege against disclosure is recognized with respect to state secrets 75.42%. On 1994, an anonymous letter was sent to PRC Chairman claiming that certain BIR
transfer them to the Ombudsman; or grant the Office of the Special Prosecutor such other bearing on military, diplomatic and similar matters. This privilege is based upon public interest employees allegedly passed the CPA Licensure Exams under anomalous circumstances.
powers and functions and duties as Congress may deem fit and wise. This Congress did of such paramount importance as in and of itself transcending the individual interests of a Petitioner claimed to have received a copy of her passing rating sheet. PRC Chairman wrote
through the passage of R.A. No. 6770. Through the said law, the Office of the Special private citizen, even though, as a consequence thereof, the plaintiff cannot enforce his legal Ombudsman that certain BIR employees did not actually pass the CPA Licensure
Prosecutor was made an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman. rights. Examinations. Associate Ombudsman Investigator found probable cause against the petitioner
for violating Art. 171 (4) of the RPC. Subsequently, the Ombudsman Investigator issued a
Main Point: In the case at bar, there is no claim that military or diplomatic secrets will be disclosed by the resolution finding that there were ground to engender a well-founded belief that crimes of
Congress has the power to place the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Office of the production of records pertaining to the personnel of the EIIB. EIIB's function is the gathering falsification of public documents have been committed.
Ombudsman, and it may remove some of the powers granted to the Tanodbayan under P.D. and evaluation of intelligence reports and information regarding "illegal activities affecting the
No. 1630 and transfer them to the Ombudsman; Through R.A. No. 6770, the Office of the national economy, such as, but not limited to, economic sabotage, smuggling, tax evasion, Issue:
Special Prosecutor was made an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman. dollar salting." Consequently while in cases which involve state secrets it may be sufficient to Whether the contention of petitioner that R.A. No. 6770, insofar as it unqualifiedly vests
determine the circumstances of the case that there is reasonable danger that compulsion of prosecutorial functions on the Ombudsman, infringes on Section 7, Article XI of the
the evidence will expose military matters without compelling production, no similar excuse can Constitution, in that it invariably diminishes the authority and power lodged in the Office of the
be made for privilege resting on other considerations. Special Prosecutor has merit.

Main Point: Ruling:

The Ombudsman and his Deputies are designated by the Constitution “protectors of the No, this ground relied upon by petitioner, like the first ground, has also been extensively dealt
people” and as such they are required by it “to act promptly on complaints in any form or with and answered in, the aforecited case of Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman. Addressing the
manner against public officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or contention raised by petitioners that the Office of the Special Prosecutor is not subordinate to
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporation.” the Ombudsman and is, in fact, separate and distinct from the Ombudsman, such that
Case No. 1158 – Encarnacion Congress may not, under the present Constitution, validly place the Office of the Special
Art. XI. Sec. 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor Prosecutor under the Office of the Ombudsman, this court has upheld not only the power of
Deloso v. Domingo, 191 SCRA 545 Congress to so place the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Ombudsman, but also the
Case No. 1160 – Encarnacion power of the Congress to remove some of the powers granted to the then Tanodbayan, now
Facts: Art. XI. Sec. 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor Office of the Special Prosecutor, under P.D. 1630, and transfer them to the Ombudsman.
This case was prefaced by the report of Governor Amor Deloso of Zambales that on the Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 116033, February 26, 1997
morning of April 23, 1988, at about 1:30 o'clock in the morning, he and his escorts were Main Point:
ambushed by the group of Pat. Alberto Dullas, Jr. along the Provincial Facts: The Tanodbayan’s powers under P.D. No. 1630 or subsequent amendatory legislation. It
Road of Danacbunga, Botolan, Zambales. However, in the course of the investigation, it was Petitioner Alfredo Azarcon owned and operated an earth-moving business, hauling dirt and follows then that Congress may remove any of the Tanodbayan’s/Special Prosecutor’s powers
established, through the testimonies of eyewitnesses, that it was the group of Pat. Dullas, ore. His services were contracted by PICOP. Occasionally, he engaged the services of sub- under P.D. No. 1630 or grant it other powers, except those powers conferred by the
Don Dullas and Edgar Vinco, Jr., then riding in a Toyota Corolla car with Plate No. CAG 419, contractors like Jaime Ancla whose trucks were left at the former’s premises. On May 25, Constitution on the Office of the Ombudsman.”
who were ambushed by the group of Governor Deloso and his escorts, numbering more or less 1983, a Warrant of Distraint of Personal Property was issued by BIR commanding one of its
fifteen (15). Governor Deloso filed a motion to dismiss the case. Regional Directors to distraint the goods, chattels or effects and other personal property of
Jaime Ancla, a sub-contractor of accused Azarcon and a delinquent taxpayer. A Warrant of
Issue: Garnishment was issued to and subsequently signed by accused Azarcon ordering him to Case No. 1162 – Encarnacion
Whether the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the murder charge and for the transfer, surrender, transmit and/or remit to BIR the property in his possession owned by Art. XI. Sec. 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor
same reason that its jurisdiction is confines to the investigation only, the Tanodbayan has no Ancla. Azarcon then volunteered himself to act as custodian of the truck owned by Macalino v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 140199-200
jurisdiction to prosecute the murder case. Ancla. Along with his co-accused, Azarcon was charged before the Sandiganbayan with the Facts:
crime of malversation of public funds or property. On September 16, 1992, two informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan against
Ruling: petitioner,being then the Assistant Manager of the Treasury Division and the Head of the
The answer is yes. As protector of the people, the office of the Ombudsman has the power, Issue: Loans Administration & Insurance Section of the Philippine National Construction Corporation
function and duty "to act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual designated by BIR as a (PNCC), a government-controlled corporation, and his wife, Liwayway S. Tan, charging them
officials" and to "investigate any act or omission of any public official when such act or custodian of distrained property. with estafa through falsification of official documents and frustrated estafa through falsification
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient." The Ombudsman is also of mercantile documents. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges.
empowered to “direct the officer concerned," in this case the Special Prosecutor, "to take Ruling: However, during the initial presentation of evidence for the defense, petitioner moved for leave
appropriate action against a public official and to recommend his prosecution" No, the Information does not charge petitioner Azarcon of being a co-principal, accomplice or to file a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over him
accessory to a public officer committing an offense under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. since he is not a public officer because the Philippine National Construction Corporation
Main Point: Thus, unless petitioner be proven a public officer, the Sandiganbayan will have no jurisdiction (PNCC), formerly the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP), is
The Ombudsman is empowered to "direct the officer concerned," in this case the Special over the crime charged.In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or not a government-owned or controlledcorporation with original charter.
Prosecutor, "to take appropriate action against a public official and to recommend his accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-
prosecution" owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and On August 5, 1999, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a resolution denying petitioner’s motion to
employees. The foregoing provisions unequivocally specify the only instances when the dismiss for lack of merit.
Sandiganbayan will have jurisdiction over a private individual, i.e. when the complaint charges
Case No. 1159 – Encarnacion the private individual either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer or Issue:
Art. XI. Sec. 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor employee who has been charged with a crime within its jurisdiction. Whether petitioner, an employee of the PNCC, is a public officer within the coverage of R. A.
Almonte v. Vasquez, GR No. 95367, May 22, 1995 No. 3019 and if the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.
Main Point:
Facts: Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual when the complaint charges the Ruling:
Ombudsman Vasquez required Rogado and Rivera of Economic Intelligence and Investigation private individual either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer or No. In as much as the PNCC has no original charter as it was incorporated under the general
Bureau (EIIB) to produce all documents relating to Personal Service Funds yr. 1988 and all employee who has been charged with a crime within its jurisdiction. law on corporations, it follows inevitably that petitioner is not a public officer within the
evidence for the whole plantilla of EIIB for 1988. The subpoena duces tecum was issued in coverage of R. A. No. 3019, as amended. Thus, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over
connection with the investigation of funds representing savings from unfilled positions in the him. The only instance when the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual is
EIIB which were legally disbursed. Almonte and Perez denied the anomalous activities that Case No. 1161 – Encarnacion when the complaint charges him either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public
circulate around the EIIB office. They moved to quash the subpoena duces tecum. They claim Art. XI. Sec. 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor officer who has been charged with a crime within the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan.
privilege of an agency of the Government. Camanag v. Hon Guerrero, GR No. 121017 [1997]
Main Point:
Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations; Employees and officials of the Philippine EO 128 as an 'ad-hoc body' make it less of a public office. Finally, the fact that the petitioner retain powers and duties NOT GIVEN to the Ombudsman) is clearly without authority to
National Construction Corporation (PNCC) are not public officers within the coverage of R.A. did not receive any compensation during his tenure is of no consequence since such is merely conduct preliminary investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases with the
No. 3019, as amended, inasmuch as PNCC has no original charter as it was incorporated an incidence and forms no part of the office. Sandiganbayan, except upon orders of the Ombudsman. This right to do so was lost effective
under the general law on corporations, and the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over them. February 2, 1987. From that time, he has been divested of such authority.
Main Point:
The Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner since he is a public officer. Under the present constitution, the Special Prosecutor (Raul Gonzalez) is a mere subordinate
of the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) and can investigate and prosecute cases only upon the
Case No. 1165 – Encarnacion latter’s authority or orders. The Special Prosecutor cannot initiate the prosecution of cases but
Art. XI. Sec. 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor can only conduct the same if instructed to do so by the Ombudsman.
Case No. 1163 – Encarnacion Office of the Ombudsman v. Valera, GR No. 164250 [2005]
Art. XI. Sec. 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor Main Point:
BIR v. Ombudsman, GR No. 115103, April 11, 2002 Facts: The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the Office of the Special Prosecutor. It
Respondent Valera was appointed Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs by shall continue to function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law,
Facts: President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The Office of the Ombudsman received the Sworn except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under this Constitution.
Christopher S. Soquilon, Graft Investigation Officer received information from an “informer-for- Complaint filed by then Director Eduardo S. Matillano of the Philippine National Police Criminal
reward” regarding allegedly anomalous grant of tax refunds. The Ombudsman issued a Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG). In the said sworn complaint, Director Matillano
subpoena duces tecum to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner to appear charged respondent Valera with criminal offenses involving violation of various provisions. Case No. 1167 – Encarnacion
before theOmbudsman and to bring the complete original case dockets of the refunds granted Petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio, issued the Order placing respondent Valera under Art. XI. Sec. 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor
to Limtuaco and La Tondeña, but the BIR asked that it be excused from complying with the preventive suspension for six months without pay. In the said order, petitioner Special Calingin v. Desierto 529 SCRA 720 [2007]
subpoena duces tecum because the Limtuaco case was under investigation and the Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio found that respondent Valera entered into the compromise agreement
investigation thereof and that of La Tondeña was mooted. with Steel Asia Manufacturing Corp. The CA held mainly that petitioner Special Prosecutor Facts:
Villa-Ignacio is not authorized by law to sign and issue preventive suspension orders since he Petitioner Antonio P. Calingin is a former mayor of Claveria, Misamis Oriental. During his
Issue: is neither the Ombudsman nor one of the Deputy Ombudsmen. incumbency, the municipality undertook a low-cost housing project known as the Bahay Ticala
Whether the actions of the Ombudsman are valid. Housing Project. In a resolution dated December 2, 1998, Graft Investigation Officer Jocelyn R.
Issue: Araune of the office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao recommended the filing of
Ruling: Whether petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio has the authority to place respondent criminal charges against the petitioner and co-accused for violation of RA No. 3019, otherwise
Yes. In the 1987 Constitution enjoins that the “Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of Valera under preventive suspension. known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices and for violation of Art. 220 of the RPC based from
the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials the audit conducted by the COA.
or employees of the government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, Ruling:
including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate case, notify No, in the course thereof, petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio found that the preventive Issue:
the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.” No requirement of a pending suspension of respondent Valera was warranted under Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770. However, Is the Special Prosecutor co-equal to the Ombudsman or to his deputies and whether the
action before the Ombudsman could wield its investigative power. The Ombudsman could since under the said provision only the Ombudsman or his Deputy may exercise the power of Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the recommendation of the
resort to its investigative prerogative on its own or upon a complaint filed in any form or preventive suspension, petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio could only recommend to Office of the Special Prosecutor to dismiss all the charges.
manner. Even when the complaint is verbal or written, unsigned or unverified, the the Ombudsman or, in this case because of the latter’s inhibition, to the designated Deputy
Ombudsman could, on its own, initiate the investigation. Ombudsman to place respondent Valera under preventive suspension. Ruling:
No, the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor are creatures of the
Main Point: Main Point: 1987 Constitution as provided by Sec. 5, 7, and 13 of Art. XI. The Special Prosecutor is a mere
“Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints If the Ombudsman delegates his authority to conduct administrative investigation to the Special subordinate of the Ombudsman and can investigate and prosecute cases only upon the latter’s
filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the government, or any Prosecutor and the latter finds that the preventive suspension of the public official or employee authority or orders. RA No. 6770 also known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, provides that the
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled subject thereof is warranted, the Special Prosecutor may recommend to the Ombudsman, or Special Prosecutor has the power and authority, under the supervision of the Ombudsman, to
corporations, and shall, in appropriate case, notify the complainants of the action taken and the the designated Deputy Ombudsman if the Ombudsman inhibited himself, to place the said conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan and
result thereof.” public officer or employee under preventive suspension. perform such duties assigned to him by the Ombudsman. Clearly, in disapproving the
recommendation of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to dismiss all the charges against
petitioner and his co-accused, respondent Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of
Case No. 1164 – Encarnacion Case No. 1166 – Encarnacion discretion.
Art. XI. Sec. 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor Art. XI. Sec. 7. Tanodbayan as Special Prosecutor
Laurel v. Desierto, GR No. 145368, April 12, 2002 Perez v. Sandiganbayan, 503 SCRA 252 Main Point:
Facts: The Special Prosecutor is a mere subordinate of the Ombudsman and can investigate and
Petitioner Vice-President Salvador Laurel was appointed as the head of the National Facts: prosecute cases only upon the latter’s authority or orders
Centennial Commission, a body constituted for the preparation of the National Centennial That on or about September of 1998, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the
celebration in 1998. He was subsequently appointed as the Chairman of ExpoCorp., and was Municipality of San Manuel, Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
one of the nine (9) incorporators. A controversy erupted on the alleged anomalies with the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, SALVADOR PEREZ, being then the Municipal
bidding contracts to some entities and the petitioner was implicated. By virtue of an Mayor and JUANITA APOSTOL, ZAPANTA, Municipal Treasurer of said municipality, CASE NO. 1168
investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman, the petitioner was indicted for conspiring and confederating with one another, committing the crime herein charged in relation ARTICLE XII SECTION 12: PROMPT ACTION ON COMPLAINTS
alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). The petitioner filed a to and taking advantage of their official functions, and through manifest partiality, evident bad LAUREL v. DESIERTO [GR. 145368]
Motion to Dismiss questioning the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman, which was faith or gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and criminally
denied. He further filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied, hence this petition cause the purchase of one (1) computer unit costing P120,000.00 acquisition by personal
for certiorari. canvass which is in violation of Secs. 362 and 367 of R.A. 7160, thereby causing undue injury FACTS:
to the Municipality of San Manuel, Pangasinan. the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon
The petitioner assails the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and contended that he is not a public resolved to file charges of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 against
officer since ExpoCorp is a private corporation. petitioners, San Manuel, Pangasinan Mayor Salvador M. Perez, and Municipal Treasurer Petitioner Vice-President Salvador Laurel was appointed as the head of the
Juanita Apostol. National Centennial Commission, a body constituted for the preparation of the National
Issue: Centennial celebration in 1998. He was subsequently appointed as the Chairman of
Whether the petitioner is a public officer and Ombudsman has jurisdiction. Issue: ExpoCorp., and was one of the nine (9) incorporators. A controversy erupted on the alleged
Whether there is a denial of procedural due process on the part of the petitioners when the anomalies with the bidding contracts to some entities and the petitioner was implicated. By
Ruling: Special Prosecutor filed the Amended Information without authority from or the approval of the
virtue of an investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman, the petitioner was
Yes, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner since he is a public officer. Honorable Ombudsman, and against the latter’s specific instruction
The NCC is an office performing executive functions since one of its mandate is to implement indicted for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). The
national policies. Moreover, the said office was established by virtue of an executive order. It is Ruling: petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss questioning the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman,
clear that the NCC performs sovereign functions, hence it is a public office. Since petitioner is Now then, inasmuch as the aforementioned duty is given to the Ombudsman, the incumbent which was denied. He further filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied, hence
chair of the NCC, he is therefore a public officer. The fact that the NCC was characterized by Tanodbayan (called Special Prosecutor under the 1987 constitution and who is supposed to this petition for certiorari.
 Funds, for the year 1988, and all documents, salary vouchers for the whole plantilla of the EIIB case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg.
for 1988, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof." 129, as amended. In this connection, it is the prosecutor, not the Ombudsman, who has the
The petitioner assails the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and contended that he is authority to file the corresponding information/s against Uy in the RTC. The Ombudsman
not a public officer since ExpoCorp is a private corporation. Petitioners filed for a motion of reconsideration, which was denied. exercises prosecutorial powers only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE: ISSUE: In February 20, 2000, a motion for clarification which in fact appeared to be a
partial motion for reconsideration was filed by the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor,
Whether the ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case Whether the ombudsman can issue supoenas which was then denied. The instant case is a Motion for Further Clarification filed
by Ombudsman Aniano Desierto of the Court's ruling in its decision dated August 9, 1999 and
RULING: RULING: resolution dated February 22, 2000.

Yes, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner since he is a No. but it is directed that the inspection of subpoenaed documents be made
public officer. The NCC is an office performing executive functions since one of its mandate is personally in camera by the Ombudsman, and with all the safeguards outlined in the
to implement national policies. Moreover, the said office was established by virtue of an decision.True, the court recognizes the privilege based on state secrets. However, in the case ISSUE:
executive order. It is clear that the NCC performs sovereign functions, hence it is a public office at bar, there have been no claims that military or diplomatic secrets will be disclosed by the
production of records pertaining to the personnel of the EIIB. Nor is there a law or regulation Whether the prosecutory power of the Ombudsman extends only to cases
which considers personnel records of the EIIB as classified information. On the contrary, COA cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and that the Ombudsman has no authority to prosecute
MAIN POINT:
The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly Circular No. 88-293 states that “The only item of expenditure which should be treated as strictly cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts.
on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the confidential because it falls under the category of classified information is that relating to
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government- purchase of information and payment of rewards.”And even if the subpoenaed documents are RULING:
owned or controlled corporations and shall in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the treated as presumptively privileged, the decision would only justify ordering the inspection in
action taken and the result thereof. camera, and not their nonproduction.
No, the power of the Ombudsman is not an exclusive authority but rather a shared
or concurrent authority between the Ombudsman and other investigative agencies of the
Further, documents in question are public documents and as petitioner claims, the government in prosecution of cases. The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct
disbursements by the EIIB of funds for personal service has already been cleared by COA, preliminary investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and
CASE NO. 1169 then there should be no reason why they should object to the examination of the documents by employees, not only those within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but those within the
ARTICLE XII SECTION 12: PROMPT ACTION ON COMPLAINTS the respondent Ombudsman. jurisdiction of the regular courts as well.
ALMONTE v. VASQUEZ [244 SCRA 286]
MAIN POINT: The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is
plenary and unqualified. It pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or employee
It was held that the Ombudsman may start an investigation on the basis of an when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The law does
FACTS:
anonymous letter it does not violate the equal protection clause. not make a distinction between cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and those cognizable
The case is a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul the by regular courts. It has been held that the clause "any illegal act or omission of any public
CASE NO. 1170 official" is broad enough to embrace all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance
subpoena duces tecum and orders issued by respondent Ombudsman, requiring petitioners
ARTICLE XII SECTION 12: PROMPT ACTION ON COMPLAINTS committed by public officers and employees during their tenure of office.
Neria Rogado and Elisa Rivera, as chief accountant and record custodian of the Economic UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN [GR. 105965]
Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) to produce “all documents relating to Personal
Services Funds for the year 1988 and all evidence, such as vouchers (salary) for the whole FACTS: The exercise by the Ombudsman of his primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable
plantilla of EIIB for 1988” and to enjoin him from enforcing his orders. by the Sandiganbayan is not incompatible with the discharge of his duty to investigate and
Petitioner George Uy was the deputy comptroller of the Philippine Navy designated prosecute other offenses committed by public officers and employees. The prosecution of
An anonymous and unsigned letter purportedly written by an employee of the EIIB, to act on behalf of Captain Fernandez, the latter’s supervisor, on matters relating the activities offenses committed by public officers and employees is one of the most important functions of
was sent to the Secretary of Finance, with copies furnished to several government offices, of the Fiscal Control Branch. The Sandiganbayan recommended that the infomations be the Ombudsman. In passing RA 6770, the Congress deliberately endowed the Ombudsman
including the Office of the Ombudsman. In the letter were allegations as to the misuse of funds withdrawn against some of the accused after a comprehensive investigation. with such power to make him a more active and effective agent of the people in ensuring
from the savings of unfulfilled plantilla positions, among other forms of corruption and abuse of accountability in public office. Even a perusal of the law (PD 1630) originally creating the Office
power.As a response to the letter-complaint, petitioner Almonte denied allegations. Petitioner of theOmbudsman then (to be known as the Tanodbayan), and the amendatory laws issued
Perez also denied the issue for the savings realized from the implementation of E.O. No. 127, subsequent thereto will show that, at its inception, the Office of theOmbudsman was already
since the DBM only allotted for the remaining 947 personnel, and that the disbursement of vested with the power to investigate and prosecute civil and criminal cases before the
The court ruled that: It is the court-martial, not the Sandiganbayan, which has
funds for the plantilla positions for overt and covert personnel had been cleared by COA. Sandiganbayan and even the regular courts.
jurisdiction to try petitioner since he was a regular officer of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, and fell squarely under Article 2 of the Articles of War mentioned in Section 1(b) of
Jose F. Sano, the Graft Investigation Officer of the Ombudsman’s office found their MAIN POINT:
P.D. 1850, “Providing for the trial by courts-martial of members of the Integrated National
responses unsatisfactory; therefore he asked for authority to conduct an investigation. Police and further defining the jurisdiction of courts-martial over members of the Armed Forces
Anticipating the grant of his request, he issued a subpoena to petitioners, compelling them to of the Philippines” The power of the Ombudsman is not an exclusive authority but rather a shared or
submit their counter-affidavits and the affidavits of their witnesses, as well as subpoena duces concurrent authority between the Ombudsman and other investigative agencies of the
tecum to the chief of the EIIB’s Accounting Division, ordering him to bring “all documents government in prosecution of cases
relating to Personal Service Funds for the year 1988 and all evidence, such as vouchers
(salary) for the whole plantilla of EIIB for 1988.” As to the violations of Republic Act No. 3019, the petitioner does not fall within the
“rank” requirement stated in Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, thus, exclusive jurisdiction
Petitioners then moved to quash the subpoena (which was granted by the over petitioner is vested in the regular courts ,as amended by R.A. No. 8249, which states that
Ombudsman since no affidavit was filed against petitioners) and the subpoena duces tecum, CASE NO. 1171
“In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade ARTICLE XII SECTION 12: PROMPT ACTION ON COMPLAINTS
which was denied, since it was directed to the Chief Accountant, petitioner Nerio Rogado. In ‘27’ or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officers RARO v. SANDIGANBAYAN [GR. 108431]
addition the Ombudsman ordered the Chief of the Records a Section of the EIIB, petitioner mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional
Elisa Rivera, to produce before the investigator "all documents relating to Personnel Service trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the
FACTS Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in denying the petitioner’s Motion to Office of the Special Prosecutor thought so too. It did not give petitioners notice of the
Quash the Information despite the fact that there were two (2) offenses charged, and as such, reinvestigation, which would have enabled them to participate in the proceedings. But when it
The case involves a special civil action assailing the Sandiganbayan’s resolution on should be charged in separate Informations. later found probable cause against petitioners, it should have first given them notice and
account that it committed grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner is one Oscar G. Raro, afforded them an opportunity to be heard before ordering their inclusion in Criminal Case.
PCSO’s Corporate Secretary and Acting Department Manager of the Special Projects RULING:
Department, who was accused (with probable cause) of violating Section 3 of RA 3019. Raro,
who was tasked to supervise the Small Town Lottery (STL) Experimental Project of the PCSO, No, the Sandiganbayan did not err in denying the petitioner’s Motion to Quash the
was accused to have “willfully, unlawfully, and criminally demanded and received on four Information since the latter was only charged with 1 offense. MAIN POINT:
different occasions the amount totaling to Php 116, 799.99 from Luis Abaño, provincial
manager of the STL operations in CamNorte There were two (2) ways of violating Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, namely, (a) by The petitioners were deprived of due process when the Special Prosecutor reinstated the
causing undue injury to any party, including the Government, and (b) by giving any private complaint against them without their knowledge
party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. The use of the disjunctive term "or"
ISSUE connotes that either act qualifies as a violation, or as different modes of committing the offense CASE NO. 1174
(Santiago v. Garchitorena). This does not indicate that each mode constitutes a distinct ARTICLE XII SECTION 12: PROMPT ACTION ON COMPLAINTS
Whether or not the Ombudsman conducted the preliminary investigation offense, but rather, that an accused may be charged under either mode or under both. KARA-AN v. OMBUDSMAN [GR. 119990]
erroneously and irregularly
FACTS:
For hiring 192 casuals and the charging of their honoraria and salaries to the peace On 14 February 1994, petitioner wrote then Senator Ernesto Maceda imputing certain criminal
RULING: and order fund, the petitioner gave them unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference and acts to "the present number and membership" or "the clique of six" in SON the Board of
caused undue injury to the Municipality of Malita; or thereby caused undue injury to the Directors of the Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines ("Islamic Bank").
No. because contrary to the petitioner’s contention that the Ombudsman) failed to Municipality of Malita. In either case, the Information will not suffer any defect, as it is clear that Petitioner claimed that "the clique of six" granted a loan of ₱250,000 to Compressed Air
examine the complainant personally and procedurally.The record clearly shows that the petitioner is charged with violation of Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, as amended, with either Machineries & Equipment Corporation ("CAMEC") without a valid collateral. Petitioner also
Ombudsman exerted utmost effort to determine the veracity of the allegations thrown at the mode of commission obtaining or with both manners of violation concurring. claimed that the "clique of six" approved the real estate mortgage on CAMEC’s loan without
requiring the cancellation of a prior subsisting mortgage and without securing the written
petitioner"The Court is not unmindful of the duty of the Ombudsman under the Constitution and
consent of the first mortgagee in violation of law. Thus, petitioner asserts that the "clique of six"
Republic Act No. 6770 to act promptly on Complaints brought before him. But such duty should MAIN POINT: is liable for entering into a contract which is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the
not be mistaken with a hasty resolution of cases at the expense of thoroughness and It was held that even unverified and anonymous letters may suffice to start an After a careful and judicious evaluation of the facts of the case, the complaint filed
correctness. Judicial notice should be taken of the fact that the nature of the Office of the investigation. In permitting the filing of complaints "in any form or manner," the framers of the by Kara-an against the Board is doomed to be dismissed from the very beginning. While he
Ombudsman encourages individuals who clamor for efficient government service to freely Constitution took into account the well-known reticence of the people which keep them from was the Officer-in-Charge of the Makati Branch of the Islamic Bank, he was the one directly
complaining against official wrongdoings. responsible in screening the qualifications of the various applicants for loan. He cannot
lodge their Complaints against wrongdoings of government personnel, thus resulting in a
steady stream of cases reaching the Office of the Ombudsman." delegate this responsibility to the higher up because this is his main duty as the officer-in-
charge of the said branch.
CASE NO. 1173
MAIN POINT: ARTICLE XII SECTION 12: PROMPT ACTION ON COMPLAINTS ISSUES:
ROXAS v. VASQUEZ[GR. 114944] Whether the ombudsman officials conducted appropriate investigations according to their
The Ombudsman can act on complaints filed in any manner constitutional statutory and administrative mandates, requirements and their sworn duties as
FACTS: requested
Manuel C. Roxas was the Chairman, while Ahmed S. Nacpil was a Member, of the
CASE NO. 1172 Bids and Awards Committee of the PC-INP who invited bids for the supply of sixty-five units of RULING:
ARTICLE XII SECTION 12: PROMPT ACTION ON COMPLAINTS fire trucks. The COA subsequently discovered that while the disbursement voucher indicated No.The Ombudsman has the "sole power to investigate and prosecute on its own or on
BAUTISTA v. SANDIGANBAYAN[ GR. 136082] the bid price has discrepancy. DILG Secretary filed a complaint with the Ombudsman for complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or
violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 against the accused. On review, the Office agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient."The
of the Special Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the complaints against the petitioner. consistent policy of the Court is not to interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of his
However, the Special Prosecutor made a sudden turnabout as regards to the petitioner and investigatory and prosecutory powers. The Court explained the rationale underlying its policy of
ordered their inclusion as accused in a Criminal Case. Petitioners filed a Motion for non-interference in this wise:The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and
FACTS:
Reconsideration. The Review Committee of the Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon
that the Motion for Reconsideration be granted and that the charge against the movants be practicality as well. The investigation is advisedly called preliminary, as it is yet to be followed
Petitioner Franklin P. Bautista, incumbent mayor of the Municipality of Malita, dismissed. However, Deputy Special Prosecutor disapproved the recommendation. Thus, by the trial proper. The occasion is not for the full and exhaustive display of the parties’
Davao del Sur, was charged for violation of Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA 3019. The letter-complaint, Petitioner filed with this Court the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to annul evidence but for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well-founded belief
which was prepared by the Contractors Association of Davao del Sur and initiated by the Good the orders of the Ombudsman directing their inclusion as accused in Criminal Case. that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty of the offense.
Government Employees of Davao del Sur, alleged, among others, that petitioner caused the
ISSUE:
hiring of one hundred and ninety-two (192) casual employees in the municipal government for
political considerations and that the payment of their honoraria and salaries was charged to the MAIN POINT:
Whether the petitioners were deprived of due process when the Special Petitioner cannot compel the Ombudsman to order the production of certain documents, if in
peace and order fund of the municipality.
Prosecutor reinstated the complaint against them without their knowledge? the Ombudsman’s judgment such documents are not necessary to establish probable cause
against respondents. The Court cannot interfere with the Ombudsman’s discretion in
Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information, stating that the acts charged did determining the adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence before him.
RULING:
not constitute the offense indicated in Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, and that more than one (1)
offense was charged in the Information – the giving of unwarranted benefits, advantage and
preference to the casual employees in question and causing undue injury to the Municipality. Yes, the court find that the case at falls under one of the recognized exceptions to
CASE NO. 1175
The Sandiganbayan denied the Motion by stating that all the essential elements for the crime this rule, more specifically, the constitutional rights of the accused are impaired and the
ARTICLE XII SECTION 12: PROMPT ACTION ON COMPLAINTS
charged were sufficiently alleged in the Information which charged only 1 offense. charges are manifestly false. In cases where the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN [451 SCRA 413]
were unable to agree on whether or not probable cause exists, we may interfere with the
findings and conclusions. The petitioners were deprived of due process when the Special FACTS:
ISSUE:
Prosecutor reinstated the complaint against them without their knowledge. Due process of law
requires that every litigant must be given an opportunity to be heard. He has the right to be Pursuant to a resolution dated September 30, 1999 of the Office of the Ombudsman, two
present and defend himself in person at every stage of the proceedings. For all intents and separate informations1for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-
purposes, therefore, petitioners were no longer parties in the criminal action. Evidently, the
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, were filed with the Sandiganbayan on November 17, 1999 Appeals, arguing among others, that Ursal’s filing of the same administrative case before the basis of which, along with the attachments thereto, the hearing officer may consider the case
against Efren L. Alas. The charges emanated from the alleged anomalous advertising ombudsman and the City Council warranted the dismissal of both. submitted for decision. It is only when the hearing officer determines that based on the
contracts entered into by Alas, in his capacity as President and Chief Operating Officer of the evidence, there is a need to conduct clarificatory hearings or formal investigations under
Philippine Postal Savings Bank (PPSB), with Bagong Buhay Publishing Company which ISSUES: Section 5(b)(2) and Section 5(b)(3) that such further proceedings will be conducted. But the
purportedly caused damage and prejudice to the government. determination of the necessity for further proceedings rests on the sound discretion of the
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman have jurisdiction over the administrative complaint hearing officer. As the petitioners have utterly failed to show any cogent reason why the
On October 30, 2002, Alas filed a motion to quash the informations for lack of hearing officer's determination should be overturned, the determination will not be disturbed by
jurisdiction, which motion was vehemently opposed by the prosecution. After considering the RULING: this Court. We likewise find no merit in their contention that the new procedures under A.O. No.
arguments of both parties, the respondent court ruled that PPSB was a private corporation and 17, which took effect while the case was already undergoing trial before the hearing officer,
that its officers, particularly herein respondent Alas, did not fall under Sandiganbayan The mandate of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints against erring public officials, should not have beenapplied.
jurisdiction. According to the Sandiganbayan:After a careful consideration of the arguments of derived from both the Constitution and the law gives it jurisdiction over the complaint against
the accused-movant as well as of that of the prosecution, we are of the considered opinion that petitioner. The Constitution has named the Ombudsman and his Deputies as the protectors of Since petitioners have been afforded the right to be heard and to defend themselves,
the instant motion of the accused is well taken. Indeed, it is the basic thrust of Republic Act as the people who shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public they cannot rightfully complain that they were denied due process of law. Well to remember,
well as (sic) Presidential Decree No. 1606 as amended by President Decree No. 1486 and officials or employees of the government. To fulfill this mandate, R.A. No. 6770, or the due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations require a trial-
Republic Act No. 7975 and Republic Act No. 8249 that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction only Ombudsman Act of 1989, was enacted, giving the Ombudsman or his Deputies jurisdiction type proceeding. It is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an
over public officers unless private persons are charged with them in the commission of the over complaints on all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance against officers or opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges
offenses. employees of the government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality therefor, including and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against
government-owned or controlled corporations, and the disciplinary authority over all elective him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. More often, this opportunity is
The records disclosed that while Philippine Postal Savings Bank is a subsidiary of and appointive officials, except those who may be removed only by impeachment or over conferred through written pleadings that the parties submit to present their charges and
the Philippine Postal Corporation which is a government owned corporation, the same is not members of Congress and the Judiciary. On the other hand, under R.A. No. 7160 or the Local defenses. But as long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his or her interests in due
created by a special law. It was organized and incorporated under the Corporation Code which Government Code, the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan has disciplinary course, said party is not denied due process.
is Batas Pambansa Blg. 68. It was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission authority over any elective barangay official. Without a doubt, the Office of the Ombudsman
under SEC No. AS094-005593 on June 22, 1994 with a lifetime of fifty (50) years. Under its has concurrent jurisdiction with the Quezon City Council over administrative cases against In the exercise of his duties, the Ombudsman is given full administrative disciplinary
Articles of Incorporation the purpose for which said entity is formed was primarily for business elective officials such as petitioner. authority. His power is not limited merely to receiving, processing complaints, or
recommending penalties. He is to conduct investigations, hold hearings, summon witnesses
ISSUES: and require production of evidence and place respondents under preventive suspension. This
MAIN POINT:
The Ombudsman, in compliance with its duty to act on all complaints against officers and includes the power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, or censure of
Whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction against officers and employees of employees of the government, took cognizance of the case, made its investigation, and a public officer or employee.
government-owned or controlled corporations rendered its decision accordingly

CASE NO. 1177 MAIN POINT:

RULING: ARTICLE XII SECTION 12: PROMPT ACTION ON COMPLAINTS The Ombudsman is given full administrative disciplinary authority. His power is not
CABALIT v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT-REG VII[GR. 180236] limited merely to receiving, processing complaints, or recommending penalties. He is to
Yes. It is a basic principle of statutory construction that when the law does not conduct investigations, hold hearings, summon witnesses and require production of evidence
distinguish, we should not distinguish.Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. FACTS: and place respondents under preventive suspension. This includes the power to impose the
Corollarily, Article XI Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, on the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, or censure of a public officer or employee
(the government’s prosecutory arm against persons charged with graft and corruption), Philippine Star News, a local newspaper in Cebu City, reported that employees of the
includes officers and employees of government-owned or controlled corporations, likewise LTO in Jagna, Bohol, are shortchanging the government by tampering with their income CASE NO. 1178
without any distinction ARTICLE XII SECTION 12: PROMPT ACTION ON COMPLAINTS
reports.Accordingly, Regional Director Ildefonso T. Deloria of the Commission on Audit (COA)
directed State Auditors Teodocio D. Cabalit and Emmanuel L. Coloma of the Provincial GONZALES III v. OP [679 SCRA 614]

MAIN POINT: Revenue Audit Group to conduct a fact-finding investigation. A widespread tampering of official
The Ombudsman has jurisdiction over presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of receipts of Motor Vehicle Registration during the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 was then
government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters whenever charges of graft FACTS:
discovered by the investigators.
and corruption are involved In a Joint Evaluation Report, Graft Investigators Pio R. Dargantes and Virginia
Palanca-Santiago found grounds to conduct a preliminary investigation.Hence, a formal charge In the challenged Decision, the Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 8(2) of
for dishonesty was filed against Olaivar, Cabalit, Apit and Alabat before the Office of the RA No. 6770 and ruled that the President has disciplinary jurisdiction over a Deputy
Ombudsman-Visayas. Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor. The Court, however, reversed the OP ruling that found
Gonzales guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and Grave Misconduct constituting betrayal of public
ISSUE: trust; and (ii) imposed on him the penalty of dismissal.Sulit, who had not then been dismissed
and who simply sought to restrain the disciplinary proceedings against her, solely questioned
CASE NO. 1176 Whether or not there was a violation of the right to due process when the hearing the jurisdiction of the OP to subject her to disciplinary proceedings. The Court affirmed the
ARTICLE XII SECTION 12: PROMPT ACTION ON COMPLAINTS continuation of the proceedings against her... after upholding the constitutionality of Section
officer at the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas adopted the procedure under A.O. No. 17
LEXINA v. OMBUDSMAN [471 SCRA 542] 8(2) of RA No. 6770.
notwithstanding the fact that the said amendatory order took effect after the hearings
FACTS: hadstarted
In view of the Court's ruling, the OP filed the present motion for reconsideration
through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).In April 2005, the Office of the Ombudsman
In 1998, Evangeline Ursal the Barangay Clerk of Batasan Hills, QC filed a charged Major General Carlos F. Garcia and several others, before the Sandiganbayan, with
complaint for attempted rape against Brgy Chairman Laxina before the NBI. Laxina was RULING:
plunder and money laundering. On May 7, 2007, Garcia filed an Urgent Petition for Bail which
subsequently charged with sexual harassment before the RTC. In 2000, Ursal brought a Petitioners were not denied due process of law when the investigating lawyer
the prosecution opposed. The Sandiganbayan denied Garcia's urgent petition for bail on
complaint-affidavit before the DILG charging Laxina with grave misconduct before the Office of proceeded to resolve the case based on the affidavits and other evidence on record. Section
January 7, 2010, in view of the strength of the prosecution's evidence against Garcia.
the Ombudsman, who found Laxina guilty and meted the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of 5(b)(1) Rule 3, of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended by
benefits. Laxina sought to review the Ombudsman memorandumorder before the Court of A.O. No. 17, plainly provides that the hearing officer may issue an order directing the parties to Issues:
file, within ten days from receipt of the order, their respective verified position papers on the
 Gonzales posited in his petition that the OP has no administrative disciplinary RULING: MACALINO v. SANDIGANBAYAN [376 SCRA 452]
jurisdiction over a Deputy Ombudsman. Under Section 21 of RA No. 6770, it is the A reading of the foregoing provision of the Constitution does not show that the power
Ombudsman who exercises administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over the Deputy of investigation including preliminary investigation vested on the Ombudsman is exclusive. FACTS:
Ombudsman; Hence, the said provision of the Constitution did not repeal or remove the power to conduct an
investigation, including the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation, vested on the On September 16, 1992, two information were filed with the Sandiganbayan
Ruling: PCGG by Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 14 against petitioner, being then the Assistant Manager of the Treasury Division and the Head of
the Loans Administration & Insurance Section of the Philippine National Construction
On motion for reconsideration and further reflection, the Court votes to grant Corporation (PNCC), a government-controlled corporation, and his wife, Liwayway S. Tan,
"This Court, in Zaldivar, interpreting the aforesaid provision of the Constitution,
Gonzales' petition and to declare Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 unconstitutional with respect to particularly Section 13(1) thereof vesting on the Ombudsman the right and the power to charging them with estafa through falsification of official documents and frustrated estafa
the Office of the Ombudsman. through falsification of mercantile documents. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty
investigate on its own or on complaint, any act or omission of any public official, employee,
office or agency which appears "to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient," held that the to the charges.
a. The Philippine Ombudsman
general power of investigation covers the lesser power to conduct a preliminary investigation
However, during the initial presentation of evidence for the defense, petitioner
Under Section 12, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman is
moved for leave to file a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Sandiganbayan has no
envisioned to be the "protector of the people" against the inept, abusive, and corrupt in the
jurisdiction over him since he is not a public officer because the Philippine National
Government, to function essentially as a complaints and action bureau.[36] This constitutional
MAIN POINT: Construction Corporation (PNCC), formerly the Construction and Development Corporation of
vision of a Philippine Ombudsman practically intends to make the Ombudsman an authority to
The power of investigation vested on the Ombudsman under the Constitution the Philippines (CDCP), is not a government-owned or controlled corporation with original
directly check and guard against the ills, abuses and excesses of the bureaucracy. Pursuant
includes the power to conduct such a preliminary investigation, then the special prosecutor charter.
to Section 13(8), Article XI of the 1987
(former Tanodbayan) may no longer conduct such a preliminary investigation unless duly
authorized by the Ombudsman On August 5, 1999, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a resolution denying petitioner’s motion to
The Ombudsman's broad investigative and disciplinary powers include all acts of
malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance of all public officials, including Members of the dismiss for lack of merit.
CASE NO. 1180
Cabinet and key Executive officers, during their tenure. ARTICLE XII SECTION 13:POWERS, FUNCTIONS,DUTIES
MACEDA v. VASQUEZ [221 SCRA 464] ISSUE:
Given the scope of its disciplinary authority, the Office of the Ombudsman is a very
powerful government constitutional agency that is considered "a notch above other grievance- FACTS: Whether petitioner, an employee of the PNCC, is a public officer within the
handling investigative bodies."[39] It has powers, both constitutional... and statutory, that are coverage of R. A. No. 3019
commensurate with its daunting task of enforcing accountability of public officers. Ombudsman Petitioner (Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, Presiding Judge of Branch 12 of the RTC of
is given the duty to adjudicate on the integrity and competence of the very persons who can Antique) seeks the review of the following orders of the Office of the Ombudsman: The Order RULING:
remove or suspend its members. dated September 18, 1991 denying the ex-parte motion to refer to the Supreme Court (SC)
filed by petitioner; and The Order dated November 22, 1991 denying petitioner's motion for In asmuch as the PNCC has no original charter as it was incorporated under the general law
MAIN POINT: reconsideration and directing petitioner to file his counter-affidavit and other controverting on corporations, it follows inevitably that petitioner is not a public officer within the coverage of
The Office of the Ombudsman is envisioned to be the "protector of the people" against the evidences. R. A. No. 3019, as amended. Thus, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over him. The only
inept, abusive, and corrupt in the Government, to function essentially as a complaints and
action bureau.This constitutional vision of a Philippine Ombudsman practically intends to make instance when the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private individual is when the
the Ombudsman an authority to directly check and guard against the ills, abuses and excesses ISSUES: complaint charges him either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer who
of the bureaucracy. has been charged with a crime within the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan.
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman could entertain a criminal complaint for the
alleged falsification of a judge's certification submitted to the SC. MAIN POINT:
CASE NO. 1179
ARTICLE XII SECTION 13:POWERS, FUNCTIONS,DUTIES
RULING: The OMB can investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, also direct, upon
CRUZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN [194 SCRA 474]
FACTS: complaint or at its instance, any public official or employee of the government, or any
Yes. There is nothing in the decision in Orap that would restrict it only to offenses subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any government-owned or
Accused, being then the President and General Manager and the Vice President and committed by a judge unrelated to his official duties. A judge who falsifies his certificate of controlled corporations with original charters, to perform and expedite any act or duty required
Treasurer, respectively of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), a government service is:Administratively liable to the SC for serious misconduct and inefficiency under by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.
financial institution enteres into a contract with Cor-Asia, a private corporation, whereby GSIS, Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to the State under the Revised
under the terms and conditions manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the GSIS, sold, Penal Code for his felonious act. CASE NO. 1182
transferred and conveyed to said Cor-Asia seven percent (7%) 20-year Cultural Center of the ARTICLE XII SECTION 13:POWERS, FUNCTIONS,DUTIES
Philippines (CCP) bonds Said information was filed after a preliminary investigation was The Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the powers granted GARCIA v. MIRO [GR. 148944]
conducted by Fiscal Freddie A. Gomez of the respondent PCGG, based on a complaint, to it by Article XI, section 13 (1) and (2) of the 1987 Constitution, for such a justification not only
FACTS:
various affidavits and counter affidavits andexhibits submitted to him. runs counter to the specific mandate of the Constitution granting supervisory powers to the SC
over all courts and their personnel, but likewise undermines the independence of the judiciary.
Petitioner, in his capacity as Cebu City mayor, signed a contract with F.E. Zuellig
On February 2, 1989, petitioner filed a motion to quash the information to which an
for the supply of asphalt to the city few days before the election. Prompted on the news reports
opposition was filed by the respondent PCGG and a reply was filed by petitioner. At the MAIN POINT:
came out regarding the alleged anomalous purchase of asphalt by Cebu City, through the
hearing of the motion to quash on March 22, 1989, respondent PCGG informed the court that it
contract signed by petitioner, the OMB conduct an inquiry into the matter. After the
will file an amended information. Where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises from
investigation of the OMB, he recommended that the said inquiry be upgraded
their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer it to
to criminal and administrative cases against petitioner and the other city officials involved.
ISSUES: the Supreme Court for determination whether said Judge or court employee had acted within
the scope of their administrative duties.
Special Prosecution Officer Jesus Rodrigo T. Tagaan of the OMB filed an affidavit
Whether or not the respondent Presidential Commission on Good Government
with the Graft Investigation Office against petitioner Garcia and others for violation of Section
(PCGG) has the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation and file the information with
3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the basis of a
the Sandiganbayan for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
CASE NO. 1181 COA report which manifested the anomalies of the supply of the asphalt.
ARTICLE XII SECTION 13:POWERS, FUNCTIONS,DUTIES
 Petitioner argues that the OMB cannot compel him to file a counter-affidavit The DOJ Panel need not be authorized nor deputized by the Ombudsman to CORPUZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN [GR. 162214]
because no valid complaint exists against him. He claims that the COA Special Audit Report conduct the preliminary investigation for complaints filed with it because the DOJ's authority to FACTS:
and the supporting affidavits submitted by State Auditors Cabreros and Quejada do not act as the principal law agency of the government and investigate the commission of crimes
constitute a valid complaint. Petitioner cites Duterte v. Sandiganbayan wherein we held that a under the Revised Penal Code is derived from the Revised Administrative Code which had After the termination of the requisite preliminary investigation in OMB Cases Nos.
COA Special Audit Report is not equivalent to the affidavits required under Section 4, Rule II of been held in the Natividad case13 as not being contrary to the Constitution. Thus, there is not 0-99-2188 to 2205, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a Resolution on July 27, 2000 finding
A.O. No. 7. even a need to delegate the conduct of the preliminary investigation to an agency which has probable cause against petitioners Antonio H. Roman, Sr. and Marialen C. Corpuz, the
the jurisdiction to do so in the first place. However, the Ombudsman may assert its primary President and Vice-President of FILSYN Corporation, respectively, and several others. On
ISSUE: jurisdiction at any stage of the investigation. April 10, 2000, the petitioners, the Undersecretary of Finance Antonio P. Belicena, and the
officers of the Petron Corporation, were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act
Whether or not the COA report may constitute a valid complaint. MAIN POINT: No. 3019, involving the so-called "tax credit scam" in an Information docketed as Criminal
Respondent DOJ Panel is not precluded from conducting any investigation of Capetitioners filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a "Very Urgent Motion for Leave to File
cases against public officers involving violations of penal laws but if the cases fall under the Motion for Reconsideration or Reinvestigation" the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan
RULING:
exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, then respondent Ombudsman may, in the exercise issued an "Order" granting petitioners, among other movants, leave to file their respective
of its primary jurisdiction take over at any stage
motions for reinvestigation or reconsideration, and gave the Prosecution sixty (60) days to
Yes. Petitioner’s reliance on Duterte is misplaced. When petitioners therein were
CASE NO. 1184 resolve the said motions.The sixty (60) day deadline given the Prosecution to complete its
asked to file a comment on a COA Special Audit Report, they were already being subjected to
ARTICLE XII SECTION 13:POWERS, FUNCTIONS,DUTIES reinvestigations and report its findings in relation to such reinvestigations passed without the
a preliminary investigation without being so informed. They were directed to submit a point-by-
point comment under oath on the mere allegations in a civil case before the RTC which had SAMSON v. OMBUDSMAN [GR. 117741] Prosecution resolving petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
already been dismissed and on the COA Special Audit Report. Moreover, said petitioners were
FACTS:
not furnished a single affidavit of any person charging them of any offense. Despite the court’s warning, the Prosecution still failed to resolve the pending
motions for reinvestigation by the time of the scheduled arraignment and pre-trial conference
Respondent Leonito Catarroja caused the printing of health certificates without set on 2 July 2001, prompting the court to issue an order which gave the Prosecution an
In this case, the Deputy Ombudsman’s Order requiring petitioner to submit his
serial numbers at his own expense and thereafter, he sold and parted with the said blank and additional ten (10) days to resolve the motions, and reset the scheduled arraignment and pre-
counter-affidavit was accompanied by the COA Special Audit Report and the joint affidavit and
already signed health certificates at P20.00 each to co-respondent Norma Sanchez and trial conference to 17 July 2001.Despite the lapse of the ten (10) day additional period given it,
supplemental joint affidavit of State Auditors Cabreros and Quejada.
likewise to an unnamed employee of the Business Permits and Licenses Office (BPLO), Office the Prosecution again failed to complete, and submit the results of, its reinvestigation, and
of the Mayor, Quezon City, who then re-sold the same to fixers. In turn, the said fixers instead filed a "Manifestation" requesting the cancellation and resetting of the arraignment and
MAIN POINT: disposed of the health certificates to applicants for P70.00 each without official receipts; pre-trial conference set on 17 July 2001.the Prosecution again failed to report completion of the
reinvestigation process, but only filed an "Omnibus Motion" in which it informed the court only
respondent Catarroja signed and issued twenty (20) health certificates to employees of the
The Ombudsman cannot encroach upon the Courts to oversee judges and court that the prosecutor concerned had already made a recommendation to the Office of the
Max restaurant even without the required physical and medical examinations and Special Prosecutor. The Prosecution repeated its request for deferment of the scheduled
personnel and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation immunizations, in consideration of the amount of P400.00 which was paid by Pons Sepulveda arraignment and pre-trial conference at the scheduled hearing on 20 August 2001, but this
of the laws for and in behalf of said employees; time, the request was denied by Justice Nario, who issued an oral order dismissing the case on
account of the long delay associated with the Prosecution’s resolution of the motions for
That likewise on the same date aforestated, respondent Catarroja issued health reinvestigation filed by accused.
certificate No. 15595-93 to one Alberto de Jesus without the required physical and medical
examination and immunization, after the latter had paid an additional and unreceipted amount
of P50.00 demanded by one of the staff in the office of respondent Catarroja. However, the
said health certificate is not recorded in the official logbook of his office for duly issued health
certificates.

CASE NO. 1183 ISSUES:

ARTICLE XII SECTION 13:POWERS, FUNCTIONS,DUTIES
HONASAN II v. PANEL OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS[ GR. 159747]
ISSUES: Whether the accused has been deprived of his right to a speedy disposition of the
FACTS: case and to a speedy trial
Whether the Ombudsman has a wide latitude and prosecutor powers, free from
An affidavit-complaint was filed before the DOJ by Mantillano charging Senator legislative RULING:
Honasan and others for the offense of coup d’etat. Consequently Honasan questioned the
OMB-DOJ Circular which according to Honasan the source of the purported power of the DOJ RULING: Yes. The Prosecutor should have expedited the reinvestigation not only because
to conduct preliminary investigation,since there was no publication of the said circular. he was ordered by the Sandiganbayan to submit a report within sixty (60) days, but also
Yes.The Constitution and RA 6770 (the "Ombudsman Act of 1989") endowed the because he is bound to do so under the Constitution, and under Section 13 of Rep. Act No.
ISSUES: Office of the Ombudsman with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutorial powers, 6770. It was emphasized that the government, and for that matter, the trial court, is not without
virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention, in order to insulate it from responsibility for the expeditious trial for criminal cases. The burden for trial promptness does
Whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation outside pressure and improper influence. Section 13(1), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution not solely rest upon the defense. The right to a speedy trial is not to be honored only for the
because the petitioner is a public officer with salary grade 31 (Grade 27 or Higher) thereby provides. vigilant and the knowledgeable.
falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
MAIN POINT: MAIN POINT:
The Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly
RULING:
OMB can investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the
Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-
No. Whether or not the offense is within exclusive jurisdiction or not will not resolve omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears
owned or controlled corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in
the present petition so as not to pre-empt the result of the investigation conducted by the DOJ to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the
Panel. government to the people

CASE NO. 1185 CASE NO. 1186

ARTICLE XII SECTION 13:POWERS, FUNCTIONS,DUTIES ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES
 KHAN JR VS OMBUDSMAN connection with administrative proceedings involving public school teachers. And in Alcala v. The Office of Ombudsman filed a petition for certiorari to impose its decision that was set aside
Facts: Villar, this Court emphasized that: by the CA, which is the penalty for dismissal from the service of Ma. Melly Jaud Magbanua
Private respondents Rosauro Torralba and Celestino Bandala charged petitioners before the (respondent).
Deputy Ombudsman (Visayas) for violation of RA 3019. In their complaint, private respondents
accused petitioners, Ismael G. Khan, Jr. and Wenceslao L. Malabanan, of using their positions RA 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, provides that the Office of the Ombudsman shall have
in PAL to secure a contract for Synergy Services Corporation, a corporation engaged in disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its Respondent was the Local Treasury Operations Assistant of the City Treasurer’s Office in
hauling and janitorial services in which they were shareholders. Petitioners filed an omnibus subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including members of the Cabinet, local Bacolod City. On 27 February 1998, the Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an
motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: (1) the Ombudsman had no government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries except over examination of respondent’s cash and account. The examination disclosed a shortage of
jurisdiction over them since PAL was a private entity and (2) they were not public officers, officials who may be removed by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the ₱265,450. Upon demand, respondent failed to produce the missing amount. Respondent
hence, outside the application of RA 3019. The Deputy Ombudsman denied petition. Judiciary. However, in Fabella v. Court of Appeals, it was held that R.A. No. 4670, the Magna alleged that the shortage was due to the machinations and dishonest acts of Cash Clerk I
Petitioners appealed the order to the Ombudsman raised the same issuesbut was again Carta for Public School Teachers, specifically covers and governs administrative proceedings Monina Baja. Respondent alleged that Baja, acting as Paymaster, received payroll funds for
dismissed involving public school teachers distribution to specific offices, in which Baja denied the allegation. The Office of Ombudsman
ruled that respondent is guilty of gross neglect of duty and for violations of reasonable office
rules and regulations, meted the penalty of dismissal from service.
In this petition for certiorari, with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order, Mainpoint:
petitioners assail the orders dated July 13, 1989 and February 22, 1996 of the Deputy The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over disciplinary cases involving public school teachers has
Ombudsman (Visayas) and the Ombudsman, respectively. They claim that public respondents been modifies by Section 9 RA 4670, otherwise known as Magna Carta for Public School Issue:
acted without jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the investigation Teachers, which says that such cases must first go to a committee appointed by the Secretary Whether the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to impose directly administrative
of the case against them although they were officers of a private corporation and not "public of Education. penalties on public officials or employees
officers."
Ruling:
CASE NO. 1188 Yes. In section 15, 21, and 25 of Republic Act No. 6770 provide the functions and duties of the
Issue: ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES Ombudsman. (15) It stated that the Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority
Whether or not the Deputy Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case OMBUDSMAN VS LUCERO over all elective and appointive officials of the Government, (21) the Office of the Ombudsman
Facts: shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government,
Ruling: Petitioner Farida T. Lucero was appointed on November 18, 1999 as Clerk II of the Land (25) the penalty ranging from suspension without pay for one year to dismissal at the discretion
No. In accordance with article 13 section 2, Based on the foregoing provision, the Office of the Transportation Office, Regional Office No. VII, and was assigned at the Chief Finance Division of the Ombudsman. Therefore Office of the Ombudsman has the power to impose directly
Ombudsman exercises jurisdiction over public officials/ employees of GOCCs with original in order to augment the personnel complement thereat. In a Memorandum dated November administrative penalties on public officials or employees.
charters. This being so, it can only investigate and prosecute acts or omissions of the 18, 1999 which was issued by Regional Director Isabelo K. Apor, she was likewise directed to
officials/employees of government corporations. Therefore, although the government later on assist the Regional Cashier in collecting and receiving miscellaneous fees/revenues. On Mainpoint:
acquired the controlling interest in PAL, the fact remains that the latter did not have an "original September 29, 2000, OIC-Regional Director Porferio I. Mendoza of LTO,Regional Office No. The Ombudsman has the power to impose directly administrative penalty on the public official
charter" and its officers/employees could not be investigated and/or prosecuted by the VII, Cebu City requested COA to conduct an audit in the Cash Section of the Operations or employee.
Ombudsman. Division of their office. After conducting audit, it is revealed Petitioner to have issued sixty-nine
(69) altered miscellaneous receipts. The Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) rendered its
Mainpoint: Decision finding the Petitioner guilty of dishonesty.
The Ombudsman can investigate only the officers of the government owned corporations with
original charter. Pal, even when still owned by the government did not have original charter. Issue:
Whether the Ombudsman is empowered to order the removal of public officials or employees
in administrative cases

Ruling: CASE NO. 1190

Yes, the issue raised in this Court has already been resolved in Office of the Ombudsman v. ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES
CASE NO. 1187 Court of Appeals. In that case, the Court declared that in the exercise of its administrative SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY VS PUNONG BARANGAY
ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES disciplinary authority under Section 12, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act No. Facts:
OMBUDSMAN VS ESTANDARTE 6770, the Office of the Ombudsman is empowered not merely to recommend, but to impose On 5 November 2004, Martinez was administratively charged with Dishonesty and Graft and
Facts: the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer Corruption by petitioner through the filing of a verified complaint before the Sangguniang
Ombudsman, petitioner found Heidi Estandarte, the school Principal, guilty of allegations of or employee found to be at fault. The Court stated that this was the manifest intent of the Bayan (SB) as the disciplining authority over elective barangay officials pursuant to Section
improprieties ranging from illegal handling of school funds, irregular financial transactions, legislature: 61 of Local Government Code. Upon his failure to file an Answer to the Amended
perjury, and abuse of authority. Estandarte filed a Petition for Review with prayer for the Administrative Complaint, Martinez was declared by the SB as in default. On 28 July 2005, the
issuance of a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction with the CA. She alleged SB rendered its Decision imposing the penalty of removal from office. Municial Mayor Bagasao
that the Ombudsman (Visayas) violated her right to due process when her request for a formal All the provisions in Republic Act No. 6770 taken together reveal the manifest intent of the issued a Memorandum, wherein he stated that the SB is not empowered to order Martinez’s
investigation was denied; that the DECS-Region VI has jurisdiction over the case; and that the lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. removal from service. However, the Decision remains valid until reversed and must be
Ombudsman (Visayas) failed to act with the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, in which CA These provisions cover the entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the executed by him.
granted. The CA held that the Ombudsman (Visayas) acted without or in excess of jurisdiction authority to, inter alia, receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance
when it took over the case after it issued a memorandum considering the case closed and with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, place Martinez filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari with a prayer for Temporary Restraining
terminated and after jurisdiction had already been vested in the Special Investigating under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, Order and Preliminary Injunction before the trial court against petitioner, the SB and Mayor
Committee. Such act violates the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Petitioner contends that the determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as Bagasao questioning the validity of decision of the SB. The trial court issued an Order
CA erred in holding that it is bereft of the authority to directly impose on the respondent the warranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, impose the said penalty. declaring the Decision of the Sangguniang Bayan and the Memorandum of Mayor Bagasao
sanction of dismissal from service. It stresses that it has full and complete administrative void. It maintained that the proper courts, and not the petitioner, are empowered to remove an
disciplinary jurisdiction over public school teachers. elective local official from office, in accordance with Section 60 of the Local Government Code.
Mainpoint:
Thus, the Order of the SB removing Martinez from service is void.
The Ombudsman Act authorizes the Ombudsman to impose penalties in administrative cases.
Issue:
Whether or not the has exclusive jurisdiction over the case Issue:
Whether or not the SB empowered to remove Martinez from service
CASE NO. 1189
Ruling:
ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES
Yes. In a case of recent vintage, the Court held that the Ombudsman has full administrative Ruling:
OMBUDSMAN VS CA
disciplinary authority over public officials and employees of the government. However, Section
Facts:
9 of Rep. Act No. 4670, otherwise known as the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. In
Fabella v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 4670 reflects the No, The Sangguniang Bayan is not empowered. An elective local official may be removed from
legislative intent to impose a standard and a separate set of procedural requirements in office of the proper court. During the deliberations of the Senate on the Local Government
Code, the legislative intent to confine to the courts, i.e., regional trial courts, the Aggrieved, petitioner filed with the CA, a Petition for Review with application for the issuance of The one who is answering an administrative complaint filed before the Ombudsman may not
Sandiganbayan and the appellate courts, jurisdiction over cases involving the removal of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction. Thereafter, the appeal to the procedural rules under Civil Service Commission.
elective local official. appellate court issued a TRO but preliminary injunction was denied. He then filed a motion for
reconsideration, but also denied. Hence, in an instant petition for certiorari, Petitioner alleged
that denial of preliminary injunction, the CA gravely abused its discretion, the Decision of CASE NO. 1194
Mainpoint: Ombudsman suspending him from office is not immediately executory; and that enforcement of ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES
In Local Government Code, elective officials may be dismissed only by the proper court. decision from the service during the pendency of his appeal, the Office of the Ombudsman VILLASENOR VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Where the disciplining authority is given only the power to suspend and not the power to violated Section 27 of RA 6770, (Ombudsman Act of 1989) and the rulings of the Court Facts:
remove, it should not be permitted to manipulate the law by usurping the power to remove. in Lapid v. Court of Appeals, Lopez v. Court of Appeals, and Ombudsman v. Laja. Quezon City Manor Hotel went ablaze resulting in the death of 74 people. Villasenor and De
Mesa are presently facing criminal charged for the crime of multiple homicide through reckless
imprudence and for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. They were also
CASE NO. 1191 Issue: charged administratively with gross negligence, gross misconduct and conduct before
ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES Whether or not the Office of Ombudsman violated RA 6770 rulings of the court Sandiganbayan. In line with administrative case, they were preventively suspended for a period
PEREZ VS SANDIGANBAYAN of 6 months. During the pendency of the criminal case, respondent special prosecutor Louella
Facts: Ruling: Mae Oco-Pesquera filed a motion for suspension pendente lite of petitioners.
Salvador Perez and Juanita Apostol Zapanta are Mayor and Treasurer of San Manuel, No, Honorable Court emphatically declared that Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of
Pangasinan, respectively. They wilfully, unlawfully, and criminally caused the purchase of 1 the Office of the Ombudsman was already amended by Administrative Order No. 17 wherein
computer unit costing P120,000 acquisition by personal canvass, violating Sec 362 and 267 of the pertinent provision on the execution of the Ombudsman's decision pending appeal is now Petitioners opposed the motion, contending that they had already been suspended for 6
the Local Government Code. No public bidding occurred and no Committee award was similar to Section 47 of the "Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service" - that months relative to the administrative case. They posited that any preventive suspension that
constituted to approve the procurement. Salvador and Juanita gave Mobil Link is, decisions of the Ombudsman are immediately executory even pending appeal. may be warranted in the criminal case was already absorbed by the preventive suspension in
Enterprises/Starlet Sales Center undue advantage or preference through manifest partiality, the administrative case because both the criminal and administrative cases were anchored on
showing evident of bad faith and gross, inexcusable negligence, but this was not include in the the same set of facts. Respondent court granted the prosecution's motion for suspension. It
original information, so it was recommended by the Special Prosecutor that the information be Considering that an appeal under Administrative Order No. 17, the amendatory rule, shall not ordered the suspension of petitioners for a period of 90 days.
amended to show the manner of the commission of the offence, based on the Ombudsman’s stop the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman from being executory, the court hold that the
margin notes in the original information. The amended information was admitted. The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's application for injunctive
petitioners challenge this, saying it was the Sandiganbayan committed GAD in accepting the relief. It bears stressing at this point that Section 13(8), Article XI of the Constitution authorizes Issue:
amended information, which had no approval from the Ombudsman, amounting to denial of the Office of the Ombudsman to promulgate its own rules WON the public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
due process. The SC granted the petition. jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of the petitioners despite their 6 months preventive
suspension
Mainpoint:
Issue:
The Ombudsman has been conferred rule making power to govern procedures under it Ruling:
Whether or not the Special has the authority to file information without approval of the
Ombudsman No. The Court finds no merit in the argument. Criminal and administrative cases are separate
and distinct from each other. The public respondent did not abuse his discretion of regarding
Ruling: preventive suspension. Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, unequivocally provides that
No. The Ombudsman’s margin notes order was to "study whether the accused, assuming the accused public officials "shall be suspended from office" while the criminal prosecution is
arguendo that there was no overprice, gave unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to pending in court. In Gonzaga v. Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that such preventive
suspension is mandatory; there are no ifs and buts about it. This Preventive suspension will
the seller of the subject computer” and “submit your recommendation soonest.”It is clear that CASE NO. 1193 only last for 90 days, and may not exceed the maximum period of 90 days.
the recommendation must be submitted to one who has authority to implement such ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES
recommendation. The Ombudsman has the power to file informations, as well as the power to MEDINA VS COA Mainpoint:
delegate his powers. Office Order No. 40-05 delegates the disposition of administrative and Facts: Preventive suspension is merely a preventive measure, a preliminary step in an administrative
criminal cases (filing informations) to the Deputy Ombudsman, but NOT the Special Prosecutor The Court of Appeals' decision affirmed the two joint orders issued by the Office of the Deputy investigation. The purpose of the suspension order is to prevent the accused from using his
Ombudsman for Luzon finding herein petitioner Lorna A. Medina guilty of grave misconduct position and the powers and prerogatives of his office to influence potential witnesses or
(which is included in the Office of the Ombudsman). All that is delegated to the Special and dishonesty. The Resolution of the same court denied petitioner's motion for tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him. Preventive
Prosecutor is the discretional authority to review and modify the Deputy Ombudsman- reconsideration of the said decision. suspension of petitioners will only last 90 days, not the entire duration of the criminal case The
authorized information, but without departing from the basic resolution. Deputy Ombudsman Court has thus laid down the rule that preventive suspension may not exceed the maximum
and Special Prosecutor are given the same rank and salary (RA 6770), but they do NOT have The instant petition originated from the audit conducted by respondent Commission on Audit period of 90 days.
the same functions. (COA) on the cash and accounts handled by petitioner in her official capacity as Municipal
Treasurer of General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite. The state auditors discovered a cash shortage.
They thus directed petitioner to immediately restitute the shortage within 72 hours from receipt
Mainpoint:
of the demand letter but petitioner allegedly failed to comply. The state auditors submitted a CASE NO. 1195
The Special Prosecutor may not file an information without the authority from the Ombudsman.
report to the Provincial Auditor's Office and recommended the relief of petitioner from her post ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES
RA 6770, by conferring upon the Ombudsman the power to prosecute, likewise grants to the
as municipal treasurer and the filing of criminal charges against her. On the other hand, the OMBUDSMAN VS RODRIGUEZ
Ombudsman the power to authorize the filing of information. A delegated authority to prosecute
provisions in the Administrative Code cited by petitioner in support of her theory that she is Facts:
was also given to the Deputy Ombudsman, but such delegation exists to the Special
entitled to a formal investigation apply only to administrative cases filed before the Civil Service On August 26, 2003, a complaint was received by the Ombudsman against Barangay Captain
Prosecutor. Nor is there an implied delegation. The Special Prosecutor prosecutes when
Commission. Rolson Rodriguez for the abuse of authority, dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office, and
authorized by the Ombudsman.
neglect of duty. On September 1, 2003, a similar complaint was received by the Sangguniang
Issue: Bayan of Binalbagan. Rodriguez was served with noticed of the complaint on Sept 8 by SB and
Whether or not the Medina, who has administrative complaint in Ombudsman, may appeal to Sept 10 by Ombudsman. He filed a motion to dismiss the Ombudsman case on the ground of
CASE NO. 1192
the procedural rules under CSC forum shopping and motion of to dismiss the SB case alleging that it has no factual basis. The
ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES
BUENCAMINO VS COA complainants subsequently withdraw the complaint with the SB to prioritized the Ombudsman
Ruling: case. Ombudsman found Rodriguez guilty of dishonesty and oppression.CA set aside such
Facts:
No. In particular, Section 48(2) and Section 48(3) are subsumed under Subtitle A of Title I, ruling for lack of jurisdiction. CA ruled that SB acquired primary jurisdiction over Rodriguez
Edmundo Jose T. Buencamino, petitioner, is the incumbent mayor of San Miguel, Bulacan,
which pertains to the CSC and to the procedure of administrative cases filed before the CSC. because it served the notice 2 days earlier than the Ombudsman which opts to take
while Constantino Pascual, private respondent, is the president of Rosemoor Mining and
The administrative complaint against petitioner was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, cognizance of the case and thus acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts with
Development Corporation, a company engaged in the mining of marble blocks. Private
suggesting that a different set of procedural rules govern. And rightly so, the Deputy concurrent jurisdiction. Also, the rule against forum shopping applied only to judicial cases or
respondent filed with the Office of the Ombudsman, public respondent, an administrative
Ombudsman applied the provisions of Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman in proceedings, not to administrative cases.
complaint against petitioner for grave misconduct, abuse of authority and Anti-Graft and
ruling that the prerogative to elect a formal investigation pertains to the hearing officer and not
Corrupt Practices. Office of the Ombudsman declared petitioner administratively liable for
to petitioner. Issue:
abuse of authority and suspended him from office for a period of six (6) months without pay.
Whether or not the Ombudsman has the jurisdiction of the case of Barangay Captain Rolson
Mainpoint: Rodriguez
Ruling: The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, through Atty. Orlando L. Section 15(3) also states that the Ombudsman in the alternative may "enforce its disciplinary
Yes. The primary jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate any act or omission of a public Salvador, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to nullify the October 9, 1997 authority as provided in Section 21" of RA 6770.
officer or employee applies only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. In cases Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman in dismissing the criminal complaint regarding the
cognizable by regular courts, the Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with other violation on Anti-Graft and Corrupt practices Act against respondents, Mapa Jr et al, on ground
investigative agencies of government. Republic Act No. 8249, otherwise known as An Act of prescription, and the July 27, 1998 Order denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Mainpoint:
Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, limits the cases that are cognizable by The power of Ombudsman to determine and impose administrative liability is not merely
the Sandiganbayan to public officials occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 and To reiterate, the Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans was created on October 8, advisory or recommendatory but is actually mandatory.
higher. The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over private respondent who, 1992 under Administrative Order No. 13. Subsequently, Memorandum Order No. 61, dated
as punong barangay, is occupying a position corresponding to salary grade 14 under Republic November 9, 1992, was issued defining the criteria to be utilized as a frame of reference in
Act No. 6758, otherwise known as the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. determining behest loans. Accordingly, if these Orders are to be considered the bases of CASE NO. 1199
charging respondents for alleged offenses committed, they become ex-post facto laws which ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES
Mainpoint: are proscribed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the case of People v. MEDINA VS COA
Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with the Sangguniang Bayan over administrative Sandiganbayan, supra, citing Wilensky V. Fields, Fla, 267 So 2dl, 5, held that "an ex-post facto Facts:
cases against elective barangay officials occupying positions below salary grade 27, such as law is defined as a law which provides for infliction of punishment upon a person for an act The Court of Appeals' decision affirmed the two joint orders issued by the Office of the Deputy
private respondent in this case. done which when it was committed, was innocent. Thus, the Ombudsman dismissed it. Ombudsman for Luzon finding herein petitioner Lorna A. Medina guilty of grave misconduct
and dishonesty. The Resolution of the same court denied petitioner's motion for
Issue: reconsideration of the said decision.
CASE NO. 1196 Whether or not the Ombudsman has a jurisdiction to declare the law unconstitutional
ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES The instant petition originated from the audit conducted by respondent Commission on Audit
OMB VS ESTENDARTE Ruling: (COA) on the cash and accounts handled by petitioner in her official capacity as Municipal
Facts: No. In the case of Estarija v. Ranada, where the petitioner raised the issue of constitutionality Treasurer of General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite. The state auditors discovered a cash shortage.
Ombudsman, petitioner found Heidi Estandarte, the school Principal, guilty of allegations of of Republic Act No. 6770 in his motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman's decision, the They thus directed petitioner to immediately restitute the shortage within 72 hours from receipt
improprieties ranging from illegal handling of school funds, irregular financial transactions, court had occasion to state that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain questions on of the demand letter but petitioner allegedly failed to comply. The state auditors submitted a
perjury, and abuse of authority. Estandarte filed a Petition for Review with prayer for the the constitutionality of a law. The Ombudsman, therefore, acted in excess of its jurisdiction in report to the Provincial Auditor's Office and recommended the relief of petitioner from her post
issuance of a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction with the CA. She alleged declaring unconstitutional the subject administrative and memorandum orders. The as municipal treasurer and the filing of criminal charges against her. On the other hand, the
that the Ombudsman (Visayas) violated her right to due process when her request for a formal constitutional doctrine that outlaws an ex post facto law generally prohibits the retrospectivity of provisions in the Administrative Code cited by petitioner in support of her theory that she is
investigation was denied; that the DECS-Region VI has jurisdiction over the case; and that the penal laws. Memorandum Order No. 61 merely provides a frame of reference for determining entitled to a formal investigation apply only to administrative cases filed before the Civil Service
Ombudsman (Visayas) failed to act with the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, in which CA behest loans. Not being penal laws, Administrative Order No. 13 and Memorandum Order No. Commission.
granted. The CA held that the Ombudsman (Visayas) acted without or in excess of jurisdiction 61 cannot be characterized as ex post facto laws. There is, therefore, no basis for the
when it took over the case after it issued a memorandum considering the case closed and Ombudsman to rule that the subject administrative and memorandum orders are ex post facto. Issue:
terminated and after jurisdiction had already been vested in the Special Investigating Whether or not the Medina, who has administrative complaint in Ombudsman, may appeal to
Committee. Such act violates the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Petitioner contends that the Mainpoint: the procedural rules under CSC
CA erred in holding that it is bereft of the authority to directly impose on the respondent the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to entertain questions on the constitutionality of a law.
sanction of dismissal from service. It stresses that it has full and complete administrative Ruling:
disciplinary jurisdiction over public school teachers. No. In particular, Section 48(2) and Section 48(3) are subsumed under Subtitle A of Title I,
which pertains to the CSC and to the procedure of administrative cases filed before the CSC.
Issue: CASE NO. 1198 The administrative complaint against petitioner was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman,
Whether or not the has exclusive jurisdiction over the case ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES suggesting that a different set of procedural rules govern. And rightly so, the Deputy
OMB VS MASING Ombudsman applied the provisions of Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman in
Ruling: Facts: ruling that the prerogative to elect a formal investigation pertains to the hearing officer and not
Yes. In a case of recent vintage, the Court held that the Ombudsman has full administrative Respondent Florita A. Masing was the former Principal of the Davao City Integrated Special to petitioner.
disciplinary authority over public officials and employees of the government. However, Section School (DCISS) in Bangkal, Davao City. Respondent Jocelyn A. Tayactac was an office clerk
9 of Rep. Act No. 4670, otherwise known as the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. In in the same school. Respondents were administratively charged before the Office of the Mainpoint:
Fabella v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 4670 reflects the Ombudsman for Mindanao for allegedly collecting unauthorized fees, failing to remit authorized The one who is answering an administrative complaint filed before the Ombudsman may not
legislative intent to impose a standard and a separate set of procedural requirements in fees, and to account for public funds. Respondents contend that Ombudsman has no appeal to the procedural rules under Civil Service Commission.
connection with administrative proceedings involving public school teachers. And in Alcala v. jurisdiction over them, but DECS has, through a committee to be constituted under "The
Villar, this Court emphasized that: Magna Carta for Public School Teachers * (RA No. 4670 Sec 9)." However, the motion was
denied. The Ombudsman for Mindanao rendered a joint decision finding respondents Masing CASE NO. 1200
and Tayactac guilty, CA reverse the decision. ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES
RA 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, provides that the Office of the Ombudsman shall have BORJA VS PEOPLE
disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its Respondent Masing faced yet another administrative case before the Office of the
subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including members of the Cabinet, local Ombudsman-Mindanao. The charges were oppression, serious misconduct, discourtesy in the Facts:
government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries except over conduct of official duties, and physical or mental incapacity or disability due to immoral or Petitioner Engr. Roger F. Borja, in his capacity as General Manager C of the San Pablo Water
officials who may be removed by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the vicious habits, but CA reversed the decision again. District, was charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known
Judiciary. However, in Fabella v. Court of Appeals, it was held that R.A. No. 4670, the Magna as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Carta for Public School Teachers, specifically covers and governs administrative proceedings Issue:
involving public school teachers Whether the Office of the Ombudsman may directly discipline public school teachers and Borja filed a Motion to Suspend Arraignment. Borja alleged that there is a pending civil case
employees entitled Feliciano v. Commission on Audit, docketed before this Court as G.R. No. 147402,
which involves the issue of whether local water districts are private or government-owned or
Mainpoint: controlled corporations (GOCCs). He argued that the issue is a prejudicial question, the
Ruling:
The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over disciplinary cases involving public school teachers has resolution of which determines whether or not the criminal actions against him may proceed. If
Yes. Ombudsman has jurisdiction to directly discipline public school teachers. The court
been modifies by Section 9 RA 4670, otherwise known as Magna Carta for Public School this Court resolves that local water districts are private corporations, the graft cases against
reiterated the ruling in Office of the Ombudsman v. Laja, where it emphasized that "the
Teachers, which says that such cases must first go to a committee appointed by the Secretary him will not prosper since then he would not be a public officer covered by Rep. Act No. 3019.
Ombudsman's order to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute an officer or
of Education.
employee is not merely advisory or recommendatory but is actually mandatory."
Implementation of the order imposing the penalty is, however, to be coursed through the Issue:
proper officer. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, also held that: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that there was no prejudicial question
CASE NO. 1197 warranting the suspension of the proceedings of the graft cases
ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 POWERS; FUNCTIONS; DUTIES
SALVADOR VS MAPA While Section 15(3) of RA 6770 states that the Ombudsman has the power to "recommend x x Ruling:
x removal, suspension, demotion x x x" of government officials and employees, the same No. the Office of the Solicitor General pointed out that the court had already rendered a
Facts: decision on the Feliciano case, ruled therein that local water districts are not private
corporations but GOCCs. Therefore, the criminal cases against Borja must proceed because Main Point: When the constitution vested on the Ombudsman the power "to recommend the Government until it became concurrent with the Ombudsman upon the enactment of R.A. No.
he is a public officer covered by Rep. Act No. 3019. Borja’s contention of that a prejudicial suspension" of a public official or employees (Sec. 13 [3]), it referred to "suspension," as a 6770, specifically under Sections 21 and 24 thereof, to the extent of the common grant. The
question exist in his case is devoid of any legal basis, considering that it had been settled, long punitive measure. All the words associated with the word "suspension" in said provision Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), in fine, did not effect a change from what
before the Feliciano case that Local water districts are GOCCs and not private corporations referred to penalties in administrative cases, e.g. removal, demotion, fine, censure. Under the already prevailed, the modification being only in the substitution of the Secretary (the Minister)
because their existence do not derived from the Corporation Code, but from Presidential rule of Noscitor a sociis, the word "suspension" should be given the same sense as the other of Local Government by the Office of the President.
Decree No. 198, as amended, making the petitioner a public officer, therefore liable for Anti- words with which it is associated. Where a particular word is equally susceptible of various
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. meanings, its correct construction may be made specific by considering the company of terms
in which it is found or with which it is associated (Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh, 75 Phil. 371 Main Point:
Mainpoint: [1945]; Caltex (Phils.) Inc. v. Palomar, 18 SCRA 247 [1966]).
Local water districts are GOCCs and not private corporations because their existence do not
derived from the Corporation Code, but from Presidential Decree No. 198. Taken in conjunction with Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, petitioner thus contends that the Office
Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, which grants the Ombudsman the power to preventively suspend of the Ombudsman correspondingly has the authority to decree preventive suspension on any
Thus, Petitioner Borja is a Public Officer
public officials and employees facing administrative charges before him, is a procedural, not a public officer or employee under investigation by it. Said section of the law provides:
penal statute. The preventive suspension is imposed after compliance with the requisites
Case 1201
therein set forth, as an aid in the investigation of the administrative charges
Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. — The Ombudsman or his Deputy may
Buenaseda vs Favier [G.R No. 106719] preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an
Case 1202
investigation, if in his judgment, the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge
Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave
Hagad Vs Gozo-dadole [251 SCRA] misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would warrant
removal from the service; or (c) the respondent's continued stay in office may
Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties prejudice the case filed against him.

Facts: The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the Office
of the Ombudsman but not more than six months, without pay, except when the
Facts: delay in the disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the
This is a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, with Prayer for
fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, in which case the period of such
Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order, under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided.
Court.Principally, the petition seeks to nullify the Order of the Ombudsman dated January 7, On July 22, 1992, criminal and administrative complaints were filed against Mayor
1992, directing the preventive suspension of petitioners Dr.Brigida S. Buenaseda. The question Ouano, Vice Mayor Canete and Councilor Mayol, all public officials of Mandaue City by
order was issued in connection with the administrative complaint filed with the Ombudsman by Councilors Dionson, Baricede. There respondents were charged with having violated R.A. No. Case 1203
the private respondents against the petitioners for the violation of the Anti-Graft and corrupt 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), as amended,Articles 170 (falsification of legislative
practices act. The supreme court required respondent secretary to comply with the aforestated documents) and 171 (falsification by public officers) of the Revised Penal Code; and R.A. No.
status quo order. The solicitor general, in his comment, stated that (A) “The authority of the Vasquez v. Hobilla-Alinio – [GR. 118813] 271 SCRA 67
6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officers). The respondent officials
ombudsman is only to recommend suspension and he has no direct power to suspend;” and were allegedly causing alteration of Ordinance No. 018/92 by increasing the allotted
(B) “Assuming the ombudsman has the power to directly suspend a government official or appropriation from P3.5M to P7M without authority from Sangguniang Panlungsod of Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties
employee, there are conditions required by the law for the exercise of such powers; and said Mandaue.
conditions have not been met in the instant case”. The respondent officials prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the Facts:
Ombudsman supposedly was bereft of jurisdiction to try, hear and decide the administrative
case filed against them since, under Section 63 of the Local Government Code of 1991, the
Issue: power to investigate and impose administrative sanctions against said local officials, as well as SEEKING JUSTICE for the killing of her husband Dionesio Odelmo and her father-
to effect their preventive suspension, had now been vested with the Office of the President. On in-law Jose Odelmo on 31 December 1992, Corazon Odelmo appeared before the Office of the
Whether or not the ombudsman has the power to suspend government officials or September 1992, a TRO against Hagad was filed and granted to the petitioners by RTC Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas on 12 February 1993 and filed a complaint for murder
employees working in their offices other than the office of the ombudsman, pending the Mandaue to restrain him from enforcing suspension. against respondents Mayor Luis Mondia Jr. of Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, Sgt. Ruben
investigation of the administrative complaints against said officials and employees Olvido, Pat. Ernesto Eneserio Jr., Jerry Vista, Joel Treyes, Rufino Mondia, Samson Mondia,
Manny Mondia, Rodrigo Mondia Jr., Norberto Española, Robinson Galanza and Noel Occeña.
Issue:
Ruling:
Whether or not the Ombudsman under RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1898) has After preliminary investigation the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman concluded that
been divested of his authority to conduct administrative investigations over local elective official there was probable cause to hold private respondents liable for the crime charged. Thus, in a
Yes, The petition was dismissed, and the status quo was lifted and set aside. by virtue of subsequent enactment of RA 7160. resolution dated 10 August 1993 it recommended the filing of Information for double murder
Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, which grants the Ombudsman the power to preventively suspend
against all of them before the Sandiganbayan.
public officials and employees facing administrative charges before him, is a procedural, not a Ruling:
penal statute. The preventive suspension is imposed after compliance with the requisites
therein set forth, as an aid in the investigation of the administrative charges. No. The authority of the Ombudsman over local officials pursuant to RA 6770 is not removed Issue:
by LG Code of 1991.
There is nothing in the Local Government Code to indicate that it has repealed, whether Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman has the authority to investigate and
Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. — The Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend
expressly or impliedly, the pertinent provisions of the Ombudsman Act. The two statutes on the prosecute illegal acts and omissions of public officers
any officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment the
specific matter in question are not so inconsistent, let alone irreconcilable, as to compel us to
evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against such officer or employee involves
only uphold one and strike down the other . Well settled is the rule that repeals of laws by
dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the Ruling:
implication are not favored, 16 and that courts must generally assume their congruent
charge would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent's continued stay in office
application. The two laws must be absolutely incompatible, and a clear finding thereof must
may prejudice the case filed against him.
surface, before the inference of implied repeal may be drawn. The rule is expressed in the Yes, On the authority of the Office of the Ombudsman to file the Informations
maxim, interpretare et concord are legibus est optimus interpretendi, i.e., every statute must be before respondent Judge, we need only quote Sec. 15, of RA 6770, otherwise known as the
The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the Office of so interpreted and brought into accord with other laws as to form a uniform system of Ombudsman Act of 1989, which provide:
Ombudsman but not more than six months, without pay, except when the delay in the jurisprudence. The fundament is that the legislature should be presumed to have known the
disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault, negligence or existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted conflicting statutes. Hence, all doubts
Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. — The Office of the
petition of the respondent, in which case the period of such delay shall not be counted in must be resolved against any implied repeal, and all efforts should be exerted in order to
Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties: (1)
computing the period of suspension herein provided. harmonize and give effect to all laws on the subject.
Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person,
The authority to conduct administrative investigation and to impose preventive suspension over
any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency,
elective provincial or city officials was at that time entrusted to the Minister of Local
when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
 inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. – The Ombudsman and his Deputy may to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient, [and] (3) Direct the officer concerned to take
Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if in appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal,
take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, his judgment the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against such officer or suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.
the investigation of such cases. employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct, or neglect in the performance
of duty; (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent’s
continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him. Main Point:

We note that the proviso above qualifies the "order" "to remove, suspend,
The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the Office of the
Main Point: The clause "any [illegal] act or omission of any public official" is broad enough to demote, fine, censure, or prosecute" an officer or employee – akin to the questioned
Ombudsman but not more than six months, without pay, except when the delay in the
embrace any crime committed by a public official. The law does not qualify the nature of the disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault, negligence or issuances in the case at bar. That the refusal, without just cause, of any officer to
illegal act or omission of the public official or employee that the Ombudsman may investigate. It petition of the respondent, in which case the period of such delay shall not be counted in comply with such an order of the Ombudsman to penalize an erring officer or employee
does not require that the act or omission be related to or be connected with or arise from the computing the period of suspension herein provided. is a ground for disciplinary action, is a strong indication that the Ombudsman's
performance of official duty. Since the law does not distinguish, neither should we.
"recommendation" is not merely advisory in nature but is actually mandatory within the
bounds of law. This should not be interpreted as usurpation by the Ombudsman of the
The reason for the creation of the Ombudsman in the 1987 Constitution and for the grant to it authority of the head of office or any officer concerned. It has long been settled that the
of broad investigative authority, is to insulate said office from the long tentacles of officialdom power of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute any illegal act or omission of
that are able to penetrate judges' and fiscals' offices, and others involved in the prosecution of any public official is not an exclusive authority but a shared or concurrent authority in
erring public officials, and through the exertion of official pressure and influence, quash, delay,
respect of the offense charged. By stating therefore that the Ombudsman
or dismiss investigations into malfeasances and misfeasances committed by public officers. It
was deemed necessary, therefore, to create a special office to investigate all criminal "recommends" the action to be taken against an erring officer or employee, the
complaints against public officers regardless of whether or not the acts or omissions provisions in the Constitution and in RA 6770 intended that the implementation of the
complained of are related to or arise from the performance of the duties of their office. The Case 1205 order be coursed through the proper officer,
Ombudsman Act makes perfectly clear that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses
"all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance that have been committed by any OMB v. Madriaga – [164316] 503 SCRA 631 Case 1206
officer or employee as mentioned in Section 13 hereof, during his tenure of office (Sec. 16, RA
6770). Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties OMB v. CA 507 [167844] SCRA 593

Case 1204 Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties

OMB v. CA – [160675] 491 SCRA 92 Facts: Facts:

Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties The San juan school club filed a letter-complaint before the Office of the
Ombudsman, charging respondents with violation of Section 1 Rule IV and Section 1 Rule VI of Respondent belonged to the clerical staff of the Director of LTFRB
Region VII, Mandaue City, Cebu. In November 1998, respondent was designated
the Rules implementing RA 6713 A.k.a code of conduct and ethical standards for public
as concurrent acting "Special Collection/Disbursing Officer."
officials and Employees.
Facts:
After the respondents replied, the Graft Investigation Officer found respondents On 21 June 1999, the Commission on Audit (COA) audited
respondent’s cash and accounts. After inspecting respondent’s records, the COA’s
The Office of the Ombudsman filed the instant petition for review on certiorari guilty of Section 5 (a) of RA 6713 reading: all public officials and employees shall, within 15
examining auditors noted a shortage of ₱33,925.99 in respondent’s accounts.
assailing the Decision1 dated October 30, 2003 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP working days from receipt hereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of Although respondent acknowledged the shortage, she failed to explain the same.
No. 69313, which had declared that the Office of the Ombudsman has no power to impose the communications send by the public. On 28 June 1999, respondent remitted the missing amount. On 29 July 1999, the
penalty of suspension. According to the appellate court, its power is limited only to the COA required respondent to explain the discrepancy. Instead of explaining,
recommendation of the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or Another GIO penalized them with six months suspension. respondent merely confirmed the cash shortage.
prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault.
Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied, so they elevated the case to CA via In August 2001, the COA charged respondent in the Office of the
Issue: petition for certiorari, questioning the authority of the Ombudsman to impose administrative Ombudsman, Visayas ("Ombudsman Visayas") with Dishonesty ("OMB-VIS-ADM -
sanctions over public officials, and the nature of the functions of the Ombudsman. 2001-0412"). In her counter-affidavit, respondent claimed that the missing funds
Whether or not Ombudsman has authority to directly dismiss the petitioner from the comprised her collections for 11 June 1999. Respondent stated that during the
auditing on 21 June 1999, she kept the collections, which allegedly included two
government service CA declared that the penalty imposed by the Ombudsman is merely “recommendatory”, it
fake ₱500 bills, in her vault. Respondent explained, for the first time, that she did
having “only the power to investigate possible misconduct of a government official or employee not turn over the collections to the COA auditors because of the fake bills.
Ruling: in the performance of his functions, and thereafter recommend to the disciplining authority the Respondent added that had the COA auditors asked, she would have produced the
appropriate penalty to be meted out; and that it is the disciplining authority that has the power funds
Yes, The Court declared that in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary or prerogative to impose such penalty”
authority under Section 12, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770, the Issue:
Office of the Ombudsman is empowered not merely to recommend, but to impose the penalty Issue:
of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee
found to be at fault. The Court stated that this was the manifest intent of the legislature: 1) Whether petitioner has the power to impose penalties in administrative cases
Whether or not the Ombudsman has the authority to impose administrative
under its jurisdiction, and, if so,
sanctions over public officials.
All these provisions in Republic Act No. 6770 taken together reveal the manifest
intent of the lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative 2) Whether petitioner correctly imposed on respondent the penalty of dismissal
disciplinary authority. Ruling:
from service.
Yes, Article XI, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution grants petitioner administrative
Main Point:
disciplinary power to (1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or Ruling:
omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears
 The Court of Appeals ruled that in administrative cases against officials subject to Issue: Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties
petitioner’s disciplinary authority, petitioner could only recommend but not impose penalties.
The Court of Appeals based its ruling on a literal interpretation of Section 13 (3), Article XI of Whether or not the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove
the 1987 Constitution, which provides:
from government service an erring public official?
Facts:
Sec. 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and Ruling:
duties:
This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the Decision1 of
Yes, Ombudsman has the power, Although petitioner contends that the the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 83356 reversing the decision of the Ombudsman
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public Ombudsman has only the powers enumerated under Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution; in OMB V-A-02-0254-F, which ordered respondent Farida T. Lucero dismissed from the service
official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, and that such powers do not include the power to directly remove, suspend, demote, fine, or for dishonesty.
censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith. censure a government official. Its power is merely to recommend the action to the officer
concerned. The court found petitioner’s contentions without merit. Among the powers of the
Ombudsman enumerated in Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution are: Issue:
Section 15 (3) of RA 6770 substantially reiterates this constitutional provision, thus:
Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and Whether the Ombudsman is empowered to order the removal of public officials or
Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. – The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the duties: employees in administrative cases
following powers, functions and duties:
1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any Ruling:

(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to
officer or employee at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. Yes, The court said that The issue raised in this Court has already been resolved in
required by law, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals[G.R 160675] the Court declared that in the
prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith; or enforce its disciplinary authority as exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority under Section 12, Article XI of the 1987
2. Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of
provided in Section 21 of this Act: Provided, That the refusal by any officer without just Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770, the Office of the Ombudsman is empowered not
the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of
cause to comply with an order of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, merely to recommend, but to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine,
any government owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform
censure or prosecute an officer or employee who is at fault or who neglects to perform censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault. The Court stated
and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any
an act or discharge a duty required by law shall be a ground for disciplinary action that this was the manifest intent of the legislature:
abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.
against said officer.
All these provisions in Republic Act No. 6770 taken together reveal the manifest intent of the
3. Direct the Officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or
lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority.
Main Point: employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine,
censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.
Main Point:
Thus, the undeniable conclusion is that the Ombudsman has jurisdiction, authority
and power only to recommend the penalties it imposes in administrative matters, as in the 4. Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents The Philippine Ombudsman departs from the classical Ombudsman model whose
instant case. Therefore, premises considered, we find the Ombudsman to have committed
reversible error in rendering the assailed Decision dated October 28, 2002 [and in] considering relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the function is merely to receive and process the people’s complaints against corrupt and abusive
the aggravating circumstance of previous conviction while failing to properly appreciate the disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and report any irregularity to the government personnel. The Philippine Ombudsman, as protector of the people, is armed with
mitigating circumstances. Thus, we find petitioner only guilty of Neglect of Duty instead of Commission on Audit for appropriate action. the power to prosecute erring public officers and employees, giving him an active role in the
Dishonesty and, accordingly, should be penalized with suspension from office for six (6) enforcement of laws on anti-graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses that may be
months without pay. 5. Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in committed by such officers and employees. The legislature has vested him with broad powers
the discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records to enable him to implement his own actions.
and documents.
Case 1207
Case 1209
6. Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant
Estorija v. Ranada – [159314] 492 SCRA 652
and with due prudence.
Balbastro v. Junio – [154678] 527 SCRA 680 [2007]
Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties
7. Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and
Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties
corruption in the Government and make recommendations for their elimination and
the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency.

Facts: 8. Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform
such functions or duties as may be provided by law. Facts:
This petition for review on certiorari assails the February 12, 2003 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62557 which affirmed the October 2, 2000 Decision of the Main Point: Ten former students of Iloilo City National High School Nestor Junio et. Al filed on
Office of the Ombudsman. On August 10, 1998, respondent Edward F. Ranada, a member of April 24, 2000, criminal and administrative cases against Corazon C. Balbastro for Falsification
the Davao Pilots Association, Inc. (DPAI) and Davao Tugboat and Allied Services, Inc., of Public Documents, Falsification by Public Officer or Employee and Malversation of Public
Rep. Act No. 6770 provides for the functional and structural organization of the
(DTASI) filed an administrative complaint for Gross Misconduct before the Office of the Office of the Ombudsman. In passing Rep. Act No. 6770, Congress deliberately endowed the Funds. Respondents claim that the said school officials prepared and used several Daily Wage
Ombudsman-Mindanao, against petitioner Captain Edgardo V. Estarija, Harbor Master of the Ombudsman with the power to prosecute offenses committed by public officers and employees Payrolls where it was made to appear that they (respondents) worked on several
Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), Port of Davao, Sasa, Davao City. to make him a more active and effective agent of the people in ensuring accountability in public undertakings for P120 a day. The truth however was that they were never hired by the school,
office.29 Moreover, the legislature has vested the Ombudsman with broad powers to enable neither did they sign and receive the amounts stated in the subject payrolls. The administrative
him to implement his own actions.30 cases, subject of the present petition, were docketed as OMB-VIS-ADM-2000-0382 to 0391. In
The complaint alleged that Estarija, who as Harbor Master issues the necessary
berthing permit for all ships that dock in the Davao Port. Consequently, the Ombudsman which Petitioner denied the charges.
ordered petitioner’s preventive suspension4 and directed him to answer the complaint. The Case 1208
Ombudsman filed a criminal case docketed as Criminal Case. On March 12, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) rendered its Decision
OMB v. Lucero – [168718] 508 SCRA 593 in OMB-VIS-ADM-2000-0382 to 0391 thus: for all the foregoing, and finding them guilty of
Dishonesty. Petitioner now comes before this Court arguing that the dismissal of her petition by Ruling: despite these firms being holders of small licenses entitled only to projects costing not more
the CA upheld, in effect, the decision of the Ombudsman which was null and void since the than three million pesos (P3,000,000.00) on a single undertaking, Engr. Candol was awarded
Ombudsman does not have the authority to directly discipline her; that the powers and seven (7) projects of more than P3,000,000.00
Yes, The powers of the Ombudsman are found in Article XI of the 1987
authority of the Ombudsman are limited by the 1987 Constitution, and Republic Act
Constitution, which states in part that the Ombudsman shall "exercise such other powers or
performs such functions or duties as may be provided by law." Sections 15, 21, and 25 of In a decision of August 27, 2000, the Ombudsman finds respondents GUILTY of gross neglect
Issue: Republic Act No. 6770 (RA 6770), otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, provide: of duty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and are
hereby meted the penalty of SUSPENSION from office for one (1) year without pay.
Whether or not the Ombudsman has that authority to directly discipline the SEC. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. ― The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the
petitioner following powers, functions ad duties: The CA reversed that of the Ombudsman on the following grounds:

Ruling:
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or 1. The Ombudsman cannot implement its decisions in administrative disciplinary
omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or cases pursuant to the obiter dictum in Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman,
Yes, Office of Ombudsman has the power to impose the penalty of removal, omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary
suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of
at fault, in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority. this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory Issue:
agency of Government, the investigation of such cases;
Main Point: The Court explicitly held in Estarija v. Ranada: Whether or not the power of the ombudsman is merely recommendary
(2) x x x x
Thus, the Constitution does not restrict the powers of the Ombudsman in section 13, Article XI
Ruling:
of the 1987 Constitution, but allows the Legislature to enact a law that would spell out the
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public officer or
powers of the Ombudsman. Through the enactment of Rep. Act No. 6770, specifically Section
employee at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by
15, par. 3, the lawmakers gave the Ombudsman such powers to sanction erring officials and The Constitution does not restrict the powers of the Ombudsman in Section 13,
law, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure or
employees, except members of the Congress, and the Judiciary. To conclude, we hold that Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, but allows the Legislature to enact a law that would spell out
prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith; or enforce its disciplinary authority
Sections 15, 21, 22 and 25 of Republic Act No. 6770 are constitutionally sound. The powers of the powers of the Ombudsman. Through the enactment of Rep. Act No. 6770, specifically
as provided in Section 21 of this Act: Provided, That the refusal by any officer
the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. His office was given teeth to render this Section 15, par. 3, the lawmakers gave the Ombudsman such powers to sanction erring
without just cause to comply with an order of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend,
constitutional body not merely functional but also effective. Thus, we hold that under Republic officials and employees, except members of Congress, and the Judiciary. To conclude, we
demote, fine, censure, or prosecute an officer or employee who is at fault or who
Act No. 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to hold that Sections 15, 21, 22 and 25 of Republic Act No. 6770 are constitutionally sound. His
neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by law shall be a ground for
directly remove from government service an erring public official other than a member of office was given teeth to render this constitutional body not merely functional but also
disciplinary action against said officer.
Congress and the Judiciary effective.

Case 1210 Main Point:

Main Point:

OMB v. CA – [168079] 527 SCRA 798 [2007] The legislative history of Republic Act No. 6770 thus bears out the conclusion that
the Office of the Ombudsman was intended to possess full administrative disciplinary authority, The powers of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. Thus, we
including the power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or hold that under Republic Act No. 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has
Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties
prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault. The lawmakers envisioned the the constitutional power to directly remove from government service an erring public
official
Facts: Office of the Ombudsman to be "an activist watchman," not merely a passive one.

In Estarija v. Ranada,1 petitioner assailed as unconstitutional his dismissal from the CASE NO. 1212
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari assailing the 9 May 2005 Decision of the
service by the Ombudsman. Petitioner in Estarija alleged that the Ombudsman did not have
Court of Appeals (Cebu City) in CA-G.R. SP No. 73085. The Court of Appeals set aside the 3
direct and immediate power to remove government officials, whether elective or appointive, ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS; SECTION 13: POWERS;
May 2000 Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman Visayas (Ombudsman Visayas) and the 6
who are not removable by impeachment. The Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 15, FUNCTIONS; DUTIES: PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES
June 2000 Memorandum and the 28 May 2002 Order of the Office of the Ombudsman Manila OMBUDSMAN V. SANTIAGO
21, and 25 of RA 6770, thus affirming that the powers of the Office of the Ombudsman are not
(petitioner) in OMB-VIS-ADM-98-0466 insofar as it imposed upon Ma. Melly Jaud Magbanua
merely recommendatory. The Court ruled in Estarija that under RA 6770 and the 1987
(respondent) the penalty of dismissal from the service.
Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from government FACTS:
service an erring public official, other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary Santiago, a Barangay Chairman, received a calamity fund from the City Budget Office of the
Respondent was the Local Treasury Operations Assistant of the City Treasurer’s City of Manila worth P44,053.00 pesos. His fellow barangay kagawad filed with the Office of
Office in Bacolod City. On 27 February 1998, the Commission on Audit (COA) conducted an Case 1211 the Ombudsman an administrative complaint for technical malversation, violation of the Anti-
examination of respondent’s cash and account. The examination disclosed a shortage of Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a
₱265,450. Upon demand, respondent failed to produce the missing amount. public officer against Santiago for failure to utilize the fund for the purpose for which it was
COA v. CA – [158672] 529 SCRA 245 [2007]
allocated. Ombudsman declared Santiago guilty.
Respondent alleged that the shortage was due to the machinations and dishonest acts of Cash Preventive Suspension and Imposition of Penalties ISSUE:
Clerk I Monina Baja (Baja). Respondent alleged that Baja, acting as Paymaster, received
Whether the Ombudsman has the power to dismiss erring government officials or employees
payroll funds for distribution to specific offices. In her liquidation report, Baja reflected twice the
missing amount of ₱265,450 representing cash advances for 26 September 1997 under RULING:
Voucher No. 6205
Yes. Section 13, Article 11 of the Constitution provides that the Office of the Ombudsman has
Facts: the power to direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or
Issue: employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or
On September 21, 1998, a certain Teodoro A. Gapuzan filed a letter-complaint with prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith. In the case at bar, Ombudsman rightfully
the OOMB alleging anomalies in the conduct of public biddings by the Office of the District declared Santiago guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a public
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to impose directly officer. Even with the word “recommend”, the powers of the Ombudsman are not merely
Engineer, First Engineering District of Agusan del Sur, and the collusion of licensed private
administrative penalties on public officials or employees recommendatory. The Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from
contractor Engr. Rafael A. Candol, representing JTC Development, Construction and Supply government service an erring public official other than a member of Congress and the
and NBS Construction under a joint venture agreement. The letter-complaint alleged that, Judiciary.
 from Cole in connection with a transaction in which he was involved in his official capacity. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to directly impose administrative
Clearly, with Marohomsalic actions, Ombudsman has the power to directly impose sanctions on erring government officials
administrative penalties on erring public officials and employees like Marohomsalic.
MAIN POINT: RULING:
Ombudsman rightfully declared the respondent guilty. The powers of the Ombudsman are not MAIN POINT: Yes. It is the power of the Ombudsman to take appropriate actions against a public official or
merely recommendatory. It has the constitutional power to directly remove from government Marohomsalic is validly dismissed. Ombudsman has the disciplinary authority to investigate, employee at fault and recommend his removal. The Office of the Ombudsman was mandated
service an erring public official other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary. and prosecute public officials or employees. Marohomsalic was found guilty of grave not only to act promptly on complaints but also to enforce administrative, civil, and criminal
misconduct for receiving money from Cole in connection with a transaction in which he was liabilities of erring government officers and employees to promote efficient government service.
involved in his official capacity.
CASE NO. 1213 MAIN POINT:
ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS; SECTION 13: POWERS; The authority and powers of the Ombudsman is not merely recommendatory. It has the power,
FUNCTIONS; DUTIES: PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES granted by the Constitution, to recommend the removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure,
Gobenchiong v. CA CASE NO. 1215 or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith. The word ‘recommend’ should not be taken
ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS; SECTION 13: POWERS; literally.
FACTS: FUNCTIONS; DUTIES: PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES
Gobenciong, is an Administrative Officer IV in a Regional Hospital in Tacloban City. The Ombudsman v. Lisondra CASE NO. 1217
hospital issued requisition and issue voucher for one unit of hemoanalyzer (also called particle ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS; SECTION 13: POWERS;
counter) worth P1,195,998.00. The hospital documents showed that Gobenciong and other FACTS: FUNCTIONS; DUTIES: PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES
hospital staff issued an acknowledge receipt and certified that the machine has been inspected The Municipality of La Paz, Agusan del Sur paid to Ronwood Construction Supply the amount Cesa v. Ombudsman
as to quality and quantity. Dr. Dela Pena, head of the hospital’s laboratory unit, filed an of P300,000.00 as payment for the delivery of 2,400 bags of cement intended to be used for
administrative complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas charging Gobenciong the concreting of a Street. However, upon investigation, it was discovered that there was FACTS:
and other hospital officers with Falsification of Public Domucements and Misconduct finding actually no delivery. The Mayor filed before the Ombudsman administrative charges for Government auditors conducted a surprise audit at the Cash Division of Cebu City Hall. Getting
that the Certification of Acceptance and the COA Inspection Report were falsified. Ombudsman dishonesty and grave misconduct against the municipality officers including Sergio, the wind of the surprise audit, paymaster Badana hurriedly left her office and never returned. It was
rendered a decision finding Gobenciong and several others guilty. Municipal Supply Officer and Lisondra, the Municipal Planning Development Officer. Lisondra found that Badana had cash advances of more than P216 million and Badana had an average
admitted that she pre-signed the Certificate of Inspection regarding the bags of cements monthly cash advance of P7.6 million in excess of her monthly payroll of P5.7 million. Mayor
ISSUE: because this has been their usual practice in the Municipality to pre-sign the Certificate of Garcia administratively charged Badana before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas.
Whether Ombudsman has the power to ensure compliance with imposition of penalties Inspection. Ombudsman also impleaded Cesa and other city officials for tolerating illegal practices relative
pursuant to his administrative disciplinary authority Ombudsman found the respondents guilty of dishonesty and are hereby dismissed from to the granting of cash advances to paymasters. They found Cesa and other officials guilty of
service. CA ruled that respondents are liable for dishonesty however the penalty imposed to neglect of duty and penalized them of six months suspension without pay. CA declared that the
RULING: them is nullified. penalties granted by the Ombudsman was merely recommendatory and should be directed to
Yes. The Office of the Ombudsman’s basic constitutional mandate as “protector of the people” the proper officer or authority concerned for enforcement.
is embodied in Sec. 13 of RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Code and its authority to conduct ISSUE:
administrative investigations comes from Sec. 13 of the Constitution. In this case, Ombudsman Whether the CA correctly held that Ombudsman has no power to impose penalty on public ISSUE:
rightfully exercised its authority to place respondents under preventive suspension. officers Whether the CA erred in declaring that the Ombudsman’s power and authority to penalize
Ombudsman possessed the full administrative disciplinary authority over public officials and public officials was merely recommendatory
employees, except members of Congress and Judiciary, including the power to determine the RULING:
penalty and to cause the same to be implemented by the head of the government agency No. The Ombudsman is a constitutionally created office. It is expressed under the Constitution RULING:
concerned is correct. that the Ombudsman, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any Yes. The 1987 Constitution states that the Ombudsman has the power to recommend the
form against public officials or employees of the Government and its powers, functions, and suspension of erring government officials and ensure compliance therewith, which means that
MAIN POINT: duties are found under Sec 13 of the Constitution. Congress enacted RA 6770 that provides the recommendation is not merely advisory but mandatory. Under RA 6770 and the
Under Section 13 of RA 6770, Ombudsman constitutional mandate is the protector of the the functional and structural organization of the Ombudsman. Congress endowed the Constitution, Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from government
people. Its constitutional functions are reiterated in Section 15 of the same Act. Thus, the Ombudsman with the power to prosecute offenses committed by public officers and employees service an erring public official other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary. In this
authority of the Ombudsman to conduct administrative investigations is of constitutional origin, to make him more active and effective agent of the people in ensuring accountability in public case, the Ombudsman rightfully declared Cesa and other officals guilty because of neglect in
proceeding as it does from Section 13, Article 11 of the Constitution. office. their duty.

MAIN POINT: MAIN POINT:

CASE NO. 1214 Lisondra and her companions were validly dismissed by the Ombudsman and CA erred that Ombudsman has the power to recommend the suspension of erring government officials. It has
ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS; SECTION 13: POWERS; the Ombudsman has no power to impose penalty on public officers since Ombudsman has the the constitutional power to directly remove from government service an erring public official
FUNCTIONS; DUTIES: PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES power only to recommend the prosecution of offenses committed by public officers. other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary.
Marohomsalic v. Cole

FACTS: CASE NO. 1216 CASE NO. 1218

Marohomsalic is a Special Land Investigator I of the Provincial Environment of the DENR in ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS; SECTION 13: POWERS; ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS; SECTION 13: POWERS;
Koronadal City. Cole, who had a pending land dispute in the Provincial DENR, met FUNCTIONS; DUTIES: PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES FUNCTIONS; DUTIES: PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES
Marohomsalic in the office and asked him for assistance as he was not from Koronadal but Miro v. Abugan Ombudsman v. De Sahagun
from General Santos City. Facts diverge at this point. Marohomsalic asserted that Cole gave
him cash to cover the expenses for photocopying the documents needed in the case. On the FACTS: FACTS:
other hand, Cole claimed (and the Ombudsman affirmed) that Marohomsalic demanded Jerry Tan parked his van at the back of Cebu City Doctor’s Hospital and when he went back, Chief of the Research and Publications Division of the Intramuros Administration recommend
P15,000 to secure the reversal of the Provincial DENR against Cole. An administrative he could no longer find his vehicle. Tan reported this to the PNP. Further Investigation by the Brand Asia to Administrator Henson to be commissioned to produce a video documentary and
complaint for grave misconduct was filed against Marohomsalic and the Ombudsman- NBI shows that just 2 days after the vehicle was lost, LTO Lapu-Lapu issued a new Certificate render marketing support services for Intramuros. The Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of
Mindanao found him guilty and dismissed him from service. of Registration (CR) covering the same vehicle still in the name of Jerry Tan but the motor the Intramuros Administration approved the awards of the said contract to Brand Asia. An
number and plate number was changed. The registration of the vehicle was renewed with the anonymous complaint was filed with the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption
ISSUE: LTO still in the name of Jerry Tan. 6 days after, another CR was issued but in the name of (PGAC) against Henson in relation to the contracts entered into with Brand Asia. Henson was
Whether Ombudsman has the power to order the dismissal of a public officer another person. NBI requested from Abugan, Registrar, to produce the documents supporting dismissed from the service by the Office of the President upon the recommendation of the
the registration of the said vehicle but he could not produce the same and alleged that the PGAC which found that the contracts were entered into without the required public bidding and
RULING: registration did not reach his office. NBI conducted an investigation and recommended to in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Ombudsman Marcelos held that there
Yes. Ombudsman has the disciplinary authority in administrative cases to investigate and petitioner Ombudsman Miro, of the respondents for falsification of public/official documents. was substantial evidence to hold respondents administratively liable since the contracts
prosecute, in accordance with the requirement laid down by law. One such requirement is that Ombudsman found Abugan guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed him from service. awarded to Brand Asia failed to go through the required procedure for public bidding. CA
substantial evidence must always support any finding. Acts contrary to law or regulations like rendered a decision saying that the nature of the function of the Ombudsman was purely
grave misconduct is characterized by the elements of corruption, and clear intent to violate the ISSUE: recommendatory and it did not have the power to penalize erring government officials and
law. In this case, Ombudsman found Marohomsalic directly requested and received money employees.
 Boncalon’s cashbook pertaining to the deposit of the said amount was false. Boncalon was
ISSUE: administratively charges with dishonesty before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas. FACTS:
Whether the Ombudsman only has recommendatory powers against erring government Boncalon denied accountability for any cash shortage and averred that she was informed by Dr. Apolonio served as the Executive Officer of the National Book Development Board (NBDB).
officials and employees the state auditory of the shortage only after she had gone on a commuted leave of absent. NBDB approved the conduct of a team building seminar workshop for its officers and
Graft Investigation Officer recommended the dismissal of the case since the questioned employees for two days. Prior to that, DBM issued a National Budget Circular prescribing a
RULING: amounts were already conducted for. However, upon review, Director Santiago of the P900.00 limit for each participant per day in any seminar/workshop/conference undertaken by
No. It was already settle from previous cases that the Ombudsman’s power as regards the Ombudsman-Visayas reversed the recommendation and ruled that Boncalon is any government agency. Before the conduct of the workshop, some employees approached
administrative penalty to be imposed on an erring public officer or employee is not merely administratively liable. CA found Boncalon guilty. Dr. Apolonio and ask whether part of their allowance for the workshop could be given to them
recommendatory. The Ombudsman has the power to directly impose the penalty of removal, as cash, instead of spending the entire amount on the seminar. Dr. Apolonio approved the
suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee, other than ISSUE: request and SM gift cheques were distributed to the participants in lieu of a portion of their
a member of Congress and the Judiciary, found to be at fault, within the exercise of its Is the Ombudsman empowered to dismiss public officials and employees in administrative approved allowance. A complaint was filed against Dr. Apolonio for grave misconduct,
administrative disciplinary authority as provided in the Constitution and RA 6770. In this case, cases? dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for the unauthorized
CA committed a reversible error in holding that the case had already prescribed and that the purchase and disbursement of the gift cheques. Graft Investigation Officer found that Dr.
Ombudsman does not have the power to penalize erring government officials and employees. RULING: Apolonio illegally converted the use of her cash advance, which was solely intended for the
Ombudsman has that power. Yes. Ombudsman has the power to directly impose the penalty of removal, suspension, workshop, for the purchase of the gift cheques and recommends his dismissal from service.
demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of an erring public official, other than a member of Ombudsman approved the findings of the Investigation Officer and dismissed Dr. Apolonio. CA
MAIN POINT: Congress and the Judiciary, within the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority as reversed Ombudsman’s decision on the grounds that it does not possess the power to directly
CA erred in its ruling that Ombudsman does not have the power to penalize erring government provided in the Constitution and RA 6770. In this case, the CA ruling is correct as to upholding impose the penalty of removal against a public official.
officials and employees. It was already settled from previous jurisprudence, and it is also stated the decision of the Ombudsman. Ombudsman has the power to impose penalties to public
under RA 6770 and the Constitution that Ombudsman has the power to directly impose the officers, such as the removal from office in this case. ISSUE:
penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or Whether the Ombudsman have the power to directly impose penalty of removal from office
employee. MAIN POINT: against public officials
Section 15(3) of RA 6770 states that the Ombudsman has the power to recommend removal,
CASE NO. 1219 suspension, demotion of government officials and employees. The same Section 15(3) also RULING:
ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS; SECTION 13: POWERS; states that the Ombudsman in the alternative may enforce its disciplinary authority as provided Yes. The Ombudsman has the power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion,
FUNCTIONS; DUTIES: PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES in Section 21 of Ra 6770. Section 21 of RA 6770 vests in the Ombudsman disciplinary fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee, in the exercise of its administrative
Ombudsman v. Samaniego authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government disciplinary authority. Moreover, RA 6770 mandates the Ombudsman and his deputies to act
promptly on complaints and to enforce administrative, civil and criminal liability of government
FACTS: CASE NO. 1221 officials in every case where the evidence warrants to promote efficient service by the
Respondent Samaniego was the City Treasurer of Ligao City, Albay. Commission on Audit ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS; SECTION 13: POWERS; Government to the people. In this case, Ombudsman held that Dr. Apolonio was guilty of grave
(COA) filed two administrative complaints against Samaniego for dishonesty and grave FUNCTIONS; DUTIES: PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES misconduct and approved his dismissal. Ombudsman can directly impose administrative
misconduct. COA alleged that respondent incurred shortages in his accountabilities for two Ombudsman v. Beltran sanctions.
separate periods. Ombudsman found Samaniego liable for grave misconduct because he
failed to explain his side and settle his accountabilities. He was meted the penalty of one year FACTS: MAIN POINT:
suspension from office. However, in the settlement of the other administrative complaint, the Nilo Germedia, Clerk III of the Tricycle Regulatory Office (TRO), City of Paranaque, filed a The Ombudsman has the power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine,
Ombudsman dismissed respondent. CA granted respondent’s prayer for the issuance of a writ complaint against beltran and two others for alleged graft and corruption based on the grounds censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee, in the exercise of its administrative
of preliminary injunction. Ombudsman filed motion for intervention and motion to recall the writ that they did not remit the collections fees to the Treasurer’s Office of Paranaque amounting to disciplinary authority
of preliminary injunction. CA denied the motions. Ombudsman now claims that CA erred in P500,000.00 and grave abuse of discretion/authority by threatening employees with
denying its right to intervene and asserts that the writ should be recalled. termination. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal aspect of the case for lack of CASE NO. 1223
sufficient cause of action and evidence but the administrative aspect of the complaint for grave ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 JURISDICTION OVER CRIME
ISSUE: misconduct proceeded for adjudication. Beltran and his companions denied the charges filed Natividad VS Felix
Whether Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute public officials if they are ate against them. Thereafter, Beltran’s companions were absolved of the charges while Beltran Facts:
fault was found guilty of grave misconduct. CA rendered the decision of the Ombudsman stating Petitioner, Municipal Mayor of Ramos, Tarlac, Arnulfo Natividad, was being investigated for
that the Ombudsman had no authority to directly dismiss Beltran from government service, as the death of Severino Aquino. A subpoena was issued requiring him to submit a counter-
RULING: the Ombudsman could only recommend the removal of the public official or employee who was affidavit. PNP filed another complaint on Circuit Trial Court of Gerona-Ramos Tarlac (MCTC
Yes. The Office of the Ombudsman is vested with full administrative disciplinary authority found to be at fault. Criminal Case No. 4923). The MCTC opined that there was probable cause to hold accused for
including the power to determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or murder, recommended bail of P250,000, the Provincial Prosecutor approved the filing of the
employees as warranted by the evidence, and necessarily, impose the said penalty. RA 6770 ISSUE: information for murder but with no bail. After Petitioner submitted his counter affidavit, a
reveal the manifest intent of the lawmakers to bestow to the Office of the Ombudsman full Whether the Ombudsman has the power to discipline government employees resolution was issued by a panel of prosecutors holding that probable cause exists. They also
administrative disciplinary authority and these provisions cover the entire gamut of attached an amended information charging additional defendants. Respondent judge admitted
administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, receive complains, conduct RULING: the amended information and directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest without bail on
investigation, hold hearings, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, Yes. Ombudsman is vested by the Constitution and Ra 6770 with the power to impose the petitioner.
place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or
determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as employee found to be at fault. Despite the term “recommend” in Sec 13, Article 11 of the Thereafter, petitioner moved to remand his case for preliminary investigation with motion to
warranted by, the evidence and necessarily, impose the said penalty. Constitution, the said provision, construes together with the pertinent provisions in RA 6770, is quash warrant alleging that there was no preliminary investigation and contending that
not only advisory in nature but is actually mandatory within the context of the law. In this case, respondent judge had no jurisdiction over the case because it was the Ombudsman and not
the dismissal of Beltran by the Ombudsman was validly decided on because the Ombudsman the Provincial Prosecutor who had jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation. And,
has the power to impose the penalty of removal to public officials or employees found to be at that the proper court which had jurisdiction over the case was the Sandiganbayan and not
MAIN POINT: fault. respondent judge.
Ombudsman has the full administrative disciplinary authority including the power to determine
the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees. MAIN POINT: Issues:
The Office of the Ombudsman, in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority, is thus Whether or not the proper court which had jurisdiction over the case was the Sandiganbayan
CASE NO. 1220 vested by the Constitution and RA 6770 with the power to impose the penalty of removal, and not respondent judge
ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS; SECTION 13: POWERS; suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be
FUNCTIONS; DUTIES: PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES at fault. Ruling:
Boncalon v. Ombudsman No. Ombudsman's power to investigate is dependent on the cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan. The two requirements must concur for an offense to fall under the
FACTS: CASE NO. 1222 Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, namely: the offense committed by the public officer must be in
The State Auditor of Bago City, Negros Occidental, conducted an audit on the cash accounts ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS; SECTION 13: POWERS; relation to his office and the penalty prescribed be higher than prision correccional or
of Boncalon, a Cashier IV at Bago City’s Treasurer’s Office. The audit revealed a cash FUNCTIONS; DUTIES: PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.
shortage of more than P1 million pesos. The State Auditor also discovered that the entry in Ombudsman v. Apolonio
Applying the law to the case at bench, we find that although the second requirement has been CASE NO. 1227
met, the first requirement is wanting. A review of these Presidential Decrees, except Batas Mainpoint: Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers, Sec 13. Powers; Functions; Duties
Pambansa Blg. 129, would reveal that the crime committed by public officers or employees Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its facts and Fact-finding distinguished from Preliminary Investigation
must be "in relation to their office" if it is to fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. This circumstances, should be filed or not. It is basically his call. He may dismiss the complaint Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, GR 148468 (2003)
phrase which is traceable to Pres. Decree No. 1486, has been retained by Pres. Decree No. forthwith should he find it to be insufficient in form and substance or, should he find it
1861 as a requirement before the Ombudsman can acquire primary jurisdiction on its power to otherwise, to continue with the inquiry; or he may proceed with the investigation if, in his view, FACTS:
investigate. the complaint is in due and proper form and substance.
Serapio, accused together with Pres. Estrada and Jinggoy Estrada for plunder, assails the
Mainpoint:
decision of the Sandiganbayan denying his petition for bail and a petition for habeas corpus.
Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction is dependent on the cases cognizable by the CASE NO. 1226 Petitioner was a member of the board of trustees and the legal counsel of the Erap muslim
Sandiganbayan. Article XI. Accountability of Public Officers, Sec 13. Powers; Functions; Duties youth foundation who received 200M from Chavit Singson as a donation for the foundation. In
Fact-finding distinguished from Preliminary Investigation 2000, Singson publicly accused Pres. Estrada and Serapio was one of them who was charged
Raro v. Sandiganbayan, GR 108431 in the Sandiganbayan. Serapio filed his counter-affidavit and the ombudsman conducted a
CASE NO. 1224
preliminary investigation and recommended that Estrada and Serapio be charged with plunder.
ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 JURISDICTION OVER CRIME
FACTS: No bail was recommended for the provisional release. Serapio filed a motion for
Lastimosa VS Vasquez
reconsideration to hold in abeyance the issuance of warrant of arrest and further proceeds,
Petitioner, Corporate Secretary of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and was the also to determine probable cause. However it was denied. Since the jurisdiction was not with
Facts:
Acting Manager of the Special Projects Department that was in charge of the experimental ombudsman anymore but with the Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbyan issued a resolution finding
Petitioner, Gloria G. Lastimosa, is the assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu. She and the
Small Town Lottery (STL). A Complaint filed in Ombudsman alleging that petitioner, in his probable cause to justify the issuance of warrants of arrest. Serapio voluntarily surrendered.
Provincial Prosecutor refused to file a criminal charge of attempted rape against Mayor
capacity as PCSO Corporate Secretary, "personally and directly intervened in the operation of Serapio filed a motion for reconsideration or reimbestigation of the probable cause before the
Ilustrismo, thus, the Ombudsman filed an administrative complaint against them for grave
said lottery to his financial benefit and advantage. Ombudsman endorsed the complaint to the Sandiganbayan. However, the court ruled unfavorable to the accused because petitioner had
misconduct, insubordination, gross neglect of duty refraining from prosecuting. The two were
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). already been resolved in its Resolution finding probable cause to hold petitioner and his co-
placed under preventive suspension. It was the contention of the petitioner that the
accused for trial.
Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the case of mayor, thus, they cannot be forced to file the
case against Ilustrismo. After evaluating the complaint, as well as the controverting evidence presented by the
respondent, NBI find prima facie case for Anti-graft and corruption. It was stressed that in a ISSUE:
Issues: preliminary investigation, it is not required that all reasonable doubts on the accused’s guilt
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to call on the provincial must be removed; what is required only is that evidence be sufficient to establish probable Whether or not the court has jurisdiction in conducting a preliminary investigation.
prosecutor to assist in the case cause that the accused committed the offense charged. Thus, a trial against the petitioner shall
follow. RULING:
Ruling:
Yes. In theexercise of his power, the Omudsman is authorized to cal in prosecution for Petitioner assailed the validity of the investigation conducted by the NBI. He alleged that there No. Court cannot interfere with the Ombudsman’s discretion in the conduct of preliminary
the assistance as provided in Se 21 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (RA 6770).when a was a "jurally and constitutionally defective determination of probable cause" as the investigation. The Court does not interfere with the Ombudsman’s discretion in the conduct of
prosecutor is deputized, he comes under the supervision and control of the complainant and his witnesses were never personally examined by any of the officers at the preliminary investigations. In the performance of his task to determine probable cause, the
Ombudsman, meaning, he is subject to the power of the Ombudsman to direct,reiew, Offices of the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor. Neither was the complaint ever sworn Ombudsman’s discretion is paramount. Suffice it to state that this Court has adopted a policy of
approve, reerse and modify his decision. Petitioner cannot legally act,on her and refuse to before them. He argued once again on the failure of the NBI to conduct a reinvestigation of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and leaves to the investigating
to prepare and file the information as directed by the Ombudsman. the case and the hearsay nature of the affidavits of Ruidera and Galeon. prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the exercise of determination of what constitutes
sufficient evidence as will establish ‘probable cause’ for filing of information against the
Mainpoint:
Petitioner further contends that both the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan failed to supposed offender.
When a Prosecutor is deputized by the Ombudsman, he become under the supervision and
examine the complainant personally to determine the existence of probable cause that would
control of the latter
warrant the filing of an information against him and, consequently, the issuance of a warrant of MAIN POINT:
arrest.
CASE NO. 1225
ARTICLE 11 SEC 13 JURISDICTION OVER CRIME Court does not interfere with the Ombudsman’s discretion in the conduct of preliminary
Presidential VS Desierto ISSUE: investigation.

Facts: Whether or not the Ombudsman conducted the preliminary investigation erroneously and
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the Order irregularly. CASE NO. 1228
of the Ombudsman dated July 6, 1998 dismissing three complaints filed by petitioner docketed ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS; SECTION 15: RIGHT TO
as OMB-0-96-2643, OMB-0-96-2644 and OMB-0-96-2645, and its Order of August 31, 1998, RULING: RECOVER PROERTIES UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED
denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Heirs of Gregorio Licaros v. Sandiganbayan
No. The Ombudsman did not delegate the conduct of the preliminary investigation of the case
Petitioner contends that the Ombudsman erred in dismissing, motu proprio, the three to NBI. What was delegated was only the fact-finding function, preparatory to the preliminary
complaints without first requiring respondents to submit their counter-affidavits and petitioner to investigation still to be conducted by the Ombudsman. Notably, under Rule II, Section 2 (d) of FACTS:
file its reply thereto. Such dismissal, petitioner avers, is premature. Petitioner further argues Administrative Order No. 07, the investigating officer has the option to forward the complaint to Gregorio Licaros served as governor of the Central Bank of the Philippines during the
that even granting that the Ombudsman feels that petitioner's evidence is insufficient, the incumbency of then President Marcos but he eventually died. Republic of the Philippines,
the appropriate office or official for fact-finding investigation. While Administrative Order No. 07
Ombudsman should have first required petitioner to clarify said evidence or to adduce through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), assisted by the OSG,
took effect after the complaint in this case was referred to the NBI, the inclusion of that
additional evidence, in accordance with due process. constitutionally sanctioned practice in the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure lends validity to the filed a complaint against Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos and Lucio Tan to recover from
Ombudsman’s action in this case. them ill-gotten wealth consisting of funds and other property which they had acquired and
Issues: accumulated with grave abuse of right and power, resulting to unjust enrichment, during
Whether or not the Ombudsman erred in dismissing the case Marcos’ rule.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman’s failure to personally administer oath
to the complainant does not mean that the Ombudsman did not personally determine the 23 other persons who had purportedly acted as their dummies, nominees or agents were
Ruling: impleaded in the Complaint. It alleged that among others, Tan, with the help of some
No. Under Section 2(a), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, that existence of probable cause to warrant the filing of an information.
government officials including Licaros, had fraudulently acquired the assets of the General
it may dismiss a complaint outright for want of palpable merit. At that point, the Ombudsman Bank and Trust Company (GBTC), now known as the Allied Bank. Despite the allegation,
does not have to conduct a preliminary investigation upon receipt of a complaint. Should the MAIN POINT:
Licaros was not yet impleaded in this Complaint. 4 years later, Republic impleaded the
investigating officer find the complaint devoid of merit, then he may recommend its outright Estate/Heirs of Licaros for the first time. The Amended Complaint, detailed Licaros’
dismissal. The Ombudsman has discretion to determine whether a preliminary investigation is The Ombudsman only delegated the NBI to conduct the fact-finding investigation which is participation in the alleged conspiracy where Licaros had facilitates the fraudulent acquisition of
proper. It is only when the Ombudsman opts not to dismiss the complaint outright for lack of important for the determination of probable cause in preliminary investigation, which is still to the assets of GBTC worth P688 million to favor the Marcoses and the Lucio Tan Group who
palpable merit would the Ombudsman be expected to require the respondents to file their acquired said assets for only P500,000.00. Hence, his Estate must be impleaded as a party
be conducted by the former office.
counter-affidavit and petitioner, its reply. defendant for the purpose of obtaining complete relief.
 the ground that he is a green card holder, a permanent resident of USA and not of Bolinao.
ISSUE: Miguel admitted that he holds a green card but denied that he is a permanent resident of the
Whether the State can still recover the properties unlawfully acquired by the defendants US. He alleged that the obtained the green card for convenience in order for him to visit his
children there and for his periodic medical examination. COMELEC dismissed the petitions on
RULING: the grounds that the possession of green card by Miguel does not sufficiently establish that he
Yes. According to Section 15, Article 11 of the Constitution “The right of the State to recover has abandoned his residence in the Philippines and he showed his intention to continuously
properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from them or from their reside in Bolinao as shown by his having voted in successive elections in Bolinao.
nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription, laches or estoppel.” An action to
recover ill-gotten wealth is outside the purview of the ordinary rules on prescription. In this ISSUE:
case, any action involving the recovery of unlawfully acquired properties against Licaros may Whether respondent Miguel validly run for the local elections even if he is a green card holder
not be deemed to have prescribed.
RULING:
MAIN POINT: No. Section 18 , Article 11 of the Constitution is not applicable to Miguel for he acquired the
The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials shall not be status of an immigrant of the US before he was elected to public office, not “during his tenure”
barred by prescription, laches or estoppel. The right to recover unlawfully acquired properties as mayor of Bolinao. The law applicable to him is Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code
against Licaros have not prescribed. The intention of Section 15, Article 11 of the Constitution which provides that in order to be “qualified to run for elective office” in the Philippines, the law
presumably lies in the special attendant circumstances and the primordial state interests requires that the candidate who is a green card holder must have “waived his status as a
involved in cases of such nature permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country.” In this case, Miguel’s act of filing a
certificate of candidacy did not itself constitute a waiver of his status as a permanent resident
of the US. The waiver of his green card should be manifested by some acts independent of
CASE NO. 1229 and done prior to filing his candidacy for elective office in this country. Without such prior
ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS; SECTION 15: RIGHT TO waiver, he was “disqualified to run for any elective office”. Moreover, the requirement of being a
RECOVER PROERTIES UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED resident of a municipality where he intends to run for at least one year at the time of filing of his
Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman certificate of candidacy is not met in this case since Miguel was a permanent resident of the
US and he resided in Bolinao for a period of only 3 months after his return to the Philippines.
FACTS:
Some respondents were stockholders and officers of the Mindanao Coconut Oil Mills MAIN POINT:
(MINDCOCO), and some were then officers of the National Investment and Development Miguel is disqualified to run in the local elections because he is a green card holder. Without
Corporation (NIDC). MINCOCO applied for a Guarantee Loan Accommodation with the NIDC waiving of which before the elections, the law applicable to him is Section 68 of the Omnibus
and this was approved. Even if the guarantee loan was both undercapitalized and under- Election Code which provides that any person who is a permanent resident or an immigrant to
collateralized, MINCOCO further obtained additional loan from NIDC. When MINCOCO’s a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for elective office unless he has waived his status.
mortgage liens were about to be foreclosed by the government banks due to its outstanding Miguel did not waive his status and is still a permanent resident of the US at the time he filed
obligations, Eduardo Cojuanca issues a memorandum bearing Marcos’ mariginal note his certificate of candidacy
disallowing the foreclosure of MINCOCO’s properties and because of this, the government
banks were not able to recover any amount from MINCOCO. CASE NO. 1231
President Ramos discovered these facts in an effort to recover ill-gotten wealth of the late ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS; SECTION 18: ALLEGIANCE OF
Marcos. He created the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans. The PUBLIC OFFICERS
Committee found 21 corporations, including MINCOCO, obtained behest loans. The Sampayan v. Daza
Committee filed with the Ombudsman a complaint against MINCOCO’s Officers and NIDC’s
Board of Directors. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the alleged FACTS:
offenses had already prescribed and the petitioner’s contention the right of the State to recover Petitioners, resident of the second Congressional District of Northern Samar filed a petition for
behest loans as ill-gotten wealth is imprescriptible under Section 15, Article 11 of the prohibition seeking to disqualify respondent Raul Daza, then incumbent congressman of the
Constitution is wrong since the said provision applies only to civil suits and not to criminal same congressional district, from continuing to exercise the functions of his office on the
proceedings. ground that he is a green card holder and a lawful permanent resident of the US. Petitioners
also alleged that Daza did not renounced his status as permanent resident, thereby violating
ISSUE: Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 18, Article 11 of the Constitution. Daza
(1) Whether the State has the right to recover properties unlawfully acquired in this case denied the fact that he is a permanent resident of the US and state that he had long waived his
(2) Whether the offense had already prescribed status when he returned to the Philippines.

RULING: ISSUE:
(1) No. Section 15, Article 11 of the Constitution applies only to civil actions for recovery of ill- Whether Daza should be disqualified as a member of the House of Representatives for
gotten wealth and not to criminal cases. violating Section 68 of the Omnibus Code and Section 18, Article 11 of the Constitution
(2) No. For the crime charged in this petition, the period of prescription is 10 years. The rule is
that for crimes committed under special laws, the prescriptive period shall begin to run from the RULING:
day of the commission of the violation, and if it is not known, from the discovery thereof. Thus, No. This case is already moot and academic for it is evident that the petitioners seek to unseat
in this case, the prescriptive period of the crime subject herein, commenced from the date of its the respondent from his position as Congressman for the duration of his term of office.
discovery in 1992 after the Committee made an exhaustive investigation. Moreover, the House Electoral Tribunal has the rightful jurisdiction over the case since the
petitioner challenge the qualification of Congressman Daza. The appropriate remedy should
MAIN POINT: have been file a petition to cancel Daza’s certificate of candidacy before the election or a quo
Section 15 of Article 11 of the Constitution only applies to civil actions for recovery of ill-gotten warranto case with the HET within 10 days after Daza’s proclamation. A writ of prohibition is
wealth and not to criminal cases. not intended to provide for acts already consummated. In this case, Daza is already in the last
few months of her tenure. For all contests relating to the qualification of its members, the HET
has the proper jurisdiction.
CASE NO. 1230
ARTICLE XI: ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS; SECTION 18: ALLEGIANCE OF MAIN POINT:
PUBLIC OFFICERS HET has the rightful jurisdiction on contests relating to the qualifications of its members. In this
Caasi v. CA case, even if Daza is a green card holder and it subject to the disqualification from office under
Sec 68 of the Omnibus Code, it is already the last few months of her tenure. It is already moot
FACTS: and academic for it is evident that the petitioners seek to unseat Daza from his position as
This is a case of two consolidated cases who have the same objective to disqualify Merito Congressman for the duration of his term of office.
Miguel for the position of municipal mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan, to which he was elected on