Pub Off Case Digests

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    1/28

    THE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAWDean Salvador Carlota

    THE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

    I. DEFINITIONS, DISTINCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

    Laurel v. Des erto,A!r l "#, #$$#

    Pres. Ramos issued EO 128, reconstituting the Committee for the preparation of the NationalCentennial Celebrations in 1 8.! "t renamed the Committee as the National CentennialCommission #NCC$. %ppointed to chair the reconstituted Commission &as 'ice(President)al*ador +. aurel.

    -uring the term of Pres. Estrada, the )enate lue Ribbon Committee recommended theprosecution b/ the Ombudsman0-O of aurel, as chair of the NCC, for *iolating the rules onpublic bidding, relati*e to the a&ard of centennial contracts for e3hibiting manifest bias in theissuance of a Notice to Proceed to a contractor e*en in the absence of a *alid contract, causingmaterial in4ur/ to go*ernment and for participating in a scheme to preclude audit b/ CO%.

    "n his defense, Laurel ar%ued t&at as '&a r o( t&e NCC &e )as not a !u*l ' o(( 'er. +eargued that some of the characteristics of a public officer &ere not present in the position,namel/5 #1$ the delegation of so*ereign functions #2$ salar/, since he purportedl/ did not recei*ean/ compensation and #6$ continuance, the tenure of the NCC being temporar/.

    Issue+ 7ON aurel &as a public officer thus putting him &ithin the ambit of the po&er of theOmbudsman to in*estigate an/ malfeasance, misfeasance and non(feasance b/ a public officer or emplo/ee.

    Held+ E).

    9echem describes the dele%at on to t&e nd v dual o( so e o( t&e sovere %n (un't ons o( %overn ent as the most important characteristic in determining &hether a position is a publicoffice or not.

    :he Court held that the

    NCC performed e3ecuti*e functions, &hich concerns the implementationof the policies as set forth b/ la&.

    :he Constitution pro*ides in %rticle ;"' thereof that the )tate shall conser*e, promote, andpopularie petitioner, as NCCChair, less a public officer. )uch serious constitutional repercussions! do not reduce the force of the rationale behind this Court=s decision.

    Pre'laro v. Sand %an*a-an,Au%ust #", "112

    Preclaro &as charged before the )andiganba/an &ith a *iolation of )ec. 6#b$ of R.%. No. 6A1for demanding the sum of P2AA> from a construction compan/ as part of the e3pected profit(ro the construction of a public building &herein he &as Pro4ect 9anager0Consultant.

    On appeal, Preclaro asserted that he &as not a public officer as &e )as ne t&er ele'ted nor a!!o nted to !u*l ' o(( 'e *ut )as erel- a !r vate nd v dual & red on a 'ontra'tual *as sfor a particular pro4ect and for a specified period as e*idenced b/ a contract of ser*ices.

    Issue+ 7ON Preclaro &as a public officer.

    Held+ E). :he terms Bclassified, unclassified or e3emption ser*iceB &ere the old categories of positions in the ci*il ser*ice &hich ha*e since been reclassified into Career )er*ice and Non(Career )er*ice b/ P- 8A pro*iding for the organie a specific &or> or 4ob,reDuiring special or technical s>ills not a*ailable in the emplo/ing agenc/, to be accomplished&ithin a specific period, &hich in no case shall e3ceed one /ear, and performs or accomplishesthe specific &or> or 4ob, under his o&n responsibilit/ &ith a minimum of direction and super*isionfrom the hiring agenc/.!

    :he fact that petitioner &as not reDuired to record his &or>ing hours b/ means of a und/ cloc>or did not ta>e an oath of office became unessential considerations in *ie& of the

    a*ove3ent oned !rov s on o( la) 'learl- n'lud n% !et t oner ) t& n t&e de( n t on o( a !u*l '

    o(( 'er.

    II. ELI5IBILIT6 AND 7UALIFICATIONS

    C v l L *ert es Un on v. E8e'ut ve Se'retar-, Fe*ruar- ##, " 11" % petition see>ing a declaration of unconstitutionalit/ of E3ecuti*e Order No. 28 on the groundthat said EO b/ pro*iding that

    Sec. 1. Even if allowed by law or by the ordinary functions of his position, a member of theCabinet, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other appointive officials of the ExecutiveDepartment may, in addition to his primary position, hold not more than two positions in thegovernment and government corporations and receive the corresponding compensationtherefor; rovided, that this limitation shall not apply to ad hoc bodies or committees, or toboards, councils or bodies of which the resident is the Chairman.

    4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 1

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    2/28

    in effect, allo&s members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to holdother go*ernment offices or positions in addition to their primar/ positions, in contra*ention of )ection 16, %rticle '"" of the 1 8 Constitution &hich pro*ides that the President, 'ice(President,the 9embers of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless other&isepro*ided in this Constitution, hold an/ other office or emplo/ment during their tenure.

    Issue+ 7ON the prohibition in )ection 16, %rticle '"" of the 1 8 Constitution insofar as Cabinetmembers, their deputies or assistants are concerned admit of the broad e3ceptions made for appointi*e officials in general u nder )ection , par. #2$, %rticle "(; &hich states that

    !nless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointiveofficial shall hold any other office or employment in the "overnment or any subdivision,agency or instrumentality thereof, including government#owned or controlled corporation or their subsidiaries.

    Held+ EO 28 ") 'O"- "N)OH%R %) ": % O7) 9E9 ER) OH :+E C% "NE:, :+E"R?N-ER()ECRE:%R"E) %N- %))"):%N: )ECRE:%R"E) :O +O - O:+ER @O'ERN9EN:OHH"CE) OR PO)":"ON) "N %--":"ON :O :+E"R PR"9%R PO)":"ON).

    7hile all other appointi*e officials in the ci*il ser*ice are allo&ed to hold other office or emplo/ment in the go*ernment during their tenure &hen such is allo&ed b/ la& or b/ theprimar/ functions of their positions, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants ma/do so onl/ &hen e3pressl/ authorian- ot&er o(( 'e> ) t& n t&e 'onte !lat on o( t&e'onst tut onal !ro& * t on *ut are !ro!erl- an !os t on o( add t onal dut es and(un't ons on sa d o(( ' als.

    Renato =. La! n d v. CSC, P& l !! ne Ports Aut&or t- and uan to unsa -,=a- "?, "11"

    apinid &as appointed b/ the Philippine Ports %uthorit/ to the position of :erminal )uper*isor.:his appointment &as protested b/ unsa/, &ho contended that he should be designatedterminal super*isor, or to an/ other comparable position, in *ie& of his preferential right thereto.Jeto ba /ung higher grade caseKL

    Complaining that the PP% had not acted on his protest, unsa/ &ent to the Ci*il )er*iceCommission and challenged apinidIs appointment on the same grounds he had earlier raisedbefore the PP%.

    "n a resolution, the Commission held that unsa/ had a preferential right to the position andordered that he be appointed thereto.

    Issue+ 7ON the Ci*il )er*ice Commission authori

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    3/28

    for a term of se*en /ears. Commission on %ppointments did not act on said appointments.President %rro/o rene&ed the ad interim appointments of enipa/o, orra and :uason, for threetimes. "n such capacit/, enipa/o issued a 9emorandum designating Cinco Officer(in(Charge of the E"- and reassigning petitioner to the a& -epartment. Pet filed the instant petitionDuestioning the appointment and the right to remain in office of enipa/o, orra and :uason, asChairman and Commissioners of the CO9E EC, respecti*el/. Petitioner claims that the ad interim appointments of enipa/o, orra and :uason *iolate the constitutional pro*isions on theindependence of the CO9E EC, as &ell as on the prohibitions on temporar/ appointments andreappointments of its Chairman and members. Petitioner also assails as illegal her remo*al as-irector "' of the E"- and her reassignment to the a& -epartment. )imultaneousl/, petitioner challenges the designation of Cinco as Officer(in(Charge of the E"-.

    Issue s Held+7ON the ad interim appointments to enipa/o, orra and :uason amount to temporar/

    appointments prohibited b/ )ection 1 #2$, %rticle ";(C of the Constitution ( NO7ON the rene&al of their ad interim appointments and subseDuent assumption of office

    to the same positions *iolate the prohibition on reappointment under )ection 1 #2$, %rticle ";(C of the Constitution NO

    Rat o+ An ad interim a!!o nt ent s a !er anent a!!o nt ent *e'ause t ta es e((e'ted atel- and 'an no lon%er *e ) t&dra)n *- t&e Pres dent on'e t&e a!!o ntee &as

    @ual ( ed nto o(( 'e. :he fact

    that it is sub4ect to confirmation b/ the Commission on %ppointments does not alter its permanent character. T&e Const tut on tsel( a es an ad

    nter a!!o nt ent !er anent n '&ara'ter *- a n% t e((e't ve unt l d sa!!roved *-t&e Co ss on on A!!o nt ents or unt l t&e ne8t ad ourn ent o( Con%ress.

    :hus, the ad interim appointment remains effecti*e until such disappro*al or ne3t ad4ournment,signif/ing that it can no longer be &ithdra&n or re*o>ed b/ the President. #%rt '"", )ec 1 ,Const$ :he fear that the President can &ithdra& or re*o>e at an/ time and for an/ reason an adinterim appointment is utterl/ &ithout basis. 9ore than half a centur/ ago, this Court had alread/ruled that an ad interim appointment is permanent in character. "t is an appointment permanentin nature, and the circumstance that it is sub4ect to confirmation b/ the Commission on

    %ppointments does not alter its permanent character. %n ad interim appointment is disappro*edcertainl/ for a reason other than that its pro*isional period has e3pired. )aid appointment is of course distinguishable from an acting= appointment &hich is merel/ temporar/, good untilanother permanent appointment is issued.!

    % distinction is thus made bet&een the e3ercise of such presidential prerogati*e reDuiringconfirmation b/ the Commission on %ppointments &hen Congress is in session and &hen it is inrecess. "n the former, the President nominates, and onl/ upon the consent of the Commission on

    %ppointments ma/ the person thus named assume office. "t is not so &ith reference to ad interimappointments. "t ta>es effect at once. :he indi*idual chosen ma/ thus Dualif/ and perform hisfunction &ithout loss of time. +is title to such office is complete. "n the language of theConstitution, the appointment is effecti*e until disappro*al b/ the Commission on %ppointmentsor until the ne3t ad4ournment of the Congress.=!

    Petitioner cites lac>=s a& -ictionar/ &hich defines the term ad interim! to mean in themeantime! or for the time being.! +ence, petitioner argues that an ad interim appointment isundoubtedl/ temporar/ in character. +o&e*er, the term ad interim appointment!, as used inletters of appointment signed b/ the President, means a permanent appointment made b/ thePresident in the meantime that Congress is in recess. "t does not mean a temporar/appointment that can be &ithdra&n or re*o>ed at an/ time.

    %n ad interim appointee &ho has Dualified and assumed office becomes at that moment ago*ernment emplo/ee and therefore part of the ci*il ser*ice.

    +e en4o/s the constitutional

    protection that !JnLo officer or emplo/ee in the ci*il ser*ice shall be remo*ed or suspendede3cept for cause pro*ided b/ la&.! :hus, an ad interim appointment b ecomes complete andirre*ocable once the appointee has Dualified into office. :he &ithdra&al or re*ocation of an ad interim appointment is possible onl/ if it is communicated to the appointee before the moment heDualifies, and an/ &ithdra&al or re*ocation thereafter is tantamount to remo*al from office. Oncean appointee has Dualified, he acDuires a legal right to the office &hich is protected not onl/ b/statute but also b/ the Constitution. +e can onl/ be remo*ed for cause, after notice andhearing, consistent &ith the reDuirements of due process.

    %n ad interim appointment can be terminated for t&o causes specified in the Constitution. :hefirst cause is the d sa!!roval o( & s ad interim a!!o nt ent *- t&e Co ss on onA!!o nt ents. :he second cause is the ad ourn ent o( Con%ress ) t&out t&e Co ss onon A!!o nt ents a't n% on & s a!!o nt ent. :hese t&o causes are

    resolutor/ conditionse3pressl/ imposed b/ the Constitution on all ad interim appointments. :hese resolutor/conditions constitute, in effect, a )&ord of -amocles o*er the heads of ad interim appointees.No one, ho&e*er, can complain because it is the Constitution itself that places the )&ord of -amocles o*er the heads of the ad interim appointees.

    7hile an ad interim appointment is permanent and irre*ocable e3cept as pro*ided b/ la&, ana!!o nt ent or des %nat on n a te !orar- or a't n% 'a!a' t-

    'an *e ) t&dra)n or revo ed at t&e !leasure o( t&e a!!o nt n% !o)er . % temporar/ or acting appointee does noten4o/ an/ securit/ of tenure, no matter ho& briefl/. :his is the >ind of appointment that theConstitution prohibits the President from ma>ing to the three independent constitutionalcommissions, including the CO9E EC.

    "f enipa/o, orra and :uason &ere not e3tended ad interim appointments to fill up the three*acancies in the CO9E EC, there &ould onl/ ha*e been one di*ision functioning in theCO9E EC instead of t&o during the 9a/ 2AA1 elections. Considering that the ConstitutionreDuires that all 3 3 3 election cases shall be heard and decided in di*ision!, the remaining onedi*ision &ould ha*e been s&amped &ith election cases. 9oreo*er, since under the Constitutionmotions for reconsideration shall be decided b/ the Commission en banc !, the mere absence of one of the four remaining members &ould ha*e pre*ented a Duorum, a less than ideal situationconsidering that the Commissioners are e3pected to tra*el around the countr/ before, duringand after the elections. :here &as a great probabilit/ that disruptions in the conduct of the 9a/2AA1 elections could occur because of the three *acancies in the CO9E EC.

    E*identl/, the e3ercise b/ the President in the instant case of her constitutional po&er to ma>ead interim appointments pre*ented the occurrence of the *er/ e*il sought to be a*oided b/ thesecond paragraph of )ection 1 , %rticle '"" of the Constitution.

    :here is no dispute that an ad interim appointee disappro*ed b/ the Commission on %ppointments can no longer be e3tended a ne& appointment. :he disappro*al is a finaldecision of the Commission on %ppointments in the e3ercise of its chec>ing po&er on theappointing authorit/ of the President. :he disappro*al is a decision on the merits, being a refusalb/ the Commission on %ppointments to gi*e its consent after deliberating on the Dualifications of the appointee.

    %n ad interim appointment that is b/(passed because of lac> of time or failure of theCommission on %ppointments to organie 6

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    4/28

    :he prohibition on reappointment in )ection 1 #2$, %rticle ";(C of the Constitution applies neither to disappro*ed nor b/(passed ad interim appointments. % disappro*ed ad interim appointmentcannot be re*i*ed b/ another ad interim appointment because the disappro*al is final under )ection 1 , %rticle '"" of the Constitution, and not because a reappointment is prohibited under )ection 1 #2$, %rticle ";(C of the Constitution. % b/(passed ad interim appointment can bere*i*ed b/ a ne& ad interim appointment because there is no final disappro*al under )ection 1 ,

    %rticle '"" of the Constitution, and such ne& appointment &ill no t result in the appointee ser*ingbe/ond the fi3ed term of se*en /ears. :he phrase &ithout reappointment! applies onl/ to one&ho has been appointed b/ the President and confirmed b/ the Commission on %ppointments,&hether or not such person completes his term of office. :here must be a confirmation b/ theCommission on %ppointments of the pre*ious appointment before the prohibition onreappointment can appl/.

    B. A!!o nt ents *- t&e Pres dent

    5r o v. CSC, et al,Fe*ruar- # , "11"

    -emaisip resigned from the position of Pro*. %tt/. of "loilo. ?pon his recommendation, O"C@o*ernor appointed %randela #)enior egal Officer$ as Pro*. %tt/. @el*e for and in behalf of the cit/ has for itscounterpart in the pro*ince a pro*incial attorne/ appointed b/ the pro*incial go*ernor. "n thesame *ein, a municipalit/ ma/ ha*e a municipal attorne/ &ho is to be named b/ the appointingpo&er. :he positions of cit/ legal officer and pro*incial attorne/ &ere created under Republic %ctNo. Q18Q &hich categori for. :heir ser*ices are precisel/ categori to be rendered b/ the officer &ouldmean such trusted ser*ices of a la&/er to his client &hich is of the highest degree of trust.

    Ho)ever, !os t ons o( Sen or Le%al O(( 'er and Le%al O(( 'er are not !r ar l-'on( dent al.

    :he legal &or> of Pro*incial or Cit/ %ttorne/, as distinguished from the relationship, can bedelegated. :he practice of delegating &or> of a counsel to his subordinates is apparent in theOffice of the Pro*incial %ttorne/ &herein it can be gleaned from the po&er granted to such officer to e3ercise administrati*e super*ision and control o*er the acts and decision of his subordinates.

    :hus, there is no need to e3tend the professional relationship to the legal staff &hichassists the confidential emplo/er. S n'e t&e !os t ons o''u! ed *- t&ese su*ord nates arere ote (ro t&at o( t&e a!!o nt n% aut&or t-, t&e ele ent o( trust *et)een t&e s nolon%er !redo nant . :he importance of these subordinates to the appointing authorit/ no& liesin the contribution of their legal s>ills to facilitate the &or> of the confidential emplo/ee.

    %t this le*el of the bureau crac/, an/ impairment of the appointing a uthorit/Is interest as aclient, &hich ma/ be caused through the breach of residual trust b/ an/ of there lo&er(ran>edla&/ers, can be anticipated and pre*ented b/ the confidential emplo/ee, as a reasonabl/competent office head, through the e3ercise of his po&er to Bre*ie&, appro*e, re*erse, or modif/B their acts and decisions.

    :he subordinates ha*e been emplo/ed due to their technical Dualifications. T&e r !os t ons are & %&l- te'&n 'al n '&ara'ter and not 'on( dent al, so t&e- are !er anente !lo-ees, and the/ belong to the categor/ of classified emplo/ees under the Ci*il )er*ice

    a&. :hus, the items of )enior egal Officer and egal Officer "" remain permanent as classifiedb/ the Ci*il )er*ice Commission. ConseDuentl/, the holders of the said items being permanentemplo/ees, en4o/ securit/ of tenure as guaranteed under the Constitution.

    Tr a v. Sto. To as, CSC, et al,ul- ;", "11"

    :ria &as emplo/ed &ith H9" as a 9anagement and %udit %nal/st ", a position e3pressl/described in the letter of appointment as Bconfidential.B :ria &rote a confidential report to theH9" -eput/ Commissioner detailing the nonfeasance of a H9" la&/er and recommending thela&/er=s replacement, and then another report on a retired colonel this time submitted to theOffice of the President.

    :ria applied for sic> lea*e in order to see> interim emplo/ment abroad, as permitted in aC)C circular. %t this time %ssistant H9" Comm sent him a letter reprimanding him for b/(passing the H9" Commissioners and sending a report straight to the Office of the President tothe embarrassment of the H9" . 7hile his sic> lea*e &as appro*ed b/ immediate superior, it&as e*entuall/ denied b/ the H9" higher(ups. +e did not recei*e notice of denial and the letter of reprimand until he got bac> from the ?). +e &as therefore terminated from ser*ice.

    :ria no& see>s reinstatement.

    4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    5/28

    Issue s Held+7ON termination &as *alid ( NO7ON :ria is a primaril/ confidential emplo/ee NO

    Rat o+ C&ara'ter n% a !os t on as >!r ar l- 'on( dent al> are t)o3(old+ ( rstl- , suchcharacteri or !a!ers )& '& are 'on( dent al n nature, does not su(( 'e to'&ara'ter e t&e r !os t ons as !r ar l- 'on( dent al.

    Not being a primaril/ confidential emplo/ee, there must be another la&ful cause to base histermination on. :he Court found that there &as none in this case since his failure to report first tothe H9" Commissioner #and &ent directl/ to the Office of the President$, and his going sic>lea*e &ere made in good faith. %s to the reports, it &as because no in*estigation &as done after

    his first report &hich he made to the H9" Commissioner. %s to the sic> lea*e, his immediatesuper*isor appro*ed it, and the latter &as in a position to tell &hether or not :ria=s presence inthe office &as necessar/.

    H lar o v. CSC and Planas,=ar'& ;", "112

    +ilario &as Cit/ %ttorne/ of SC, &ho &as appointed b/ O"C 9a/or. 7hen 9atha/ assumed postas 9a/or(elect, the latter &rote him a letter that since his term &as co(terminous &ith theappointing authorit/, +ilario &as deemed resigned. +ilario insists that his position should be*ie&ed under P 66 , the old la&, under &hich la& he &as then appointed as Cit/ %ttorne/.Under BP ;;9, C t- Attorne- s not e8!ressl- des'r *ed as a 'on( dent al e !lo-ee.

    Issue+ 7ON +ilario is a confidential emplo/ee

    Held+ E). %n e3amination of the pro*isions of P 66 re*eals no intention b/ the legislature toremo*e the confidential nature of the position of cit/ legal officer. 7hat it does, is to merel/specif/ the *arious Dualifications, po&ers and duties of a cit/ legal officer &hich &ere notenumerated under Republic %ct No. Q18Q. We &ave 'ons stentl- &eld n !rev ous 'ases t&att&e !os t on o( C t- Le%al O(( 'er s a 'on( dent al one.

    Prov n'e o( Ca ar nes Sur v. CA and Dato,ul- "?, "112

    :ito -ato &as appointed as Pri*ate %gent then promoted to %ssistant Pro*incial 7arden.ecause he had no ci*il ser*ice eligibilit/, he could not be gi*en a permanent appointment.

    +ence, he &as onl/ gi*en a temporar/ appointment &hich &as rene&ed annuall/. E*entuall/,@o*ernor appro*ed the change in -atoIs emplo/ment status from temporar/ to permanent uponthe latterIs representation that he passed the ci*il ser*ice e3amination for super*ising securit/guards. )aid change of status ho&e*er, &as not fa*orabl/ acted upon b/ the Ci*il )er*iceCommission #C)C$ reasoning that :ito -ato did not possess the necessar/ ci*il ser*ice eligibilit/for the office he &as appointed to. +is appointment therefore remained temporar/. +e &assuspended for criminal charges filed against him. 9ean&hile, C)C &rote the @o*ernor of Camarines )ur a letter informing him that the status of pri*ate respondent :ito -ato has beenchanged from temporar/ to permanent, the latter ha*ing passed the e3amination for )uper*ising)ecurit/ @uard. :he change of status &as to be made retroacti*e to une 11, 1 , the date of release of said e3amination.

    Issue+ 7ON -ato &as a permanent emplo/ee of the Pro*ince at the time of suspension

    Held+ NO.

    %t the time he &as ap pointed %ssistant Pro*incial 7 arden on anuar/ 1, 1 , hehad not /et Dualified in an appropriate e3amination for the aforementioned position. Su'& la'o( a ' v l serv 'e el % * l t- ade & s a!!o nt ent te !orar- and &ithout a fi3ed and definiteterm and is dependent entirel/ upon the pleasure of the appointing po&er. :he fact that pri*aterespondent obtained ci*il ser*ice eligibilit/ later on is of no moment as his ha*ing passed thesuper*ising securit/ guard e3amination, did not ipso facto con*ert his temporar/ appointmentinto a permanent one. "n cases such as the one at bench, )&at s re@u red s a ne)a!!o nt ent s n'e a !er anent a!!o nt ent s not a 'ont nuat on o( t&e te !orar-a!!o nt ent 3 t&ese are t)o d st n't a'ts o( t&e a!!o nt n% aut&or t-.

    %s to the C)C=s action of granting a permanent appointment to -ato, such &as uncalled for.

    :heC)C can onl/ inDuire into the eligibilit/ of the person chosen to fill a position and if it finds theperson Dualified it must so attest. "f not, the appointment must be disappro*ed. T&e dut- o( t&eCSC s to attest a!!o nt ents and a(ter t&at (un't on s d s'&ar%ed, ts !art ' !at on n t&ea!!o nt ent !ro'ess 'eases. "n the case at bench, C)C should ha*e ended its participation inthe appointment of pri*ate respondent on anuar/ 1, 1 &hen it confirmed the temporar/status of the latter &ho lac>ed the proper ci*il ser*ice eligibilit/. 7hen it issued the foregoing

    4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e Q

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    6/28

    communication on 9arch 1 , 1 , it stepped on the toes of the appointing authorit/, thereb/encroaching on the discretion *ested solel/ upon the latter.

    5lor a v. De 5u an, et al,O'to*er , "112

    Cerillo et al &ere emplo/ees of the Philippine %ir Horce College of %eronautics #P%HC%$. :heP%HC% oard of :rustees issued Resolution &hich declared that B%ll facult/0administrati*eemplo/ees are also sub4ect to the reDuired ci*il ser*ice eligibilities,B in accordance &ith pertinentci*il ser*ice la&, rules and regulations. :hus, Cerillo et al &ere issued onl/ temporar/appointments because at the time of their appointment, the/ lac>ed appropriate ci*il ser*iceeligibilities or other&ise failed to meet the necessar/ Dualification standards for their respecti*epositions.

    On 9arch 2 , 1 2, Cerillo &as relie*ed as oard )ecretar/ of the P%HC% in accordance &ithoard Resolution b/ reason of loss of confidence. )ubseDuentl/, ho&e*er, she &as designated

    as BCoordinator for E3tension )er*ices.B :hen, the/ &ere informed in -ecember 1 2 that the/shall be deemed separated from the ser*ice upon the e3piration of their temporar/appointments. Cerillo et al filed a case for reinstatement.

    Issue+ 7ON Cerillo et al ma/ be reinstated

    Held+ NO. T&e lo)er 'ourt s ud% ent )& '& orders t&e re nstate ent o( =s. Rosar o Coord nator (or E8tens on Serv 'es> s !atentl- !ro!er.Cerillo, although temporaril/ e3tended an appointment as oard )ecretar/ "", &as dismissedtherefrom because of loss of confidence. :his dismissal &as neither contested nor appealedfrom b/ 9s. Cerillo.

    Cer llo s ass %n ent as >Coord nator (or E8tens on Serv 'es> )as a ere des %nat on.

    Not being a permanent appointment, the designation to the position cannot be the sub4ect of acase for reinstatement.

    Hurthermore, e*en granting that 9s. Cerillo could be *alidl/ reinstated as BCoordinator for E3tension )er*ices,B her reinstatement thereto &ould not be possible because the position is notpro*ided for in the P)C% plantilla. :he P)C% could not ha*e made an/ *alid appointment for thisine3istent position. At an- rate, a ere >des %nat on> does not 'on(er u!on t&e des %neese'ur t- o( tenure n t&e !os t on or o(( 'e )& '& &e o''u! es n an a't n% 'a!a' t- onl-.

    :he Ci*il )er*ice Commission, mandating a polic/, &rote petitioner Col. ulian . oleng, r. aletter mandating that temporar/ appointments of officers0emplo/ees of the P)C% &ere to lastonl/ up to -ecember 61, 1 2. Pursuant to this, the oard of :rustees declared that all facult/0administrati*e emplo/ees of the college, &hile reDuired to acDuire ci*il ser*ice eligibilities under pertinent ci*il ser*ice la&, rules and regulations, must e3ert effort to acDuire ci*il ser*iceeligibilities &ithin a period of three /ears from their temporar/ appointments. :his, the pri*aterespondents belie*e should be ta>en to mean that, should the/ acDuire ci*il ser*ice eligibilities&ithin that period of three /ears, the/ cannot be terminated from the ser*ice.

    :he fact that pri*ate respondent Cenillo passed the reDuisite Ci*il )er*ice E3amination after thetermination of her temporar/ appointment is no reason to compel petitioners to reappoint her.A'@u s t on o( ' v l serv 'e el % * l t- s not t&e sole (a'tor (or rea!!o nt ent. )till to beconsidered b/ the appointing authorit/ are5 performance, degree of education, &or> e3perience,training, seniorit/, and, more importantl/, as in this case, &hether or not the applicant en4o/s theconfidence and trust of the appointing po&er. "t has been ruled that the position of oard)ecretar/ "", b/ its nature, is primaril/ confidential.

    Re nstate ent is technicall/ issuance of a ne& appointment &hich is essentiall/ discretionar/ ,to be performed b/ the officer in &hich it is *ested according to his best lights, the onl/ conditionbeing that the appointee should possess the Dualifications reDuired b/ la&.

    )uch e3ercise of thediscretionar/ po&er of appointment cannot be controlled, not e*en b/ the Court as long as it ise3ercised properl/ b/ the appointing authorit/.

    Ie

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    7/28

    e or error on the part of its agents. astl/, t&e re!resentat ves arenot de facto o(( 'ers ent tled to *ene( ts, !ursuant to t&e CLU 'ase, *e'ause t&e- )erenot a!!o nted *ut erel- des %nated.

    De la < 'tor a v. Bur%os and Ses*re o,une #9, "112

    :here &as 4udgment against asst Cit/ Hiscals 9abanto, r and -e Rama, r, ordering them topa/ damages so a notice of garnishment &as ser*ed on petitioner de la 'ictoria as Cit/ Hiscal&hich directed her not to disburse, transfer, release or con*e/ the salar/ chec>s of thedefendants e3cept to the deput/ sheriff. )he failed to compl/ so she &as as>ed to e3plain &h/she should not be cited in contempt. +er defense5 :he salar/ chec>s are not o&ned b/ 9abanto,

    r. because the/ &ere not /et deli*ered to him so the/ &ere go*ernment funds based on )ec 1of the Negotiable "nstruments a&.

    Issue+ 7ON the salar/ chec>s are go*ernment funds

    4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    8/28

    Held+ E). @arnishment is a species of attachment for reaching credits belonging to the 4udgment debtor o&ing to him from a stranger to the litigation. In t& s 'ase, t&e sour'e o( t&esalar- o( =a*anto s !u*l ' (unds and &e re'e ves t n '&e' . Under Se' " o( t&e NIL,ever- 'ontra't on a ne%ot a*le nstru ent s n'o !lete and revo'a*le until delivery (or t&e !ur!ose o( % v n% e((e't t&ereto.

    )iro v *ontanosas+ :he salar/ chec> of the go*ernment officer or emplo/ee does not belong tohim before it is ph/sicall/ deli*ered to him. ?ntil that time, the chec> belongs to the go*ernment.

    :he rationale behind this doctrine is ob*ious consideration of !u*l ' !ol '- 5 Commissioner of ublic *ighways v San Diego 5 :he functions and public ser*ices rendered b/ the )tate cannot

    be allo&ed to be paral/ and the month to &hich the R%:% chec> corresponds. "f the salar/ and R%:% chec>scorresponded, respecti*el/, to a pa/roll period and to a month &hich had alread/ lapsed at thetime the notice of garnishment &as ser*ed, the garnishment &ould be *alid. ?pon e3piration, thesums are deemed automaticall/ segregated from the budgetar/ allocations.

    < n ons3C&ato v. Nat v dad and Blas,une #, "112

    On -ecember 1A, 1 6, petitioner Commissioner of "nternal Re*enue, citing the Be3igencies of the re*enue ser*ice,B issued Re*enue :ra*el %ssignment Order No. 8A( 6 #R:%O 8A( 6$,directing ninet/ re*enue district officers to report to ne& assignments in the redesignated andrenumbered re*enue district offices nation&ide. Pri*ate respondent )al*ador Nori las &asordered to report to Re*enue -istrict No. 1 in :uguegarao, Caga/an. "n turn, petitioner )olon

    . %lcantara &as ordered to report to lasI former post in )an Hernando, Pampanga, no& >no&nas Re*enue -istrict No. 21.

    las- Contention %ll that he asserts is his constitutional right to protection from a demotion not for cause, and&ithout his consent under the guise of a Btransfer in the e3igencies of the ser*iceB. +e contendsthat his transfer constitutes a demotion because, in effect, his span of control in terms of

    4urisdiction and personnel has been considerabl/ diminished. +e claims that he has earned,through hard &or>, as e*idenced b/ his ser*ice record, the position at )an Hernando,Pampanga &hich has a larger staff and re*enue capacit/ and is much closer to 9anila.

    Chato-s Contention 1. Pri*ate respondent did not ha*e an/ *ested right to his station in )an Hernando, Pampanga

    since he &as onl/ designated to the post and not appointed thereto. Neither did pri*aterespondent sho& an/ right to be e3empted from the reorgani, or salar /.

    Issues+1. 7ON there is a reduction in duties and responsibilities2. 7ON there &as a demotion and dislocation on the part of the plaintiff &hen the publicdefendant Chato issued Re*enue :ra*el %ssignment Order #R:%O$ No. 8A( 6.

    Held+ /NONE01. las= transfer to the :uguegarao re*enue district did not reall/ entail an/ diminution in ran>,salar/, status and responsibilities. Pri*ate respondentIs claim that the :uguegarao re*enuedistrict is smaller than that in )an Hernando, Pampanga has no basis because, as alread/

    noted, the classification of R-OsI into Class %(1, %, , C and - has been abolished and allR-OIs are no& considered to be of the same class.

    2. las= transfer is part of a nation&ide reshuffle or reassignment of re*enue district officersdesigned to impro*e re*enue collection. "t could be that pri*ate respondent is being transferredto a re*enue district &hich he claims has less re*enue capacit/ than )an Hernando, Pampanga,precisel/ to impro*e the capacit/ of the ne& assignment. H s ne) ass %n ent s&ouldt&ere(ore *e 'ons dered *- & a '&allen%e to & s leaders& ! as revenue d str 't o(( 'er rat&er t&an a de ot on or a !enalt-.

    6. Pr vate res!ondent (a led to s&o) !atent lle%al t- n t&e a't on o( t&e Co ss oner 'onst tut n% v olat on o( & s r %&t to se'ur t- o( tenure. :o sustain his contention that histransfer constitutes a demotion simpl/ because the ne& assignment is not to his li>ing &ould beto subordinate go*ernment pro4ects, along &ith the great resources and efforts the/ entail, to theindi*idual preferences and opinions of ci*il ser*ice emplo/ees. )uch contention &ould negatethe principle that a public office is a public trust and that it is not the pri*ate preser*e of an/person.

    D v na%ra' a, r. v. Sto. To as,=a- ;", "112

    % trans(er is a mo*ement from one position to another &hich is of eDui*alent ran>, le*el, salar/,&ithout brea> in ser*ice. Pro ot on is the ad*ancement from one position to another &ith anincrease in duties and responsibilities as authorie3cept &hen his monetar/ liabilit/, contractual or other&ise, is in fa*or of the @)").

    4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 8

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    9/28

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    10/28

    has reached Q /ears of age &ithout completing 1Q /ears of go*ernment ser*ice t& sd s'ret on s, nevert&eless, to *e e8er' sed 'on(or a*l- ) t& t&e !rov s ons o( C v lServ 'e =e orandu C r'ular No. #9, Ser es o( "11$.

    Tantu 'o r., v. Do n%o,Fe*ruar- #J, "11?

    Petitioner, former chairman of the Commission on %udit, argues that not&ithstanding the t&oclearances pre*iousl/ issued, and respondent ChairmanIs #current chairman of CO%$certification that petitioner had been cleared of mone/ and propert/ accountabilit/, respondentChairman still refuses to release the remaining half of his retirement benefits, a purel/ ministerialact.

    Issue+ 7ON respondent Chairman of the CO% should pa/ petitionerIs retirement benefits in fulland his monthl/ pensions beginning in 9arch 1 1

    Held+ Regardless of petitionerIs monetar/ liabilit/ to the go*ernment that ma/ be disco*eredfrom the audit concerning his fiscal responsibilit/ as former CO% Chairman, res!ondentC&a r an 'annot ) t&&old t&e *ene( ts due !et t oner under t&e ret re ent la)s.

    1. "n )antuico , &e cited ustice aurelIs essa/ on the rationale for the benign ruling in fa*or of the retired emplo/ees, thus5 . . . Pension in this case is a bount/ flo&ing from the graciousnessof the @o*ernment intended to re&ard past ser*ices and, at the same time, to pro*ide thepensioner &ith the means &ith &hich to support himself and his famil/. ?nless other&ise clearl/pro*ided, the pension should inure &holl/ to the benefit of the pensioner.

    2. ?nder )ection , R% 1Q 8 #%n %ct to Pro*ide ife Pension to the %uditor @eneral and theChairman or %n/ 9ember of the Commission of Elections$, the benefits granted b/ said la& tothe %uditor @eneral and the Chairman and 9embers of the Commission on Elections shall notbe sub4ect to garnishment, le*/ or e3ecution. i>e&ise, under )ection 66, P- 11 , as amended#:he Re*ised @o*ernment )er*ice "nsurance %ct of 1 $, the benefits granted thereunder Bshall not be sub4ect, among others, to attachment, garnishment, le*/ or other processes.B

    6. 7ell(settled is the rule that ret re ent la)s are l *erall- nter!reted n (avor o( t&e ret ree*e'ause t&e ntent on s to !rov de (or t&e ret reeKs sustenan'e and 'o (ort, )&en &e sno lon%er 'a!a*le o( earn n% & s l vel &ood #Profeta *s. -rilon, 21 )CR% J1 2L$.

    5lor a v. CA,A!r l #", "111

    :his case arose out of the unfortunate stri>es and &al>(outs staged b/ public school teachers ondifferent dates in )eptember and October 1 A. :he illegalit/ of the stri>es &as declared in our 1 1 decision in 0anila ublic School )eachers %ssociation v . (aguio , es are still to be resol*ed. %t issue in this case is the right to bac> salaries of teachers &ho &ere either dismissed or suspended because the/ did not report for &or> but &ho&ere e*entuall/ ordered reinstated because the/ had not been sho&n to ha*e ta>en part in thestri>e, although reprimanded for being absent &ithout lea*e.

    Issue+ 7ON respondents &ho &ere put under pre*enti*e suspension ha*e a right tocompensation in case of e3oneration

    1. :here are t)o nds o( !revent ve sus!ens on o( ' v l serv 'e e !lo-ees )&o are'&ar%ed ) t& o((enses !un s&a*le *- re oval or sus!ens on+

    #1$ pre*enti*e suspension pending in*estigations#2$ pre*enti*e suspension pending appeal if the penalt/ imposed b/ the disciplining

    authorit/ is suspension or dismissal and, after re*ie&, the respondent ise3onerated

    2. Prevent ve sus!ens on !end n% nvest %at on s not a !enalt-. "t is a measure intended toenable to enable the disciplining authorit/ to in*estigate charges against respondent b/pre*enting the latter from intimidating or an/ &a/ influencing &itnesses against him. "f thein*estigation is not finished and a decision is not rendered &ithin that period , the suspension &illbe lifted and the respondent &ill automaticall/ be reinstated. "f after in*estigation respondent isfound innocent of the charges and is e3onerated, he should be reinstated.

    6. T&ere s no r %&t to 'o !ensat on (or Prevent ve Sus!ens on "endin! $nvesti!ationeven ( e !lo-ee s e8onerated.

    :he Ombudsman %ct of 1 8 #R% A$ categoricall/ pro*ides that pre*enti*e suspension shallbe B&ithout pa/.B )ec. 2 reads5

    Sec. %&. "reventive Suspension. :he Ombudsman or his -eput/ ma/ pre*enti*el/ suspendan/ officer or emplo/ee under his authorit/ pending an in*estigation, if in his 4udgment thee*idence of guilt is strong, and #a$ the charge against such officer or emplo/ee in*ol*esdishonest/, oppression or gra*e misconduct or neglect in the performance of dut/ #b$ thecharges &ould &arrant remo*al from the ser*ice or #c$ the respondents continued sta/ in officema/ pre4udice the case filed against him.

    :he pre*enti*e suspension shall continue until the case is terminated b/ the Office of theOmbudsman but not more than si3 months, without pay , e3cept &hen the dela/ in thedisposition of the case b/ the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault, negligence or petitionof the respondent, in &hich case the period of such dela/ shall not be counted in computing theperiod of suspension herein pro*ided. "t is clear that the purpose of the amendment is todisallo& the pa/ment of salaries for the period of suspension.

    . T&ere s a r %&t to 'o !ensat on (or Prevent ve Sus!ens on "endin! 'ppeal ( e !lo-ee s e8onerated.

    Prevent ve sus!ens on !end n% a!!eal s a'tuall- !un t ve alt&ou%& t s n e((e'tsu*se@uentl- 'ons dered lle%al ( res!ondent s e8onerated and t&e ad n strat vede' s on ( nd n% & %u lt- s reversed. +ence, he should be reinstated &ith full pa/ for theperiod of the suspension. :he respondent Bshall be considered as under pre*enti*e suspensionduring the pendenc/ of the appeal in the e*ent he &ins.B On the other hand, if his con*iction isaffirmed, i .e ., if he is not e3onerated, the period of his suspension becomes part of the finalpenalt/ of suspension or dismissal.

    "t is precisel/ because respondent is penalie the administrati*e decision not onl/ e3ecutor/ but finaland e3ecutor/

    Q. Pr vate res!ondents are ent tled to *a' salar es. :he/ &ere e3onerated of all chargesagainst them for acts connected &ith the teachersI stri>es of )eptember and October 1 A.

    %lthough the/ &ere absent from &or>, it &as not because of the stri>e. Hor being absent &ithoutlea*e, the/ &ere held liable for *iolation of reasonable office rules and regulations for &hich thepenalt/ is a reprimand.

    :heir case thus falls sDuarel/ &ithin ruling in angalisan , &hich li>e&ise in*ol*ed a teacher found guilt/ of ha*ing *iolated reasonable office rules and regulations. E3plaining the grant of

    4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 1A

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    11/28

    salaries during their suspension despite the fact that the/ &ere meted out reprimand, this Courtstated5

    ?nder )ection 26 of the Rule "mplementing oo> ' of EO 2 2 and other pertinent ci*il ser*icela&s, in *iolations of reasonable office rules and regulations, the first offense is punishable b/reprimand. :o den/ petitioner 9ariano his bac> &ages during his suspension &ould betantamount to punishing him after his e3oneration from the charges &hich caused his dismissalfrom the ser*ice.

    PA5COR v. Salas,Au%ust ", #$$#

    )alas &as P%@COR=s "nternal )ecurit/ )taff before the latter fired him for loss of confidencebecause he engaged in pro3/ betting. )alas filed a case against P%@COR #Case 1$ &here the)upreme Court held that )alas &as illegall/ dismissed because he &as not a confidentialemplo/ee &ho can be dismissed for loss of confidence. Reinstatement &ith full bac>&ages &asordered &ithout pre4udice to the filing of administrati*e charges against )alas.

    7hile this 4udgment &as pending e3ecution, P%@COR reinstated )alas but imposed a A(da/suspension on him pending in*estigation on an administrati*e case #Case 2$ for gra*emisconduct &hich P%@COR filed against him. "n the admin case, the C)C ordered )alas=dismissal &hich is to retroact to the date of the commission of the offense.

    Held+ Salas s ent tled to *a' )a%es (ro t&e t e &e )as lle%all- d s ssed unt l & sre nstate ent.

    "n Case 1, )alas &as found to ha*e been illegall/ dismissed. T&ere(ore, t&e ( rst d s ssale((e'ted *- PA5COR &as no le%al (or'e and e((e't and Salas tenure o( o(( 'e )as never

    nterru!ted. +e is therefore entitled to all the rights and pri*ileges that accrue to him b/ *irtue of the office he held.

    :he subseDuent filing of Case 2 is immaterial since it is separate and distinct from the firstcharge, e*en though both cases &ere based on the same set of facts. In (a't, a(ter res!ondent )as &eld to &ave *een lle%all- d s ssed n Case ", t )as as ( &e )as notd s ssed (ro serv 'e at all, and Case # s dee ed to *e & s ( rst '&ar%e. Prior thereto,he is considered to ha*e been in petitioner=s continuous ser*ice, and entitled to all the rights andpri*ileges his position en4o/s. :his is but the natural conseDuence of the Court=s finding of illegaldismissal.

    T&e su*se@uent d s ssal 'annot retroa't to a date !r or to t&e ( l n% o( an ad n strat ve'ase a%a nst res!ondent. :he filing of an administrati*e case against )alas is the reDuisite

    due process= &hich must precede his remo*al if &arranted. -ue process! here means that

    d s ssal a- *e ade onl- !ros!e't vel-.

    Bun-e v. Sand %an*a-an,=a- 2, "111

    Petitioners are public officers #ma/or, *ice ma/or, councilors, etc.$ &ho enacted Resolution Q,and on the basis thereof, forcibl/ too> possession of the Ne& Public 9ar>et in 9untinlupa andthereafter too> o*er the operation and management of the public mar>et despite the fact thatthere &as a *alid and subsisting lease contract for a term of 2Q /ears e3ecuted bet&een thego*ernment and the Milusang 9agtitinda. % case &as filed against them for *iolation of )ec. 6#e$of R% 6A1 . :he )andiganba/an found them guilt/.

    Held 5 :he petitioners are not guilt/ of graft and corruption.

    :he sub4ect lease contract &as grossl/ disad*antageous to the go*ernment, as the monthl/rentals &ere onl/ QW of the monthl/ income of the Milusang 9agtitinda. 9oreo*er, the Milusang9agtitinda failed to compl/ &ith the contractual stipulations under the +ealth and )anitationClause.

    T&e ele ents o( Se'. /;0 o( RA ;$"1 are as follo&s51. :hat the accused are public officers or pri*ate persons charged in conspirac/ &ith

    them2. :hat said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their

    official duties or in relation to their public positions6. )hat they cause undue in=ury to any party, whether the "overnment or a private party

    . :hat such in4ur/ is caused b/ gi*ing un&arranted benefits, ad*antage or preference tosuch parties and

    Q. :hat the public officers ha*e acted &ith manifest partialit/, e*ident bad faith or grossine3cusable negligence.

    :he element of undue in4ur/ is not present. 7hile there &as P169 recei*ed b/ the go*ernmentfrom the mar>et *endors, records sho& that the contract for the management and operation of the Ne& 9untinlupa Public 9ar>et &as a&arded to the same Milusang 9agtitinda, but &ith ane& set of dul/ elected officers. :hus the business interest of the stallholders concerned hasne*er been ad*ersel/ affected, and no mar>et *endor &as displaced or pre*ented fromoperating in the Ne& 9untinlupa Public 9ar>et, as a result of the implementation of Resolution

    Q, No undue in4ur/ &as caused b/ the petitioners to the mar>et *endors or to Milusang9agtitinda.

    Duterte and de 5u an v. Sand %an*a-an,A!r l #9, "11J

    :he -a*ao Cit/ go*ernment entered into a contract &ith )P" for the purchase of computer hard&are and accessories. % ci*il case &as thereafter filed a gainst the cit/ council and officers of )P" for the 4udicial declaration of nullit/ of the resolutions and ordinances &hich pushed for thecontract, and a declaration of nullit/ of the contract itself. %t the seller, the contract &as mutuall/rescinded b/ -a*ao Cit/ and )P". )hereafter , the )pecial %udit :eam of the Commission on

    %udit submitted a report recommending the rescission of the sub4ect contract. :he %nti(@rafteague filed a criminal case against the public officers in*ol*ed and )P" for *iolation of )ec. 6#g$

    R% 6A1 , claiming the contract made entered into &ithout public bidding and &as grossl/disad*antageous to the go*ernment as the acDuisition cost &as o*erpriced.

    Held+ :here is no basis in la& or in fact to charge petitioners for *iolation of )ec. 6#g$ R% 6A1 .

    To esta*l s& !ro*a*le 'ause a%a nst t&e o((ender (or v olat on o( Se'. ;/%0, t&e (ollo) n%ele ents ust *e !resent+

    1. the offender is a public officer2. he entered into a contract or transaction in behalf of the government and6. the contract or transaction is grossl/ and manifestl/ disad*antageous to the go*ernment.

    +ere, t&e se'ond ele ent o( t&e 'r e t&at t&e a''used !u*l ' o(( 'ers entered nto a'ontra't n *e&al( o( t&e %overn ent s a*sent. :he computeri of. :he contract, after 9a/ 1 1 became in contemplation of la&, non(e3istent, as if no contract &as e*er e3ecuted.

    Llorente, r. v. Sand %an*a-an and Fuertes,=ar'& "", "11J

    4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 11

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    12/28

    lorente &as 9a/or of )indangan, Uamboanga. +e &as charged &ith *iolation of )ec.6#e$,R%6A1 for causing undue in4ur/ to eticia Huertes b/ refusing to sign and appro*e the pa/rollsand *ouchers representing the latter=s salaries and other emoluments.

    Huertes &as the %ssistant 9unicipal :reasurer of )indangan but because she &as detailed toother municipalities, she &as dropped off the pa/roll. )he &as 4ust gi*en *ouchers that she coulduse to claim her salar/ upon presentation of clearance from the different offices &here she &asdetailed. %ccording to lorente, the dela/ in the release of Huertes= salar/ &as because he &astr/ing to *erif/ the claims of o*erpa/ment b/ the 9unicipalit/ of PiVan.

    +o&e*er, )andiganba/an found lorente guilt/. "t found that the dela/ in the release of thesalar/ &as unreasonable and &as done to harass Huertes because the 9a/or &anted to assignhis political protXgXe to the position of 9unicipal :reasurer b/passing Huertes &ho &as ne3t inseniorit/. "t also too> note that such dela/ caused difficulties in meeting her famil/=s financialobligations li>e pa/ing for the tuition of her children.

    Issues+1. 7ON prosecution established the elements of undue in4ur/ and bad faith. No.2. 7ON )ec.6#e$ R%6A1 can be committed through nonfeasance.

    >e+ !ndue ?n=ury Ele ents o( undue n ur- t&at ust *e !roven *e-ond reasona*le dou*t+

    #1$ :hat the accused is a public officer or a pri*ate person charged in conspirac/ &ith theformer

    #2$ :hat the public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his or her official duties in relation to his0her public positions

    #6$ :hat he0she causes undue in4ur/ to an/ part/, &hether the go*=t or a pri*ate part/# $ :hat the public officer has acted &ith manifest partialit/, e*ident bad faith or gross

    ine3cusable negligence- Undue n ur- re@u res !roo( o( a'tual n ur- or da a%e and ust *e s!e' ( ed,

    @uant ( ed and !roven to t&e !o nt o( oral 'erta nt-o Undue+ more than necessar/, not proper or illegalo In ur-+ an/ &rong or damage done to another, either in his person, rights, reputation or

    propert/ the in*asion of an/ legall/ protected interest of another - "n this case, the allegations of financial stress caused b/ the dela/ in the release of

    Huertes= salar/ &as inadeDuate and largel/ speculati*e this does not satisf/ the reDuirementfor undue in4ur/

    >e+ Evident ad @aith- "t &as Huertes= failure to submit the reDuired clearance that caused the dela/ in the release

    of her salaries- )uch fault cannot be attributed to the lorente- Bad (a t& imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliDuit/ and conscious doing of a

    &rong a breach of s&orn dut/ through some moti*e or intent or ill &ill it parta>es of the natureof fraud these &ere absent in this case

    >e+ violation of Sec.A e/- :his section re@u res a do n% or a =ISFEASANCE- :he acts imputed to lorente more properl/ falls under a non(easan'e since it in*ol*es a

    failure to do something according to the court this offense more properl/ falls under Se'.;/(0 o B#f$ Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or reDuest, &ithout sufficient 4ustification, to

    act &ithin a reasonable time on an/ matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining,directl/ or indirectl/, from an/ person interested in the matter some pecuniar/ or material benefit

    or ad*antage, or for purpose of fa*oring his o&n interest or gi*ing undue ad*antage in fa*or of or discriminating against an/ other interested part/.B

    o In t& s 'ase, t&e 'r nal a't s t&e ne%le't or re(usal to a't ) n reasona*le t eand not t&e undue n ur-

    - +o&e*er, since this is not the crime charged to lorente, the )C refused to rule on hisliabilit/ under this pro*ision

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    13/28

    Held 5 Petitioners cannot be held liable since the/ acted &ithin the scope of their authorit/ and&ithout malice.

    One purpose of %rt. 2 is to end the briber/ s/stem, &here the public official, for some flims/e3cuse, dela/s or refuses the performance of his dut/ until he gets a bribe. :he pro*ision!resu!!oses t&at t&e re(usal or o ss on o( a !u*l ' o(( ' al to !er(or & s o(( ' al dut- sattr *uta*le to al 'e or ne8'usa*le ne%l %en'e.

    "t has not e*en been alleged that the 9a/or s refusal to act on the application &as an attemptto compel him to resort to briber/. "t cannot be said either that the ma/or and the municipaltreasurer &ere moti*ated b/ personal spite or &ere grossl/ negligent in refusing to issue thepermit and license to urado. "t &as not sho&n also that the petitioners singled out the pri*aterespondent for persecution. Neither does it appear that the petitioners stood to gain personall/from refusing to issue to urado the ma/orIs permit and license he needed.

    Pet t oners a'ted ) t& n t&e s'o!e o( t&e r aut&or t- and n 'onsonan'e ) t& t&e r &onest nter!retat on o( t&e resolut on. It )as not (or t&e to rule on ts val d t-. "n theabsence of a 4udicial decision declaring it in*alid, its legalit/ &ould ha*e to be presumed. %se3ecuti*e officials of the municipalit/, the/ had the dut/ to enforce it as long as it had not beenrepealed b/ the )angguniang a/an or annulled b/ the courts.

    W-l e v. Raran%,=a- #J, "11#

    :he petitioners, officers of the ?nited )tates Na*/ stationed in the countr/, &ere responsible for a column read b/ the base personnel &hich mentioned 4Aur n%G in relation to the prohibited actof appropriating confiscated items for personal use, and described her as a disgrace to her di*ision! and the Office of Pro*ost 9arshal. Prior to the publication, the Office of the Pro*ost9arshal e3plicitl/ recommended the deletion of the name %uring! if the article &ere to bepublished. Not&ithstanding the same, the article &hich continued to contain the name %uring!&as appro*ed b/ petitioners and published.

    Respondent %urora is the onl/ %uring! in the Office of the Pro*ost 9arshal and it &as alsoconclusi*el/ pro*en that she &as the person mentioned in the column &hen one of thepetitioners &rote her an apolog/ letter for the inad*ertent publication. %urora filed a suit for damages. Petitioners countered that the/ acted in the performance of their official functions asofficers of the ?) Na*/ and are therefore immune from suit.

    Held 5 Petitioner officers are liable in their personal capacities, for a tortious act, for damagescaused to %urora.

    T&e la) does not allo) t&e 'o ss on o( 'r es n t&e na e o( o(( ' al dut-. Pu*l 'o(( ' als 'an *e &eld !ersonall- a''ounta*le, (or a'ts 'la ed to &ave *een !er(or ed n'onne't on ) t& o(( ' al dut es, )&ere t&e- a'ted ultra#vires or in (ad fait). +ere, the actsof petitioners are ultra *ires and cannot be part of official dut/. "t &as a tortious act &hichridiculed the pri*ate respondent. +ence, Petitioners are liable in their personal capacities for thedamages the/ caused the pri*ate respondent.

    s$ to promote mergers andconsolidations to ban>s that &ould undergo such corporate combinations. +is act of introducingdifferent bu/ers &ere done in furtherance of such polic/

    Ta*uena v. Sand %an*a-an,Fe*ruar- "9, "119

    :abuena and Peralta &ere charged &ith alversat on b/ the )andiganba/an. :he/ &erealleged to ha*e mal*ersed P22= ll on (ro t&e =an la Internat onal A r!ort Aut&or t- /=IAA0(unds )& le t&e- )ere a't n% as t&e ent t- s 5en. =ana%er and F nan'e Serv 'es =ana%er.

    %ccording to :abuena, the amounts &ere disbursed in fa*or of the Philippine NationalConstruction Corporation #PNCC$ in settlement of an outstanding obligation. +o&e*er, the)andiganba/an found that no such outstanding obligation e3isted so it con*icted :abuena andPeralta of the crime charged.

    :abuena=s defense &as that he &as *erball/ instructed b/ President 9arcos to cause suchdisbursements. Hurthermore, he recei*ed, from 9s. @imenee 16

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    14/28

    President. "n obedience to the memorandum, :abuena sought the help of Peralta and causedthe &ithdra&al of the said amount form 9"%%=s funds and the same &as turned o*er to 9s.@imene< &ho issued a receipt.

    Issue+ 7ON :abuena &as guilt/ of mal*ersation. NO.

    Held+ ?pon presentation of the 9arcos 9emorandum, the )C ruled in fa*or of :abuena- :he )C opined that :abuena had no other choice but to ma>e the &ithdra&als because

    the memorandum reDuired him to do so. He 'ould not *e (aulted ( & s a't )as n o*ed en'eand 'o !l an'e ) t& t&e !res dent al d re't ve. "t is undisputed that Pres. 9arcos &as:abuena=s superior and that the former e3ercised control o*er go*ernment agencies such as9"%% and PNCC

    - :he )C conceded that t&e e orandu )as le%al on ts (a'e and t&e de(ense o( %ood (a t& !ro((ered *- Ta*uena ust *e 'ons dered he acted under the honest belief that the PQQ9 &as a due and demandable debt

    - )C noted that even ( t&e order s su*se@uentl- (ound lle%al, ( t s le%al on ts (a'e,and t&e su*ord nate s not a)are o( ts lle%al t-, t&e su*ord nate s not l a*le in thiscase, there &ould onl/ be a mista>e of fact committed in good faith.

    - Not ever- unaut&or ed !a- ent o( !u*l ' (unds n alversat on.- T&ere s alversat on &hen the public officer &ho has the custod/ of the public funds

    should appropriate the same, or shall ta>e or misappropriate or shall consent, or throughabandonment or negligence shall permit an/ other person to ta>e such public funds. 7here thepa/ment of public funds has been made in good faith, and there is reasonable ground to belie*ethat the public officer to &hom the fund had been paid &as entitled thereto, he is deemed toha*e acted in good faith, there is no criminal intent, and the pa/ment, if it turns out that it isunauthorie him liable for the act

    - :a>ing e*er/thing in consideration, )C found Ta*uena ent tled to t&e ust (- n%' r'u stan'e o( o*ed en'e to an order ssued *- a su!er or (or so e la)(ul !ur!ose.

    5ar' a v. Sand %an*a-an and O(( 'e o( t &e O *uds an,une ##, #$$2

    5eneral 5ar' a, P=A ' o !troller, along &ith his &ife and >ids, &ere charged &ith *iolation of R%16 . +e &as alleged to ha*e amassed mone/ and propert/ &hich &as manifestl/disproportionate to his la&ful income as a soldier. % ci*il case for forfeiture &as filed &ith the)andiganba/an among the other criminal cases against @arcia. @arcia filed a 9otion to -ismisson the ground that the )andiganba/an did not ha*e 4urisdiction o*er the ci*il case of forfeitureunder R%16 . +e alleges that the proper court for such action is the R:C as pro*ided for in)ec.2# $ of the said la&. Hurthermore, he argues that the 4urisdiction of the )andiganba/an inci*il actions pertains onl/ to separate actions for reco*er/ of unla&full/ acDuired propert/ againstPres. 9arcos, his famil/ and cronies as can be gleaned from P-1 A .

    Issue+ 7ON )andiganba/an has 4urisdiction o*er petitions for forfeiture under R%16 . E)

    Held+ T&e SC &as alread- ruled n *epu(lic v. Sandi!an(ayan t&at ur sd 't on over v olat ons o( RA;$"1 and RA";91 s lod%ed ) t& t&e Sand %an*a-an

    - )C noted R%82 under &hich la&, the Sand %an*a-an s vested ) t& E8'lus veOr % nal ur sd 't on n all 'ases nvolv n% v olat ons o( RA;$"1, RA";91 and so e!rov s ons o( t&e RPC

    - Republic *. )andiganba/an also recogni+ )ec.1 of P-18 states that %ll emplo/ee s of the casinos and rela ted ser*ices shallbe classified as confidential appointees.! :his means that )alas &as properl/ classified as aconfidential emplo/ee

    Salas- contention+ "t is the actual nature of an emplo/ee=s functions &hich determined &hether or not a position is primaril/ confidential

    'ccordin! to SC+ Pagcor=s contention must fail . :he classification under P-18 is NO:absolute and all(encompassing

    Be(ore t&e !assa%e o( t&e C v l Serv 'e A't, t&ere )ere # nstan'es )&en a !os t on s'ons dered to *e !r ar l- 'on( dent al

    7hen the president declared the position as such 7hen the nature of the functions of the office sho& a close intimac/! bet&een the

    appointee and the appointing po&er &hich insures freedom of intercourse &ithoutembarrassment or freedom from misgi*ings of betra/als of personal trust or confidential matters of state

    W t& t&e ena't ent o( C v l Serv 'e A't o( "121, t&e nature o( t&e !os t on deter nes)&et&er a !os t on s !r ar l- 'on( dent al, !ol '-3deter n n% or & %&l- te'&n 'al

    - E3ecuti*e pronouncements li>e the Duoted portion of P-18 can be no more than initialdeterminations that are not conclusi*e in case of conflict a strict reading of the Duotedpro*ision &ill *iolate the constitutionall/ protected right of an emplo/ee to securit/ of tenure

    4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 1

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    15/28

    - 7ho &ill determine the nature of the position! in case of conflict5 the 'ourt has the final&ord such nature s deter ned not *- t&e t tle *ut *- t&e nature o( t&e tas t&at sentrusted to t

    - )% %) is NO: % CONH"-EN:"% E9P O EE- C% correctl/ applied the 4!ro8 t- ruleG enunciated in -e los )antos *. 9allare case5

    BE*er/ appointment implies confidence, but much more than ordinar/ confidence isreposed in the occupant of a position that is primaril/ confidential. :he latter phrase denotes notonl/ confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but primaril/ closeintimac/ &hich ensures freedom of intercourse &ithout embarrassment or freedom frommisgi*ings of betra/als of personal trust or confidential matters of state. . . .B

    - Con( dent al e !lo-ee+ predominant reason &h/ he &as chosen for the office &asbecause the appointing authorit/ belie*ed that he can share a close intimate relationship &iththe former &hich ensures freedom of discussion &0o fear of embarrassment or misgi*ings of possible betra/al of personal trust or confidential matters of state

    - Pro8 t- Rule+ "f the position occupied is remote from that of the appointing authorit/,element of trust is no longer predominant

    - )alas= position in*ol*es ordinar/ and routinar/ duties and functions. %lso his meager salar/of P2,2AA a month belies the confidential nature of his duties

    Le'aro v. Sand %an*a-an,=ar'& #2, "111

    Hrancisco ecaro< #father$ &as the 9a/or &hile his son enlie &as the outgoing chairman of theMabataang aranga/ #M $ and also a member of the )angguniang a/an #) $. :he/ &erecon*icted of 16 counts of estafa throu gh falsification of public documen ts committed in this &a/.

    "n 1 8Q election, oel Red &on as M Chairman and &as subseDuentl/ appointed b/ Pres.9arcos as member of the ) . +e recei*ed a telegram from the Nat=l Chairperson of theorgani his oath before %ssembl/&oman Re/es. +o&e*er, %dmin code then

    in force stated that members of the atasang Pambansa &ere not authorie+ alsification C)ar!es- )C noted that the crime charged reDuired a sho&ing that the malefactors acted &ith

    criminal intent or malice. =ere ud% ental error cannot be considered to amount to thereDuired criminal intent or malice"n this case, )C found clear manifestations of good faith and lac> of criminal intent :here is a!resu !t on o( %ood (a t& )&en a'ts are done n t&e !er(or an'e o( o(( ' al dut- 9a/or

    ecaroes in a document statements in a narration of facts#b$ offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated#c$ facts narrated b/ the offender are absolutel/ false and,#d$ per*ersion of truth in the narration of facts &as made &ith the &rongful intent of in4uring

    a third person- " st and ; rd ele ents are ss n% since the 9a/or &as not ma>ing a narration of facts

    &hen he certified to the correctness of the pa/roll &hich included his son=s name and his belief that enlie &as still in a holdo*er capacit/ had *alid basis and is not absolutel/ false

    San%%un an% Ba-an o( San Andres, Catanduanes, v. CA,anuar- " , "11J

    %ntonio &as elected baranga/ captain, and later president of the %ssociation of aranga/Councils #% C$. "n such capacit/ and pursuant to @C of 1 86, he &as appointed b/ thePresident as member of the )angguniang a/an #) $. -" @ )ec declared the election for president of Hederation of %ssociation of aranga/ Councils #H% C$, in &hich %ntonio &as a*oting member, *oid for &ant of Duorum. % reorgani

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    16/28

    Resolution declaring that he had no legal basis for such claim. -" @ opined that %ntonio did not*acate his position because h e &as merel/ designated to )P. ) refused to budge.

    TC 5 resignation ineffecti*e Y inoperati*e because there &as no acceptance. C% affirmed.

    Issue"+ 7ON resignation &as *alid and complete

    Held+ No. RESI5NATION act of gi*ing up or the act of an officer b/ &hich he declines hisoffice and renounces the further right to use it.

    For a 'o !lete and o!erat ve res %nat on (ro !u*l ' o(( 'e, there must be5#a$ intention to relinDuish a part of the term#b$ an act of relinDuishment Y#c$ an acceptance b/ the proper authorit/.

    L5C "1J; pro*ides that the resignation of a member of the sanggunian shall be acted upon b/the sanggunian concerned. Here, & s res %nat on letter )as addressed onl- to t&e un ' !al

    a-or.

    ?nder established 4urisprudence, resignations, in the absence of statutor/ pro*isions as to&hom the/ should be submitted, should be tendered to t&e a !!o nt n% !erson or *od-.

    Se'. "? , BP ;;9+ "t is the President that appoints members of the sangguniang ba/an. :hus,Anton o s&ould &ave su* tted & s letter o( res %nat on to t&e Pres dent, or & s alter e%o,t&e DIL5 Se'retar-.

    %lthough he supposedl/ furnished the -" @ &ith a cop/ o f his letter, there is no sho&in g that it&as dul/ recei*ed, much less, that it &as acted upon.

    6 rd reDuisite &as therefore lac>ing.

    Issue#+ 7ON %ntonio abandoned his office

    Held+ es. ABANDON=ENT OF OFFICE *oluntar/ relinDuishment of an office b/ the holder,&ith the intention of terminating his possession and control thereof. "t is a s!e' es o( res %nat on )& le res %nat on n %eneral s a (or al rel n@u s& ent, a*andon ent s avoluntar- rel n@u s& ent t&rou%& non3user.

    NON3USER neglect to use a pri*ilege or a right or to e3ercise an easement or an office.( :he ntent to a*andon ust *e 'lear. )uch intention ma/ be e3press or inferred from his o&nconduct.

    # essent al ele ents o( a*andon ent+#a$ intention to abandon and#b$ an o*ert or e3ternal! act b/ &hich the intention is carried into effect.

    7hen an officer is 4des %natedG to another post, he is usuall/ called upon to discharge dut esn add t on to his regular responsibilities. :he la& does not reDuire the public ser*ant to resign

    from his original post. Rather, the la) allo)s & to 'on'urrentl- d s'&ar%e t&e (un't ons o( *ot& o(( 'es.

    %ntonio=s o*ert acts, silence, inaction and acDuiescence, &hen %Duino succeeded him to hisoriginal position, sho& that he had abandoned the contested office. 7hile a temporar/ or accidental failure to perform his duties in a single instance or during a short period &ill notoperate as an abandonment, /et if the officer refuses or neglects to e3ercise the functions of the

    office for so long a period as to reasonable &arrant the presumption that he does not desire or intend to perform the duties of the office at all, he &ill be held to ha*e abandoned it.

    Pu*l ' Interest Center, In'. v. El a,une ;$, #$$

    Elma &as first appointed as PC@@ Chairman . ater, during his tenure as such, he &as alsoappointed as Chief Presidential egal Counsel #CP C$. +e too> his oath of office, but )a vedan- re unerat on &e a- re'e ve as CPLC.

    Issue+ 7ON position of PC@@ Chairman or that of CP C falls under the proh"bition againstmultiple offices

    Held+ es.( )ec. 16, %rt. '"" inapplicable. ut )ec. , %rt. ";( &as *iolated.

    ( )ec. is meant to la/ do&n the general rule applicable to all electi*e and appointi*e publicofficials and emplo/ees, &hile )ec. 16 is meant to be the e3ception applicable onl/ to thePresident, 'ice President, 9embers of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants.

    #1$ :he general rule in Se'. 9, Art. I:3B permits an appointi*e official to hold more than 1 officeonl/ if allo&ed b/ la& or b/ the primar/ functions of his position.!

    Occup/ing 2 go*ernment offices and performing the functions of both is o>a/ as lon% as t&eres no n'o !at * l t-. TEST+ &hether one office is subordinate to the other, in the sense that

    one office has the right to interfere &ith the other.

    +ere, an incompatibilit/ e3ists bet&een the positions of the PC@@ Chairman and the CP C. %s

    CP C, Elma &ill be reDuired to gi*e his legal opinion on his o&n actions as PC@@ Chairmanand re*ie& an/ in*estigation conducted b/ the P%@C, &hich ma/ in*ol*e himself as PC@@Chairman.

    #2$ Se'. ";, Art. &ages. Resps point out that Canoni

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    17/28

    Issue+ 7ON there e3isted an incompatibilit/

    Held. No "ncompatibilit/ but ABANDON=ENT OF OFC *oluntar/ relinDuishment of an officeb/ the holder, &ith the intention of terminating his possession and control thereof.

    E;CEP:"ON) :O NON(?)ER5#1$ temporar/ disabilit/#2$ in*oluntar/ failure to perform

    7here, &hile desiring and intending to hold office, and &ith no &illful desire or intention toabandon it, the public officer *acates it in deference to the reDuirements of a statute &hich isafter&ards declared unconstitutional, such a surrender &ill not be deemed an abandonment andthe officer ma/ reco*er the office.

    / accepting the appointment to the 2 nd office, Canonien against an erring officer or

    emplo/ee, the pro*isions in the Constitution and in R% A intended that the implementation of the order be coursed through the proper officer.

    :he functions and duties enumerated in )ec. 16, %rt. ;" of the Constitution is not e3clusi*e.Congress &as gi*en lee&a/ to prescribe, subseDuent legislation, additional po&ers to theOmbudsman.

    :he pro*isions of R% A re*eal the manifest intent of the la&ma>ers to *esto) on t&e O(( 'eo( t&e O *uds an full ad n strat ve d s' !l nar- aut&or t-. :hese pro*isions co*er theentire gamut of administrati*e ad4udication &hich entails the authorit/ to recei*e complaints,conduct in*estigations, hold hearings in accordance &ith its rules of procedure, summon&itnesses and reDuire the production of documents, place under pre*enti*e suspension publicofficers and emplo/ees pending an in*estigation, determine the appropriate penalt/ imposableon erring public officers or emplo/ees as &arranted b/ the e*idence, and, necessaril/, imposethe said penalt/. Ot&er) se, t&e O *uds an )ould *e a 4toot&less t %er.G

    De Ra a v. CA,Fe*ruar- #J, #$$"

    ?pon his assumption to the position of 9a/or, de Rama &rote C)C, see>ing the recall of theappointments of 1 municipal emplo/ees , alleging that these &ere 4 dn %&t a!!o nt entsGo( t&e (or er a-or. C)C denied recall.

    Issue+ 7ON appointments made b/ former ma/or &ere *alid

    Held+ :he 1 emplo/ees &ere dul/ appointed. :here &as no sho&ing that an/ of the, &ere notDualified for the positions the/ &ere appointed to. 9oreo*er, their appointments too> effect assoon as the/ &ere dul/ attested to b/ the C)C +ead.

    4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 1

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    18/28

    ( ?pon the issuance of an appointment and the appointee=s assumption of the position in the ci*ilser*ice, he acDuires a legal right &hich cannot be ta>en a&a/ either b/ re*ocation of theappointment or b/ remo*al e3cept for cause and &ith pre*ious notice and hearing.

    ( "t is &ell(settled that the !erson assu n% a !os t on n t&e ' v l serv 'e under a 'o !leteda!!o nt ent a'@u res a le%al, and not ust an e@u ta*le, r %&t to t&e !os t on. :his right isprotected not onl/ b/ statute, but b/ the Constitution as &ell.

    ( +ere, there &as no pre*ious notice, much less a hearing. -e Rama did not accord them dueprocess.

    ( ?nder the Omnibus "mplementing Regulations of the %dmin Code, an appointment acceptedb/ the appointee cannot be &ithdra&n or re*o>ed b/ the appointing authorit/ and shall remain inforce and in effect until disappro*ed b/ the C)C.

    An a!!roved a!!o nt ent a- st ll *e re'alled on an- o( t&e (( %rounds+#a$ non(compliance &ith the procedures0 criteria pro*ided in the agenc/=s 9erit Promotion

    Plan#b$ failure to pass through the agenc/=s )election0Promotion oard#c$ *iolation of the e3isting collecti*e agreement bet&een management and emplo/ees

    relati*e to promotion#d$ *iolation of other e3isting ci*il ser*ice la&, rules and regulations.

    astl/, the constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments! applies onl/ to the President or acting President.

    De Leon v. CA and =ontesa,anuar- ##, #$$"

    Pri*ate respondent %tt/. 9ontesa ( not a Career E3ecuti*e )er*ice Officer #CE)O$ or a member of the Career E3ecuti*e )er*ice #CE)$ ( &as appointed 9inistr/ egal Counsel CE)O "' in the9inistr/ of ocal @o*ernment b/ then 9inister Pimentel. +is appointment &as appro*ed aspermanent b/ the C)C.

    President %Duino promulgated EO 2 2 reorganied &ith %ssistant ureau -irectors under the generic title -irector """,

    9ontesa &as reinstated as -epartment egal Counsel and0or -irector """.L

    )ubseDuentl/, -" @ )ecretar/ %lunan issued a -epartment Order relie*ing 9ontesa of hiscurrent duties and reassigning him as -irector """ #%ssistant Regional -irector$ of Region ;" inthe interest of public ser*ice and the smooth flo& of operations in the concerned offices.!9ontesa did not report to this ne&l/ assigned position and instead filed a A(da/ sic> lea*e.?pon e3piration thereof, he submitted a memorandum signif/ing his intent to re(assume hisposition as -epartment egal Counsel0Chief of egal )er*ice to acting )ecretar/ %guirre, &hoad*ised 9ontesa to report to Region ;" immediatel/. C)C affirmed 9ontesa=s reassignmentthrough Resolution.

    9ontesa did not report for &or> still he filed a petition for re*ie& &ith the C% &hich did not issuea :RO0preliminar/ in4unction against the C)C et al.

    16 -ec 1 Q5 President Ramos, upon recommendation of the -epartment, issued %O 26Q,dropping pri*ate respondent 9ontesa, -irector """, egal )er*ice, from the roster of publicser*ants for serious neglect of dut/ and absences &ithout lea*e.

    2Q %pril 1 5 C% ruled in fa*or of pri*ate respondent. "t declared the -epartment Order reassigning 9ontesa null and *oid, insofar as it affects the latter and ordered his reinstatementas -epartment egal Counsel0Chief of egal )er*ices, &ith pa/ment of bac> salaries.

    oth sides mo*ed for reconsideration 9ontesa &anting his benefits and petitioners citingRamos=s %O. C% modified its decision, holding the %O null and *oid insofar as it affects 9ontesaand also granting him his other allo&ances and stuff.

    HELD RATIO+/"0 =ontesa does not &ave t&e re@u red Career E8e'ut ve Serv 'e el % * l t-. :he position of 9inistr/ egal Counsel ( CE)O "' is embraced in the CE), and to be eligible therefor, a CE)e3amination should be ta>en Jand passed, duhL. Not ha*ing ta>en the necessar/ CE) e3am,9ontesa did not at the time of his appointment up to the present, possess eligibilit/ for a positionin the CE).

    /#0 =ontesa s a!!o nt ent d d not atta n !er anen'-. ConseDuentl/, his appointment as9inistr/ egal Counsel CE)O "'0 -epartment egal Counsel and0or -irector """, &as merel/temporar/. :hus, he could be transferred or reassigned &ithout *iolating his right to securit/ of tenure, and arguments regarding his unconsented transfer are not applicable.Non(eligibles holding permanent appointments to CE) positions &ere ne*er meant to remainimmobile in their status. Other&ise, their lac> of eligibilit/ &ould be a premium *esting them &ithpermanenc/ in CE) positions, a pri*ilege e*en their eligible counterparts do not en4o/.

    A*ella, r. v. CSC, Nove *er "9, #$$?

    1 5 Petitioner %bella r, la&/er, retired as -epartment 9anager of the egal )er*ices-epartment of the no& Philippine Economic Uone %uthorit/. +e held a ci*il ser*ice eligibilit/ for the position of -epartment 9anager pursuant to C)C Resolution 8QA J1 L.

    C)C issued 9emorandum Circular 21 J1 L &hich redefined the eligibilit/ for positions in theCE) and pro*ides that "ncumbents of positions &hich are declared to be Career E3ecuti*e)er*ice positions for the first time pursuant to this Resolution &ho hold permanent appointmentsthereto shall remain under permanent status in their respecti*e positions. +o&e*er, uponpromotion or transfer to other Career E3ecuti*e )er*ice positions, these incumbents shall beunder temporar/ status in said other CE) positions until the/ Dualif/.!

    1 85 Petitioner &as hired b/ )ubic a/ 9etropolitan %uthorit/ on a contractual basis. +e &as

    issued a permanent emplo/ment b/ ) 9% as -epartment 9anager """, abor and Emplo/mentCenter . ?pon submission to the C)C ho&e*er, it &as disappro*ed on the ground thatpetitioner=s eligibilit/ &as not appropriate. +ence, pursuant to the 1 Circular, he &as issueda temporar/ appointment to the same position. C)C affirmed ) 9%=s action. Petitioner filed a petition for re*ie& &ith the C%, assailing the constitutionalit/ of the 1Circular as it rendered his earned ci*il ser*ice eligibilit/ ineffecti*e for the position of -epartment9anager """.

    C% s>irted the constitutionalit/ issue and held that5 Onl/ the appointing officer, Citing C)C9emorandum Circular A 1 8 and 9atha/ *. Ci*il )er*ice Commission, ma/ reDuestreconsideration of the action ta>en b/ the C)C on appointments. :hus, petitioner did not ha*elegal standing to Duestion the disappro*al of his appointment.

    4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 18

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    19/28

    On reconsideration, C% added that petitioner &as not the real part/ in interest, as hisappointment &as dependent on the C)C=s appro*al. +e had no *ested right in the office, sincehis appointment &as disappro*ed. HELD RATIO+/"0 Pet t oner &as stand n% to '&allen%e CSC s d sa!!rovalM &e s also t&e real !art- n

    nterest. Z )C discussed diff bet&een standing and RP"" the former has constitutional underpinnings,the latter is one &ho &ould be benefited or in4ured b/ the 4udgment, or one entitled to the a*ailsof the suit.

    "f legal standing is granted to challenge the constitutionalit/ or *alidit/ of a la& or go*ernmentalact despite lac> of personal in4ur/ on the challenger=s part, then more so should petitioner beallo&ed to contest the C)C Order disappro*ing his appointment. +e &as clearl/ pre4udiced b/the disappro*al, since he could not continue his office.

    %lso, &hile the appoi nting authorit/ is ind eed ad*ersel/ affected b/ the C)C Order and is a realpart/ in interest, the appointee is rightl/ a real part/ in interest too ( he is pre*ented fromassuming the office in a permanent capacit/ and he &ould necessaril/ benefit if a fa*orable

    4udgment is obtained, as an appro*ed appointment &ould confer on him all the rights andpri*ileges of a permanent appointee.

    /#0 But t&e CSC 'orre'tl- den ed & s !er anent a!!o nt ent, !et t oner not !ossess n%CES el % * l t-. Positions in the career ser*ice, for &hich appointments reDuire e3aminations,are grouped into three ma4or le*els ( those in the third le*el #CE) positions$ reDuire Career )er*ice E3ecuti*e Eligibilit/ #C)EE$ as a reDuirement for permanent appointment.

    Petitioner argues that his eligibilit/, through the E3ecuti*e eadership and 9anagement trainingprogram Junder the 1 C)C ResolutionL, could no longer be affected b/ a ne& eligibilit/reDuirement. +e claims that being eligible as -epartment 9anager of the egal )er*ices-epartment, PEU% he should retain his eligibilit/ for the position of -epartment 9anager """,

    abor and Emplo/ment Center , ) 9%, not&ithstanding the classification of the latter as a CE)position.

    (:he Circular did not re*o>e petitioner=s E 9 eligibilit/. "t=s 4ust that under it, his eligibilit/ for aCE) position &as inadeDuate. Eligibilit/ must conform to the reDuirements of the position ( inpetitioner=s case, a C)EE &as necessar/.

    :hus, petitioner=s right to securit/ of tenure &as not impaired. Hirst, securit/ of tenure in the CE)( e3cept in the case of first and second le*el emplo/ees in the ci*il ser*ice ( pertains onl/ toran>, not to the position to &hich the emplo/ee ma/ be appointed. )econd, petitioner had

    neither ran> nor position prior to his reemplo/ment. /;0 No need (or !r or not 'e and &ear n%. Classification of positions in career ser*ice &as aDuasi(legislati*e, not a Duasi(4udicial, issuance. :he C)C, in appro*ing or disappro*ing anappointment, merel/ e3amines the conformit/ of the appointment &ith the la& and theappointee=s possession of all the minimum Dualifications and none of the disDualification.

    Re olona v. CSC,Au%ust #, #$$"

    Remolona is the Postmaster at the Postal Office )er*ice in "nfanta, Suethe e3amination in Caga/an de Oro and got a rating of QW.

    -uring the preliminar/ in*estigation conducted b/ -irector Pasion, onl/ petitioner appeared andsigned a &ritten statement of facts &hich summarie eligibilit/. +e also said that his &ife had no >no&ledge thereof. -irector recommended the filing of the appropriate administrati*e action against petitioner but absol*edthe 9rs. since it has not been sho&n that she &illfull/ participated in the offense.

    % formal charge &as filed against both the spouses for possession of fa>e eligibilit/, falsificationand dishonest/. C)C Regional -irector, after hearing, issued a 9emorandum recommendingthat the spouses be found guilt/ as charged. C)C adopted the recommendation and meted thepenalt/ of dismissal to spouses Remolona, but on 9R, C)C absol*ed Ner/. C% dismissed thepetition for re*ie& filed b/ the petitioner.

    ISSUE+ 7ON a ci*il ser*ice emplo/ee can be dismissed from the go*ernment ser*ice for anoffense &hich is not &or>(related or &hich is not connected &ith the performance of his officialdut/.

    HELD RATIO+ 6ES.

    /"0 Re olona, %u lt- o( d s&onest-, a %rave o((ense )& '& need not *e 'o tted n t&e'ourse o( t&e !er(or an'e o( dut- *- t&e !erson '&ar%ed.

    -ishonest/ is considered a gra*e offense punishable b/ dismissal for the first offense under )ection 26, Rule ;"' of the Rules "mplementing oo> ' of %dministrati*e Code of 1 8 . %nd therule is that dishonest/, in order to &arrant dismissal, need not be committed in the course of theperformance of dut/ b/ the person charged.

    Rationale5 if a go*ernment officer or emplo/ee is dishonest or is guilt/ of oppression or gra*emisconduct, e*en if said defects of character are not connected connected &ith his office, the/affect his right to continue in office. :he @o*ernment cannot tolerate in its ser*ice a dishonestofficial, e*en if he performs his duties correctl/ and &ell, because b/ reason of his go*ernmentposition, he is gi*en more and ample opportunit/ to commit acts of dishonest/ against his fello&men, e*en against offices and entities of the go*ernment other than the office &here he isemplo/ed and b/ reason of his office, he en4o/s and possesses a certain influence and po&er

    &hich renders the *ictims of his gra*e misconduct, oppression and dishonest/ less disposedand prepared to resist and to counteract his e*il acts and actuations. :he pri*ate life of anemplo/ee cannot be segregated from his public life. -ishonest/ ine*itabl/ reflects on the fitnessof the officer or emplo/ee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the ser*ice.

    /#0 Re olona s r %&t to due !ro'ess )as not v olated )&en &e )as not ass sted *-'ounsel dur n% t&e !rel nar- nvest %at on and & s 'on(ess on a- *e used as ev den'eto ust (- d s ssal. :he right to counsel in the ill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in acriminal case under custodial in*estigation. 7hile in*estigations conducted b/ an administrati*ebod/ ma/ at times be a>in to a criminal proceeding, under e3isting la&s JCi*il )er*ice %ct and"mplementing Rules of the %dmin CodeL, a part/ in an administrati*e inDuir/ ma/ or ma/ not beassisted b/ counsel, irrespecti*e of the nature of the charges and of the respondentIs capacit/ torepresent himself, and no dut/ rests on such bod/ to furnish the person being in*estigated &ith

    4uanchoF4hoeFmattFcamsF4essFsheilaFnanc/Fl/nnFcathGFterGF4anetteFmi>e 1

  • 8/11/2019 Pub Off Case Digests

    20/28

    counsel. "n an administrati*e proceeding, respondent has the option of engaging the ser*ices of counsel or not.

    Remolona &as not accused of an/ crime in the in*estigation &hich &as conducted merel/ for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and &hether there is prima facie e*idence sufficient to forma belief that an offense cogni, aliuagranch.

    2 an 1 8 5 ernardo deposited PQAAM in his sa*ings account. %fter ma>ing the deposit, hephotocopied that page in his ban> passboo> &here the deposit &as reflected and, on the sameda/, &ithdre& the amount.

    +e e3e