Pub Off Case Digests
Short Description
Pub Off digests...
Description
THE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ELECTION LAW Dean Salvador Carlota THE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS I. DEFINITIONS, DISTINCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS CLASSIFICATIONS Laurel v. Deserto, A!rl "#, #$$# Pres. Ramos issued EO 128, “reconstituting the Committee for the preparation of the National Centennial Centennial Celebrations in 18.! "t renamed the Committee Committee as the National Centennial Commission Commission #NCC$. %ppointed %ppointed to chair the reconstituted reconstituted Commission Commission &as 'ice(Presi 'ice(President dent )al*ador +. aurel. -uring -uring the term term of Pres. Estrada Estrada,, the )enat )enate e lue Ribbon Commit Committee tee recommended the prosecution b/ the Ombudsman0-O of aurel, as chair of the NCC, for *iolating the rules on public bidding, relati*e to the a&ard of centennial contracts for contracts for e3hibiting e3hibiting manifest bias in the issuance of a Notice to Proceed to a contractor e*en in the absence of a *alid contract, causing material in4ur/ to go*ernment and for participating in a scheme to preclude audit b/ CO%. "n his defense, defense, Laurel ar%ued t&at as '&ar o( t&e NCC &e )as not a !u*l' o(('er. +e argued 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*e an/ 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 the Ombudsman to in*estigate an/ malfeasance, misfeasance and non(feasance b/ a public officer or emplo/ee. Held+ E). 9echem describes describes the dele%aton to t&e ndvdual o( soe o( t&e sovere%n (un'tons o( %overnent as %overnent as the most important characteristic in determining &hether a position is a public office or not. :he Court held that the NCC performed e3ecuti*e functions, &hich concerns the implementation of the policies as set forth b/ la&. :he Constitution pro*ides in %rticle ;"' thereof that the )tate shall conser*e, promote, and populariills 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 accomplishes the specific &or> or 4ob, under his o&n responsibilit/ &ith a minimum of direction and super*ision from 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 unessential considerations considerations in *ie& of the a*ove3 entoned !rovson o( la) 'learl- n'ludn% !ettoner )t&n t&e de(nton o( a !u*l' o(('er.
II. ELI5IBILIT6 AND 7UALIFICATIONS 7UALIFICATIONS Cvl L*ertes Unon v. E8e'utve Se'retar-, Fe*ruar- ##, " 11" % petition see>ing a declaration of unconstitutionalit/ of E3ecuti*e Order No. 28 on the ground that said EO b/ pro*iding that Sec. 1. Even if allowed by law or by the ordinary functions functions of his position, a member of the Cabinet, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other appointive officials of the Executive Department may, in addition to his primary position, hold not more than two positions in the government government and government government corporations and receive the corresponding corresponding compensation compensation therefor; therefor; rovided, that this limitation limitation shall not apply to ad hoc bodies or committees, committees, or to boards, councils or bodies of which the resident is the Chairman.
in effect, allo&s members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other go*ernment offices offices or positions positions in addition addition to their primar/ positions, positions, in contra*ention contra*ention of )ection 16, %rticle '"" of the 18 Constitution &hich pro*ides that the President, 'ice(President, the 9embers of the Cabinet, and their deputies deputies or assistants assistants shall not, unless other&ise pro*ided in this Constitution, hold an/ other office or emplo/ment during their tenure. Issue+ 7ON the prohibition in )ection 16, %rticle '"" of the 18 Constitution insofar as Cabinet members, members, their deputies or assistants assistants are concerned concerned admit of the broad e3ceptions 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 appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the "overnment or any subdivision, agency or instrumentalit instrumentality y thereof, thereof, including including government#own government#owned ed or controlled controlled corporation or their subsidiaries. Held+ Held+ EO 28 ") 'O"- "N)OH%R "N)OH%R %) ": %O7) 9E9ER) OH :+E C%"NE: C%"NE:,, :+E"R ?N-ER()ECRE:%R"E) ?N-ER()ECRE:%R"E) %N- %))"):%N: )ECRE:%R"E) )ECRE:%R"E) :O +O- O:+ER @O'ERN9EN: OHH"CE) OR PO)":"ON) "N %--":"ON :O :+E"R PR"9%R PO)":"ON).
T&e Cvl Serv'e Serv'e Co Cos sso son n &as no !o) !o)er er o( a!! a!!on onte tent nt e8'e e8'e!t !t ove overr ts o)n !ersonnel. Neither does it ha*e the authorit/ to re*ie& the appointments made b/ other offices e3cept e3cept onl/ to ascert ascertain ain if the appoint appointee ee posses possesses ses the reDuired reDuired Dualifi Dualificat cations ions.. T&e deternaton o( )&o aon% as!rants )t& t&e nu statutor- @ual('atons s&ould *e !re(erred *elon%s to t&e a!!ontn% aut&ort- and not t&e Cvl Serv'e Cosson. "t cannot disallo& an appointment because it belie*es another person is better Dualified and much less can it direct the appointment of its o&n choice. A!!ontent s a &%&l- ds'retonar- a't t&at even t&s Court 'annot 'o!el. 7hile the A!!ontent s act of appointment ma/ in proper cases be the sub4ect of mandamus, mandamus, the selection itself of the appointee ta>ing into account the totalit/ of his Dualifications, including those abstract Dualities that define his personalit/ is the prerogati*e prerogati*e of the appointing authorit/. authorit/. :his is a matter addressed onl/ to the discretion of the appointing authorit/. It s a !olt'al @ueston t&at t&e Cvl Serv'e Serv'e Cosson Cosson &as no !o)er to reve) under t&e Consttuton Consttuton and t&e a!!l'a*le la)s.
III. A'@uston o( R%&t or Ttle to O(('e 7hile all other appointi*e officials 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/ the primar/ functions of their positions, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants ma/ do so onl/ &hen e3pressl/ e3pressl/ authori )t&n t&e 'onte!lato 'onte!laton n o( t&e 'onsttuton 'onsttutonal al !ro&*to !ro&*ton n *ut are !ro!erl!ro!erl- an !oston !oston o( addtonal addtonal dutes and (un'tons on sad o(('als.
)ubseDuentl/ )ubseDuentl/,, the ne& -irector of the O9%, -r. Lu'an, Lu'an, re*o>ing the pre*ious incomplete appointment appointment of petitioner, petitioner, appointed pri*ate respondent Rocaina Lu'an Lu'an to the position in Duestion.
Renato =. La!nd v. CSC, P&l!!ne Ports Aut&ort- and uanto unsa -, =a- "?, "11" apinid &as appointed b/ the Philippine Ports %uthorit/ to the position of :erminal )uper*isor. :his appointment appointment &as protested protested b/ unsa/, unsa/, &ho contended contended that he should be designated designated terminal super*isor, or to an/ other comparable position, in *ie& of his preferential right thereto. Jeto ba /ung higher grade caseKL
An a!!ontent to a !oston n t&e 'vl serv'e s re@ured to *e su*tted to t&e CSC (or a!!roval in a!!roval in order to determine, in main, &hether the proposed appointee is Dualified to hold the position and &hether or not the rules pertinent to the process of appointment are follo&ed. Compliance Compliance &ith the legal reDuirements reDuirements for an appointment to a ci*il ser*ice ser*ice position is essental n order to ae t (ull- e((e'tve. 7ithout the fa*orable certification or appro*al of the Commission, in cases &hen such appro*al is reDuired, no title to the office can /et be deemed to be permanen permanentl/ tl/ *ested in fa*or of the appointee, and the appointment can still be recalled or &ithdra&n b/ the appointing authorit/. ?ntil authorit/. ?ntil an appointment has become a completed act, it &ould li>e&ise be precipitate to in*o>e the rule on securit/ of tenure.
Complaining Complaining that the PP% had not acted on his protest, protest, unsa/ &ent to the Ci*il )er*ice Commission Commission and challenged challenged apinidIs appointment appointment on the same grounds he had earlier raised before the PP%. PP%. "n a resolution, the Commission held that unsa/ had a preferential right to the position and ordered that he be appointed thereto. Issue+ 7ON the Ci*il )er*ice Commission authoried b/ -r. ucman. Held+ E), ": 7%) '%"- RE'OME-.
:he tolerance, acDuiescence or mista>e of the proper officials, resulting in the non(obser*ance of the pertinent rules on the matter does not render the legal reDuirement, on the necessit/ necessit/ of appro*al of the Commissioner of Ci*il )er*ice of appointments, ineffecti*e and unenforceable. T&e e!lo-ee, e!lo-ee, )&ose a!!ontent a!!ontent )as not a!!roved, a!!roved, a- onl- *e 'onsdered as a de facto o(('er. =at*a% v. Ben!a-o, CO9EEC en banc appointed Pet as “%cting -irector "'! of the E"-. @9% appointed, ad interim, interim,
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 three times. "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 petition Duestioning the appointment and the right to remain in office of enipa/o, orra and :uason, as Chairman and Commissioners of the CO9EEC, respecti*el/. Petitioner claims that the ad interim appointments of enipa/o, orra and :uason *iolate the constitutional pro*isions on the independence of the CO9EEC, as &ell as on the prohibitions on temporar/ appointments and reappointments 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"-. Issues 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 ( NO 7ON 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 Rato+ An ad interim a!!ontent s a !eranent a!!ontent *e'ause t taes e((e't edatel- and 'an no lon%er *e )t&dra)n *- t&e Presdent on'e t&e a!!ontee &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 Consttuton tsel( aes an ad nter a!!ontent !eranent n '&ara'ter *- an% t e((e'tve untl dsa!!roved *t&e Cosson on A!!ontents or untl t&e ne8t adournent 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 ad interim 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 permanent in 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*ed certainl/ 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 until another permanent appointment is issued.! “% distinction is thus made bet&een the e3ercise of such presidential prerogati*e reDuiring confirmation b/ the Commission on %ppointments &hen Congress is in session and &hen it is in recess. "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 interim appointments. "t ta>es effect at once. :he indi*idual chosen ma/ thus Dualif/ and perform his function &ithout loss of time. +is title to such office is complete. "n the language of the Constitution, the appointment is effecti*e until disappro*al b/ the Commission on %ppointments or until the ne3t ad4ournment of the Congress.=! Petitioner cites lac>=s a& -ictionar/ &hich defines the term “ad interim! to mean “in the meantime! or “for the time being.! +ence, petitioner argues that an ad interim appointment is undoubtedl/ temporar/ in character. +o&e*er, the term “ad interim appointment!, as used in letters of appointment signed b/ the President, means a permanent appointment made b/ the President 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 a
protection that !JnLo officer or emplo/ee in the ci*il ser*ice shall be remo*ed or suspended e3cept for cause pro*ided b/ la&.! :hus, an ad interim appointment b ecomes complete and irre*ocable once the appointee has Dualified into office. :he &ithdra&al or re*ocation of anad interim appointment is possible onl/ if it is communicated to the appointee before the moment he Dualifies, and an/ &ithdra&al or re*ocation thereafter is tantamount to remo*al from office. Once an 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 and hearing, consistent &ith the reDuirements of due process. %n ad interi m appointment can be terminated for t&o causes specified in the Constitution. :he first cause is the dsa!!roval o( &s ad interim a!!ontent *- t&e Cosson on A!!ontents. :he second cause is the adournent o( Con%ress )t&out t&e Cosson on A!!ontents a'tn% on &s a!!ontent. :hese t&o causes are resolutor/ conditions e3pressl/ 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&,an a!!ontent or des%naton n a te!orar- or a'tn% 'a!a't- 'an *e )t&dra)n or revoed at t&e !leasure o( t&e a!!ontn% !o)er . % temporar/ or acting appointee does not en4o/ an/ securit/ of tenure, no matter ho& briefl/. :his is the >ind of appointment that the Constitution prohibits the President from ma>ing to the three independent constitutional commissions, including the CO9EEC. "f enipa/o, orra and :uason &ere not e3tended ad interim appointments to fill up the three *acancies in the CO9EEC, there &ould onl/ ha*e been one di*ision functioning in the CO9EEC instead of t&o during the 9a/ 2AA1 elections. Considering that the Constitution reDuires that “all 3 3 3 election cases shall be heard and decided in di*ision!, the remaining one di*ision &ould ha*e been s&ed &ith election cases. 9oreo*er, since under the Constitution motions 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 situation considering that the Commissioners are e3pected to tra*el around the countr/ before, during and 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 CO9EEC. E*identl/, the e3ercise b/ the President in the instant case of her constitutional po&er to ma>e ad interim appointments pre*ented the occurrence of the *er/ e*il sought to be a*oided b/ the second 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 final decision of the Commission on %ppointments in the e3ercise of its chec>ing po&er on the appointing authorit/ of the President. :he disappro*al is a decision on the merits, being a refusal b/ 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 the Commission on %ppointments to organi for and in behalf of the cit/ has for its counterpart in the pro*ince a pro*incial attorne/ appointed b/ the pro*incial go*ernor. "n the same *ein, a municipalit/ ma/ ha*e a municipal attorne/ &ho is to be named b/ the appointing po&er. :he positions of cit/ legal officer and pro*incial attorne/ &ere created under Republic %ct No. Q18Q &hich categori for. :heir ser*ices are precisel/ categori to be rendered b/ the officer &ould mean such trusted ser*ices of a la&/er to his client &hich is of the highest degree of trust. Ho)ever, !ostons o( Senor Le%al O(('er and Le%al O(('er are not !rarl'on(dental. :he legal &or> of Pro*incial or Cit/ %ttorne/, as distinguished from the relationship, can be delegated. :he practice of delegating &or> of a counsel to his subordinates is apparent in the Office 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 &hich assists the confidential emplo/er. Sn'e t&e !ostons o''u!ed *- t&ese su*ordnates are reote (ro t&at o( t&e a!!ontn% aut&ort-, t&e eleent o( trust *et)een t&e s no lon%er !redonant. :he importance of these subordinates to the appointing authorit/ no& lies in 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 a client, &hich ma/ be caused through the breach of residual trust b/ an/ of there lo&er(ran>ed la&/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&er !ostons are &%&l- te'&n'al n '&ara'ter and not 'on(dental, so t&e- are !eranent e!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 classified b/ the Ci*il )er*ice Commission. ConseDuentl/, the holders of the said items being permanent emplo/ees, en4o/ securit/ of tenure as guaranteed under the Constitution. Tra v. Sto. Toas, 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 the H9" -eput/ Commissioner detailing the nonfeasance of a H9" la&/er and recommending the la&/er=s replacement, and then another report on a retired colonel this time submitted to the Office of the President. :ria applied for sic> lea*e in order to see> interim emplo/ment abroad, as permitted in a C)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 to the 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.
Issues Held+ 7ON termination &as *alid ( NO 7ON :ria is a primaril/ confidential emplo/ee NO Rato+ C&ara'tern% a !oston as >!rarl- 'on(dental> are t)o3(old+ (rstl-, such characteri=ana%eent and Audt Anal-st I> n t&e F=IB , as set out in the 4ob description of that position, one is struc> b/ the ordnar- and da- to da- '&ara'ter o( su'& dutes and (un'tons 5 Bprepares reDuired sur*e/ materials, &or> plans and schedules gathers data and ma>es in*estigations and anal/'on(dental atters> or !a!ers )&'& are 'on(dental n nature, does not su(('e to '&ara'tere t&er !ostons as !rarl- 'on(dental. Not being a primaril/ confidential emplo/ee, there must be another la&ful cause to base his termination on. :he Court found that there &as none in this case since his failure to report first to the H9" Commissioner #and &ent directl/ to the Office of the President$, and his going sic>
Held+ E). %n e3amination of the pro*isions of P 66 re*eals no intention b/ the legislature to remo*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 not enumerated under Republic %ct No. Q18Q. We &ave 'onsstentl- &eld n !revous 'ases t&at t&e !oston o( Ct- Le%al O(('er s a 'on(dental one. Provn'e o( Caarnes 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 upon the 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*ice Commission #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 &as suspended 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 been changed 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 , he had not /et Dualified in an appropriate e3amination for the aforementioned position. Su'& la' o( a 'vl serv'e el%*lt- ade &s a!!ontent te!orar- and &ithout a fi3ed and definite term and is dependent entirel/ upon the pleasure of the appointing po&er. :he fact that pri*ate respondent obtained ci*il ser*ice eligibilit/ later on is of no moment as his ha*ing passed the super*ising securit/ guard e3amination, did not ipso facto con*ert his temporar/ appointment into a permanent one. "n cases such as the one at bench, )&at s re@ured s a ne) a!!ontent sn'e a !eranent a!!ontent s not a 'ontnuaton o( t&e te!orara!!ontent 3 t&ese are t)o dstn't a'ts o( t&e a!!ontn% aut&ort-. %s to the C)C=s action of granting a permanent appointment to -ato, such &as uncalled for. :he C)C can onl/ inDuire into the eligibilit/ of the person chosen to fill a position and if it finds the person Dualified it must so attest. "f not, the appointment must be disappro*ed. T&e dut- o( t&e CSC s to attest a!!ontents and a(ter t&at (un'ton s ds'&ar%ed, ts !art'!aton n t&e a!!ontent !ro'ess 'eases. "n the case at bench, C)C should ha*e ended its participation in the appointment of pri*ate respondent on anuar/ 1, 1 &hen it confirmed the temporar/
communication on 9arch 1, 1, it stepped on the toes of the appointing authorit/, thereb/ encroaching on the discretion *ested solel/ upon the latter. 5lora v. De 5uan, et al, O'to*er , "112 Cerillo et al &ere emplo/ees of the Philippine %ir Horce College of %eronautics #P%HC%$. :he P%HC% oard of :rustees issued Resolution &hich declared that B%ll facult/0administrati*e emplo/ees are also sub4ect to the reDuired ci*il ser*ice eligibilities,B in accordance &ith pertinent ci*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*ice eligibilities or other&ise failed to meet the necessar/ Dualification standards for their respecti*e positions. On 9arch 2, 12, Cerillo &as relie*ed as oard )ecretar/ of the P%HC% in accordance &ith oard 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 12 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 'ourts ud%ent )&'& orders t&e renstateent o( =s. Rosaro Coordnator (or E8tenson Serv'es> s !atentl- !ro!er. Cerillo, although temporaril/ e3tended an appointment as oard )ecretar/ "", &as dismissed therefrom because of loss of confidence. :his dismissal &as neither contested nor appealed from b/ 9s. Cerillo. Cerllos ass%nent as >Coordnator (or E8tenson Serv'es> )as a ere des%naton. Not being a permanent appointment, the designation to the position cannot be the sub4ect of a case 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 not pro*ided for in the P)C% plantilla. :he P)C% could not ha*e made an/ *alid appointment for this ine3istent position. At an- rate, a ere >des%naton> does not 'on(er u!on t&e des%nee se'urt- o( tenure n t&e !oston or o(('e )&'& &e o''u!es n an a'tn% 'a!a't- onl-. :he Ci*il )er*ice Commission, mandating a polic/, &rote petitioner Col. ulian . oleng, r. a letter mandating that temporar/ appointments of officers0emplo/ees of the P)C% &ere to last onl/ up to -ecember 61, 12. Pursuant to this, the oard of :rustees declared that all facult/0 administrati*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*ice eligibilities &ithin a period of three /ears from their temporar/ appointments. :his, the pri*ate respondents 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 the termination of her temporar/ appointment is no reason to compel petitioners to reappoint her. A'@uston o( 'vl serv'e el%*lt- s not t&e sole (a'tor (or rea!!ontent. )till to be considered 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 the confidence and trust of the appointing po&er. "t has been ruled that the position of oard )ecretar/ "", b/ its nature, is primaril/ confidential.
Renstateent 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/ condition being that the appointee should possess the Dualifications reDuired b/ la&. )uch e3ercise of the discretionar/ po&er of appointment cannot be controlled, not e*en b/ the Court as long as it is e3ercised properl/ b/ the appointing authorit/.
Ie or error on the part of its agents. astl/, t&e re!resentatves are not de facto o(('ers enttled to *ene(ts, !ursuant to t&e CLU 'ase, *e'ause t&e- )ere not a!!onted *ut erel- des%nated. De la s of the defendants 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 1 of the Negotiable "nstruments a&. Issue+ 7ON the salar/ chec>s are go*ernment funds
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&e salar- o( =a*anto s !u*l' (unds and &e re'eves t n '&e'. Under Se' " o( t&e NIL, ever- 'ontra't on a ne%ota*le nstruent s n'o!lete and revo'a*le until delivery (or t&e !ur!ose o( %vn% e((e't t&ereto. )iro v *ontanosas+ :he salar/ chec> of the go*ernment officer or emplo/ee does not belong to him 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 Diego5 :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>s corresponded, respecti*el/, to a pa/roll period and to a month &hich had alread/ lapsed at the time the notice of garnishment &as ser*ed, the garnishment &ould be *alid. ?pon e3piration, the sums are deemed automaticall/ segregated from the budgetar/ allocations.
, le*el, salar/, &ithout brea> in ser*ice. Prooton is the ad*ancement from one position to another &ith an increase in duties and responsibilities as authori
Held+ #NO$ 1. "t is clear from the abo*e pro*ision that CO% disallo&ances cannot be deducted from benefits under R% 821, as the same are e3plicitl/ made e3empt b/ la& from such deductions. Retreent *ene(ts 'annot *e dns&ed *- COA dsallo)an'es n ve) o( t&e 'lear andate o( t&e (ore%on% !rovson. 2. %ccordingl/, the @)") interpretation of )ection 6 that CO% disallo&ances ha*e become monetar/ liabilities of respondents to the @)") and therefore fall under the e3ception stated in the la& is &rong. No interpretation of the said pro*ision is necessar/ gi*en the 'lear lan%ua%e o( t&e statute. % meaning that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the *er/ language of the statute cannot be placed therein b/ construction. 6. :hat retreent !a- a''run% to a !u*l' o(('er a- not *e )t&&eld and a!!led to &s nde*tedness to t&e %overnent has been settled in se*eral cases. "n Cru< *. :antuico, r., the Court, citing +unt *. +ernandeer &ho entered the go*ernment ser*ice at the age of QQ /ears. Pagatpatan, an official in the Office of the 9a/or of -a*ao Cit/, ad*ised -ionisio 9. Rabor to appl/ for retirement, considering that he had alread/ reached the age of 8 /ears and months, &ith 16 /ears and 1 month of go*ernment ser*ice. Rabor responded to this ad*ice b/ e3hibiting a BCertificate of 9embershipB issued b/ the @o*ernment )er*ice "nsurance )/stem %t the bottom of this BCertificate of 9embershipB is a t/pe&ritten statement of the follo&ing tenor5 B)er*ice e3tended to compl/ &ith 1Q /ears ser*ice reDuirements! C)C 9emorandum Circular No. 2, s. 1A pro*ides, in part5 1. %n/ reDuest for e3tension of ser*ice of compulsor/ retirees to complete the fifteen /ears ser*ice reDuirement for retirement shall be allo&ed onl/ to permanent appointees in the career ser*ice &ho are regular members of the @o*ernment )er*ice "nsurance )/stem #@)")$ and shall be granted for a period of not exceeding one 1/ year . "n this proceeding, petitioner Rabor contends that his claim falls sDuarel/ &ithin the ruling of this Court in Cena v. Civil Service Commission. Issue+ 7ON Ci*il )er*ice Commission 9emorandum No. 2 relating to e3tension of ser*ice of compulsor/ retirees should be upheld Held+ 1. "t &ill be seen that Cena, in stri>ing do&n Ci*il )er*ice Commission 9emorandum No. 2, too> a *er/ narro& *ie& on the Duestion of &hat subordinate rule(ma>ing b/ an administrati*e agenc/ is permissible and *alid. )he rule on limiting to one the year the extension of service of an emplo/ee &ho has reached the compulsor/ retirement age of Q /ears, but has less than 1Q /ears of ser*ice under Civil Service 0emorandum Circular o. 23, S. 1445, cannot li>e&ise be accorded validity because it has no relationship or connection with any provision of .D. 1167 supposed to be carried into effect . )he rule was an addition to or extension of the law, not merely a mode of carrying it into effect . :he Ci*il )er*ice Commission has no po &er to suppl/ percei*ed omissions i n P.-. 11.
2. Clearl/, therefore, Cena &hen it reDuired a considerabl/ higher degree of detail in the statute to be implemented, &ent against pre*ailing doctrine. "t seems clear that if the go*erning or enabling statute is Duite detailed and specific to begin &ith, there &ould be *er/ little need #or occasion$ for implementing administrati*e regulations. "t is, ho&e*er, precisel/ the inabilit/ of legislati*e bodies to anticipate all #or man/$ possible detailed situations in respect of an/ relati*el/ comple3 sub4ect matter, that ma>es subordinate, delegated rule(ma>ing b/ administrati*e agencies so important and una*oidable. %ll that ma/ be reasonabl/ demanded is a sho&ing that the delegated legislation consisting of administrati*e regulations are germane to the general purposes pro4ected b/ the go*erning or enabling statute. :his is the test that is appropriatel/ applied in respect of Ci*il )er*ice 9emorandum Circular No. 2, )eries of 1A, and to this test &e no& turn. 6. :he enabling statute that should appropriatel/ be e3amined is the present Ci*il )er*ice la& found in oo> ', :itle ", )ubtitle %, of E3ecuti*e Order No. 22 dated 2Q ul/ 18, other&ise >no&n as the %dministrati*e Code of 18 and not alone P.-. No. 11, other&ise >no&n as the BRe*ised @o*ernment )er*ice "nsurance %ct of 1.B Hor the matter of e3tension of ser*ice of retirees &ho ha*e reached si3t/(fi*e #Q$ /ears of age is an area that is covered by both statutes and not alon e b/ )ection 11 #b$ of P.-. 11. "t &as on the bases of )ection 12 of the present Ci*il )er*ice a& set out in 18 %dministrati*e Code that the Ci*il )er*ice Commission promulgated its 9emorandum Circular No. 2. "n doing so, the Commission &as acting as Bthe central personnel agenc/ of the go*ernment empo&ered to promulgate policies, standards and guidelines for efficient, responsi*e and effecti*e personnel administration in the go*ernment.B "t &as also discharging its function of Badministering the retirement program for go*ernment officials and emplo/eesB and of Bevaluat8ing9 $ualifications for retirement .B . "n addition, the Ci*il )er*ice Commission is charged b/ the 18 %dministrati*e Code &ith pro*iding leadership and assistance Bin the development and retention of $ualified and efficient wor: force in the Ci*il )er*iceB #)ection 1 J1AL$ and &ith the B enforcement of the constitutional and statutory provisions, relative to retirement and the regulation for the effective implementation of the retirement of government officials and employeesB #)ection 1 J1L$. 7e find it *er/ difficult to suppose that the limitation of permissible e3tensions of ser*ice after an emplo/ee has reached si3t/(fi*e #Q$ /ears of age has no reasonable relationship or is not germane to the foregoing pro*isions of the present Ci*il )er*ice a&. :he ph/siological and ps/chological processes associated &ith ageing in human beings are in fact related to the efficienc/ and Dualit/ of the ser*ice that ma/ be e3pected from indi*idual persons. . Cena laid hea*/ stress on the interest of retirees or &ould be retirees, something that is, in itself, Duite appropriate. At t&e sae te, &o)ever, )e are *ound to note t&at t&ere s&ould *e 'ountervaln% stress on t&e nterests o( t&e e!lo-er a%en'- and o( ot&er %overnent e!lo-ees as a )&ole. :he results flo&ing from the stri>ing do&n of the limitation established in Ci*il )er*ice 9emorandum Circular No. 2 ma/ &ell be Babsurd and ineDuitable,B as suggested b/ 9me. ustice @riVo(%Duino in her dissenting opinion. %n emplo/ee &ho has rendered onl/ 6 /ears of go*ernment ser*ice at age Q can ha*e his ser*ice e3tended for 12 /ears and finall/ retire at the age of . T&s redu'es t&e s%n('an'e o( t&e %eneral !rn'!le o( 'o!ulsor- retreent at a%e 2 ver- 'lose to t&e vans&n% !ont. . Our conclusion is that t&e do'trne o( Cena s&ould *e and s &ere*- od(ed to t&s e8tent+ that Ci*il )er*ice 9emorandum Circular No. 2, )eries of 1A, more specificall/ paragraph #1$ thereof, is hereb/ declared *alid and effecti*e. )ection 11 #b$ of P.-. No. 11 must, accordingl/, be read together &ith 9emorandum Circular No. 2. 7e reiterate, ho&e*er, the holdin g in Cena that the head of the go*ernment agenc/ concerned is *ested &ith
has reached Q /ears of age &ithout completing 1Q /ears of go*ernment ser*ice t&s ds'reton s, nevert&eless, to *e e8er'sed 'on(ora*l- )t& t&e !rovsons o( Cvl Serv'e =eorandu Cr'ular No. #9, Seres o( "11$. Tantu'o r., v. Don%o, Fe*ruar- #J, "11? Petitioner, former chairman of the Commission on %udit, argues that not&ithstanding the t&o clearances pre*iousl/ issued, and respondent ChairmanIs #current chairman of CO%$ certification that petitioner had been cleared of mone/ and propert/ accountabilit/, respondent Chairman still refuses to release the remaining half of his retirement benefits, a purel/ ministerial act. Issue+ 7ON respondent Chairman of the CO% should pa/ petitionerIs retirement benefits in full and his monthl/ pensions beginning in 9arch 11 Held+ Regardless of petitionerIs monetar/ liabilit/ to the go*ernment that ma/ be disco*ered from the audit concerning his fiscal responsibilit/ as former CO% Chairman, res!ondent C&aran 'annot )t&&old t&e *ene(ts due !ettoner under t&e retreent 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 graciousness of the @o*ernment intended to re&ard past ser*ices and, at the same time, to pro*ide the pensioner &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% 1Q8 #%n %ct to Pro*ide ife Pension to the %uditor @eneral and the Chairman or %n/ 9ember of the Commission of Elections$, the benefits granted b/ said la& to the %uditor @eneral and the Chairman and 9embers of the Commission on Elections shall not be 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 retreent la)s are l*erall- nter!reted n (avor o( t&e retree *e'ause t&e ntenton s to !rovde (or t&e retreeKs sustenan'e and 'o(ort, )&en &e s no lon%er 'a!a*le o( earnn% &s lvel&ood #Profeta *s. -rilon, 21 )CR% J12L$. 5lora v. CA, A!rl #", "111 :his case arose out of the unfortunate stri>es and &al>(outs staged b/ public school teachers on different dates in )eptember and October 1A. :he illegalit/ of the stri>es &as declared in our 11 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 the stri>e, although reprimanded for being absent &ithout lea*e. Issue+ 7ON respondents &ho &ere put under pre*enti*e suspension ha*e a right to compensation in case of e3oneration 1. :here are t)o nds o( !reventve sus!enson o( 'vl serv'e e!lo-ees )&o are '&ar%ed )t& o((enses !uns&a*le *- reoval or sus!enson+ #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 is
2. Preventve sus!enson !endn% nvest%aton s not a !enalt-. "t is a measure intended to enable 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 the in*estigation is not finished and a decision is not rendered &ithin that period, the suspension &ill be lifted and the respondent &ill automaticall/ be reinstated. "f after in*estigation respondent is found innocent of the charges and is e3onerated, he should be reinstated. 6. T&ere s no r%&t to 'o!ensaton (or Preventve Sus!enson "endin! $nvesti!ation even ( e!lo-ee s e8onerated. :he Ombudsman %ct of 18 #R% A$ categoricall/ pro*ides that pre*enti*e suspension shall be B&ithout pa/.B )ec. 2 reads5 Sec. %&. "reventive Suspension. :he Ombudsman or his -eput/ ma/ pre*enti*el/ suspend an/ officer or emplo/ee under his authorit/ pending an in*estigation, if in his 4udgment the e*idence of guilt is strong, and #a$ the charge against such officer or emplo/ee in*ol*es dishonest/, oppression or gra*e misconduct or neglect in the performance of dut/ #b$ the charges &ould &arrant remo*al from the ser*ice or #c$ the respondents continued sta/ in office ma/ pre4udice the case filed against him. :he pre*enti*e suspension shall continue until the case is terminated b/ the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than si3 months, without pay , e3cept &hen the dela/ in the disposition of the case b/ the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, in &hich case the period of such dela/ shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension herein pro*ided. "t is clear that the purpose of the amendment is to disallo& the pa/ment of salaries for the period of suspension. . T&ere s a r%&t to 'o!ensaton (or Preventve Sus!enson "endin! 'ppeal ( e!lo-ee s e8onerated. Preventve sus!enson !endn% a!!eal s a'tuall- !untve alt&ou%& t s n e((e't su*se@uentl- 'onsdered lle%al ( res!ondent s e8onerated and t&e adnstratve de'son (ndn% & %ult- s reversed. +ence, he should be reinstated &ith full pa/ for the period of the suspension. :he respondent Bshall be considered as under pre*enti*e suspension during the pendenc/ of the appeal in the e*ent he &ins.B On the other hand, if his con*iction is affirmed, i .e., if he is not e3onerated, the period of his suspension becomes part of the final penalt/ of suspension or dismissal. "t is precisel/ because respondent is penalie the administrati*e decision not onl/ e3ecutor/ but final and e3ecutor/ Q. Prvate res!ondents are enttled to *a' salares. :he/ &ere e3onerated of all charges against them for acts connected &ith the teachersI stri>es of )eptember and October 1A. %lthough the/ &ere absent from &or>, it &as not because of the stri>e. Hor being absent &ithout lea*e, the/ &ere held liable for *iolation of reasonable office rules and regulations for &hich the penalt/ 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
salaries during their suspension despite the fact that the/ &ere meted out reprimand, this Court stated5 ?nder )ection 26 of the Rule "mplementing oo> ' of EO 22 and other pertinent ci*il ser*ice la&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 be tantamount to punishing him after his e3oneration from the charges &hich caused his dismissal from the ser*ice. PA5COR v. Salas, Au%ust ", #$$# )alas &as P%@COR=s "nternal )ecurit/ )taff before the latter fired him for loss of confidence because 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 confidential emplo/ee &ho can be dismissed for loss of confidence. Reinstatement &ith full bac>&ages &as ordered &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*e misconduct &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 enttled to *a')a%es (ro t&e te &e )as lle%all- dsssed untl &s renstateent. "n Case 1, )alas &as found to ha*e been illegall/ dismissed. T&ere(ore, t&e (rst dsssal e((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 first charge, 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- dsssed n Case ", t )as as ( &e )as not dsssed (ro serv'e at all, and Case # s deeed 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 and pri*ileges his position en4o/s. :his is but the natural conseDuence of the Court=s finding of illegal dismissal.
: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 Milusang 9agtitinda failed to compl/ &ith the contractual stipulations under the +ealth and )anitation Clause. T&e eleents o( Se'. /;0 o( RA ;$"1 are as follo&s5 1. :hat the accused are public officers or pri*ate persons charged in conspirac/ &ith them 2. :hat said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to their public positions 6. )hat they cause undue in=ury to any party, whether the "overnment or a private party . :hat such in4ur/ is caused b/ gi*ing un&arranted benefits, ad*antage or preference to such parties and Q. :hat the public officers ha*e acted &ith manifest partialit/, e*ident bad faith or gross ine3cusable negligence. :he element of undue in4ur/ is not present. 7hile there &as P169 recei*ed b/ the go*ernment from the mar>et *endors, records sho& that the contract for the management and operation of the Ne& 9untinlupa Public 9ar>et &as a&arded to the same Milusang 9agtitinda, but &ith a ne& set of dul/ elected officers. :hus the business interest of the stallholders concerned has ne*er been ad*ersel/ affected, and no mar>et *endor &as displaced or pre*ented from operating in the Ne& 9untinlupa Public 9ar>et, as a result of the implementation of Resolution Q, No undue in4ur/ &as caused b/ the petitioners to the mar>et *endors or to Milusang 9agtitinda. Duterte and de 5uan v. Sand%an*a-an, A!rl #9, "11J :he -a*ao Cit/ go*ernment entered into a contract &ith )P" for the purchase of computer hard&are and accessories. % ci*il case &as thereafter filed a gainst the cit/ council and officers of )P" for the 4udicial declaration of nullit/ of the resolutions and ordinances &hich pushed for the contract, and a declaration of nullit/ of the contract itself. %t the seller, the contract &as mutuall/ rescinded b/ -a*ao Cit/ and )P". )hereafter , the )pecial %udit :eam of the Commission on %udit submitted a report recommending the rescission of the sub4ect contract. :he %nti(@raft eague filed a criminal case against the public officers in*ol*ed and )P" for *iolation of )ec. 6#g$ 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.
T&e su*se@uent dsssal 'annot retroa't to a date !ror to t&e (ln% o( an adnstratve 'ase a%anst 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 dsssal a- *e ade onl- !ros!e'tvel-. 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 and thereafter too> o*er the operation and management of the public mar>et despite the fact that there &as a *alid and subsisting lease contract for a term of 2Q /ears e3ecuted bet&een the go*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/.
To esta*ls& !ro*a*le 'ause a%anst t&e o((ender (or volaton o( Se'. ;/%0, t&e (ollo)n% eleents ust *e !resent+ 1. the offender is a public officer 2. he entered into a contract or transaction in behalf of the government and 6. the contract or transaction is grossl/ and manifestl/ disad*antageous to the go*ernment. +ere, t&e se'ond eleent o( t&e 're t&at t&e a''used !u*l' o(('ers entered nto a 'ontra't n *e&al( o( t&e %overnent s a*sent. :he computeri of. :he contract, after 9a/ 11 became in contemplation of la&, non( e3istent, as if no contract &as e*er e3ecuted.
Held5 :he petitioners are not guilt/ of graft and corruption. Llorente, r. v. Sand%an*a-an and Fuertes,
lorente &as 9a/or of )indangan, Uamboanga. +e &as charged &ith *iolation of )ec.6#e$, R%6A1 for causing undue in4ur/ to eticia Huertes b/ refusing to sign and appro*e the pa/rolls and *ouchers representing the latter=s salaries and other emoluments. Huertes &as the %ssistant 9unicipal :reasurer of )indangan but because she &as detailed to other municipalities, she &as dropped off the pa/roll. )he &as 4ust gi*en *ouchers that she could use to claim her salar/ upon presentation of clearance from the different offices &here she &as detailed. %ccording to lorente, the dela/ in the release of Huertes= salar/ &as because he &as tr/ing to *erif/ the claims of o*erpa/ment b/ the 9unicipalit/ of PiVan. +o&e*er, )andiganba/an found lorente guilt/. "t found that the dela/ in the release of the salar/ &as unreasonable and &as done to harass Huertes because the 9a/or &anted to assign his political protXgXe to the position of 9unicipal :reasurer b/passing Huertes &ho &as ne3t in seniorit/. "t also too> note that such dela/ caused difficulties in meeting her famil/=s financial obligations li>e pa/ing for the tuition of her children. Issues+ 1. 2.
7ON prosecution established the elements of undue in4ur/ and bad faith. No. 7ON )ec.6#e$ R%6A1 can be committed through nonfeasance.
>e+ !ndue ?n=ury Eleents o( undue nur- 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 the former #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 nur- re@ures !roo( o( a'tual nur- or daa%e and ust *e s!e'(ed, @uant(ed and !roven to t&e !ont o( oral 'ertanto Undue+ more than necessar/, not proper or illegal o Inur-+ 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 reDuirement for 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 (at& 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 nature of fraud these &ere absent in this case >e+ violation of Sec.A e/ - :his section re@ures a don% 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 'rnal a't s t&e ne%le't or re(usal to a't )n reasona*le te and not t&e undue nur- +o&e*er, since this is not the crime charged to lorente, the )C refused to rule on his liabilit/ under this pro*ision
s$ to promote mergers and consolidations to ban>s that &ould undergo such corporate combinations. +is act of introducing different 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 alversaton b/ the )andiganba/an. :he/ &ere alleged to ha*e mal*ersed P22=llon (ro t&e =anla Internatonal Ar!ort Aut&ort- /=IAA0 (unds )&le t&e- )ere a'tn% as t&e entt-s 5en. =ana%er and Fnan'e Serv'es =ana%er. %ccording to :abuena, the amounts &ere disbursed in fa*or of the Philippine National Construction 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 and Peralta of the crime charged. :abuena=s defense &as that he &as *erball/ instructed b/ President 9arcos to cause such disbursements. Hurthermore, he recei*ed, from 9s. @imenee the &ithdra&als because the memorandum reDuired him to do so. He 'ould not *e (aulted ( &s a't )as n o*eden'e and 'o!lan'e )t& t&e !resdental dre'tve. "t is undisputed that Pres. 9arcos &as :abuena=s superior and that the former e3ercised control o*er go*ernment agencies such as 9"%% and PNCC :he )C conceded that t&e eorandu )as le%al on ts (a'e and t&e de(ense o( %ood (at& !ro((ered *- Ta*uena ust *e 'onsdered 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*ordnate s not a)are o( ts lle%alt-, t&e su*ordnate s not la*le in this case, there &ould onl/ be a mista>e of fact committed in good faith. Not ever- unaut&ored !a-ent o( !u*l' (unds n alversaton. T&ere s alversaton &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 through abandonment or negligence shall permit an/ other person to ta>e such public funds. 7here the pa/ment of public funds has been made in good faith, and there is reasonable ground to belie*e that the public officer to &hom the fund had been paid &as entitled thereto, he is deemed to ha*e acted in good faith, there is no criminal intent, and the pa/ment, if it turns out that it is unauthorie him liable for the act :a>ing e*er/thing in consideration, )C found Ta*uena enttled to t&e ust(-n% 'r'ustan'e o( o*eden'e to an order ssued *- a su!eror (or soe la)(ul !ur!ose. 5ar'a v. Sand%an*a-an and O(('e o( t &e O*udsan, 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 -ismiss on the ground that the )andiganba/an did not ha*e 4urisdiction o*er the ci*il case of forfeiture under 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 in ci*il actions pertains onl/ to separate actions for reco*er/ of unla&full/ acDuired propert/ against Pres. 9arcos, his famil/ and cronies as can be gleaned from P-1A.
- For(eture+ di*estiture of propert/ &ithout compensation, in conseDuence of a default or an offense imposed b/ &a/ of punishment not b/ the mere con*ention of the parties, but b/ the la&ma>ing po&er, to insure a prescribed course of conduct - )C then ruled that volatons o( RA";91 are !la'ed under t&e ursd'ton o( t&e Sand%an*a-an, even t&ou%& t&e !ro'eedn% s 'vl n nature *e'ause t&e (or(eture o( t&e lle%all- a'@ured !ro!ert- aounts to a !enalt-. :he soundness of this reasoning becomes e*en more ob*ious &hen &e consider that the respondent in such forfeiture proceedings is a public officer or emplo/ee and the *iolation of R%16 &as committed during the respondent officer or emplo/ee=s incumbenc/ and in relation to his office e3ercise of 4urisdiction o*e r such cases are, t&ere(ore, n lne )t& t&e !ur!ose *e&nd t&e 'reaton o( t&e Sand%an*a-an as an ant3%ra(t 'ourtto address t&e ur%ent !ro*le o( ds&onestn !u*l' serv'e
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%%unan% 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 186, he &as appointed b/ the President 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. % reorganien 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 the Ombudsman. :he pro*isions of R% A re*eal the manifest intent of the la&ma>ers to *esto) on t&e O(('e o( t&e O*udsan full adnstratve ds'!lnar- aut&ort-. :hese pro*isions co*er the entire 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 public officers and emplo/ees pending an in*estigation, determine the appropriate penalt/ imposable on erring public officers or emplo/ees as &arranted b/ the e*idence, and, necessaril/, impose the said penalt/. Ot&er)se, t&e O*udsan )ould *e a 4toot&less t%er.G De Raa v. CA, Fe*ruar- #J, #$$" ?pon his assumption to the position of 9a/or, de Rama &rote C)C, see>ing the recall of the appointments of 1 municipal emplo/ees, alleging that these &ere 4dn%&t a!!ontentsG o( t&e (orer 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 not Dualified for the positions the/ &ere appointed to. 9oreo*er, their appointments too> effect as soon as the/ &ere dul/ attested to b/ the C)C +ead.
( ?pon the issuance of an appointment and the appointee=s assumption of the position in the ci*il ser*ice, he acDuires a legal right &hich cannot be ta>en a&a/ either b/ re*ocation of the appointment or b/ remo*al e3cept for cause and &ith pre*ious notice and hearing.
16 -ec 1Q5 President Ramos, upon recommendation of the -epartment, issued %O 26Q, dropping pri*ate respondent 9ontesa, -irector """, egal )er*ice, from the roster of public ser*ants for serious neglect of dut/ and absences &ithout lea*e.
( "t is &ell(settled that the !erson assun% a !oston n t&e 'vl serv'e under a 'o!leted a!!ontent a'@ures a le%al, and not ust an e@uta*le, r%&t to t&e !oston. :his right is protected not onl/ b/ statute, but b/ the Constitution as &ell.
2Q %pril 15 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 reinstatement as -epartment egal Counsel0Chief of egal )er*ices, &ith pa/ment of bac> salaries.
( +ere, there &as no pre*ious notice, much less a hearing. -e Rama did not accord them due process.
oth sides mo*ed for reconsideration 9ontesa &anting his benefits and petitioners citing Ramos=s %O. C% modified its decision, holding the %O null and *oid insofar as it affects 9ontesa and also granting him his other allo&ances and stuff.
( ?nder the Omnibus "mplementing Regulations of the %dmin Code, an appointment accepted b/ the appointee cannot be &ithdra&n or re*o>ed b/ the appointing authorit/ and shall remain in force and in effect until disappro*ed b/ the C)C. An a!!roved a!!ontent a- stll *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 the 9inistr/ of ocal @o*ernment b/ then 9inister Pimentel. +is appointment &as appro*ed as permanent b/ the C)C. President %Duino promulgated EO 22 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 his current duties and reassigning him as -irector """ #%ssistant Regional -irector$ of Region ;" “in the 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 his position as -epartment egal Counsel0Chief of egal )er*ice to acting )ecretar/ %guirre, &ho ad*ised 9ontesa to report to Region ;" immediatel/. C)C affirmed 9ontesa=s reassignment through Resolution. 9ontesa did not report for &or> still he filed a petition for re*ie& &ith the C% &hich did not issue a :RO0preliminar/ in4unction against the C)C et al.
HELDRATIO+ /"0 =ontesa does not &ave t&e re@ured Career E8e'utve Serv'e el%*lt-. :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 position in the CE). /#0 =ontesas a!!ontent dd not attan !eranen'-. ConseDuentl/, his appointment as 9inistr/ 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 remain immobile in their status. Other&ise, their lac> of eligibilit/ &ould be a premium *esting them &ith permanenc/ in CE) positions, a pri*ilege e*en their eligible counterparts do not en4o/. A*ella, r. v. CSC, Nove*er "9, #$$? 15 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 J1L. C)C issued 9emorandum Circular 21 J1L &hich redefined the eligibilit/ for positions in the CE) 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 appointments thereto shall remain under permanent status in their respecti*e positions. +o&e*er, upon promotion or transfer to other Career E3ecuti*e )er*ice positions, these incumbents shall be under temporar/ status in said other CE) positions until the/ Dualif/.! 185 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/ment Center . ?pon submission to the C)C ho&e*er, it &as disappro*ed on the ground that petitioner=s eligibilit/ &as not appropriate. +ence, pursuant to the 1 Circular, he &as issued a 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 1 Circular as it rendered his earned ci*il ser*ice eligibilit/ ineffecti*e for the position of -epartment 9anager """. C% s>irted the constitutionalit/ issue and held that5 Onl/ the appointing officer, Citing C)C 9emorandum Circular A 18 and 9atha/ *. Ci*il )er*ice Commission, ma/ reDuest reconsideration of the action ta>en b/ the C)C on appointments. :hus, petitioner did not ha*e legal standing to Duestion the disappro*al of his appointment.
On reconsid eration, C% added that petitioner &as not the real part/ in interest, as his appointment &as dependent on the C)C=s appro*al. +e had no *ested right in the office, since his appointment &as disappro*ed.
as per Report of Rating issued b/ the National oard for :eachers. %merica also disclosed he recei*ed information that Ner/ &as campaigning for a fee of P8M per e3aminee for a passing mar> in the teacherIs board e3aminations.
HELDRATIO+ /"0 Pettoner &as standn% to '&allen%e CSCs dsa!!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*ails of the suit.
C)C Chairman issued an order directing an in*estigatio n. "t &as disco*ered that Ner/ Remolona=s name &as not in the list of passing and failing e3aminees furthermore, the e3amination number she claimed as hers actuall/ corresponds to one 9arlou 9adelo, &ho too> the e3amination in Caga/an de Oro and got a rating of QW.
"f legal standing is granted to challenge the constitutionalit/ or *alidit/ of a la& or go*ernmental act despite lac> of personal in4ur/ on the challenger=s part, then more so should petitioner be allo&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 real part/ in interest, the appointee is rightl/ a real part/ in interest too ( he is pre*ented from assuming 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 and pri*ileges of a permanent appointee. /#0 But t&e CSC 'orre'tl- dened &s !eranent a!!ontent, !ettoner not !ossessn% CES el%*lt-. 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 training program 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 E9 eligibilit/. "t=s 4ust that under it, his eligibilit/ for a CE) position &as inadeDuate. Eligibilit/ must conform to the reDuirements of the position ( in petitioner=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/ to ran>, 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 !ror not'e and &earn%. Classification of positions in career ser*ice &as a Duasi(legislati*e, not a Duasi(4udicial, issuance. :he C)C, in appro*ing or disappro*ing an appointment, merel/ e3amines the conformit/ of the appointment &ith the la& and the appointee=s possession of all the minimum Dualifications and none of the disDualification. Reolona v. CSC, Au%ust #, #$$" Remolona is the Postmaster at the Postal Office )er*ice in "nfanta, Sueic>ed him for touching her$. -%=s oard of Personnel "nDuir/ issued summons reDuiring ucas to ans&er the complaint. ucas submitted a letter to the OP" assistant head den/ing the charges ( that he accidentall/ brushed inato>=s leg &hen he reached for his shoes and there &as no malicious intent &hen such happened.
/20 Lu'ass a't, )&le not 'ondoned *- t&e Court reans to *e a less %rave o((ense. E*en in 4est, ucas had no right to touch inato>=s leg. +o&e*er, under the circumstances, such act is not constituti*e of gra*e misconduct, in the absence of proof that ucas &as maliciousl/ moti*ated. "t is also noted that ucas has been in the ser*ice for 2A /ears and this is his first offense. Bernardo v. CA, =a- #9, #$$? Petitioner ernardo entered the go*ernment ser*ice as Claims %d4uster of and an>, aliuag ranch. 2 an 185 ernardo deposited PQAAM in his sa*ings account. %fter ma>ing the deposit, he photocopied that page in his ban> passboo> &here the deposit &as reflected and, on the same da/, &ithdre& the amount. +e e3ecuted, in his capacit/ as treasurer(in(trust of 9ar>a/ :rading and 9anpo&er )er*ices J&hich &as still in the process of incorporationL a :reasurer=s %ffida*it, falsel/ certif/ing that “at least 2QW of the authori of the corporation has been subscribed and 2QW of the total subscription has been paid and recei*ed b/ me in cash or propert/ in the amount of PQAAM in accordance &ith the Corporation Code.!
%fter formal in*estigation, the OP" issued a resolution finding ucas guilt/ of simple misconduct and recommending a penalt/ of suspension for 1 month and 1 da/. )ecretar/ of %griculture appro*ed the recommendation.
On the same da/, ernardo e3ecuted a letter(authorit/ to the )EC authori aliuag, in his name as :reasurer(in(:rust for the said corporation.
ucas appealed to the C)C &hich issued a resolution finding ucas guilt/ of gra*e misconduct and imposed on him the penalt/ of dismissal from the ser*ice. ucas=s reconsideration &as denied.
6A an 185 9ar>a/ :rading submitted its %rticles, signed b/ ernardo as one of the incorporators, to )EC. +e also e3ecuted an affida*it that he &as elected treasurer. :urns out, ernardo ne*er opened an account &ith and an> aliuag for the account of the corporation. 9ean&hile, ernardo &as promoted to %ssistant ranch 9anager.
ucas appealed to the C% &hich set aside the C)C resolution and reinstated the OP" one. +ence, this petition for re*ie& on certiorari. )C affirmed C%. /"0 S!le and %rave s'ondu't are dstn't o((enses. 9emorandum Circular No. (8 classifies administrati*e offenses into gra*e, less gra*e and light. @ra*e misconduct falls under gra*e offenses simple misconduct is classified as a less gra*e offense. :he former is punishable b/ dismissal &hile the latter is punishable either b/ suspension #1 month and 1 da/ to months$, if it is the first offense or b/ dismissal, if it is the second. :hus, the/ should be treated as separate and distinct offenses. /#0 Eleents o( 'orru!ton, 'lear ntent to volate la) or (la%rant dsre%ard o( esta*ls& rule, la'n% n 'ase at *ar. andrito *s. C)C5 "n gra*e misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to *iolate the la& or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest.! /;0 Lu'as )as not dul- n(ored o( t&e %rave s'ondu't '&ar%e. % basic reDuirement of due process is that a person must be dul/ informed of the charges against him and that a person can not be con*icted of a crime &ith &hich he &as not charged. ucas came to >no& of
18 )ept 185 and an> filed a formal charge against ernardo for gross neglect, gra*e misconduct, conduct pre4udicial to the best interest of the ban>, and serious *iolation of C)C rules and regulations. :he +earing Officer, after formal in*estigation, found ernardo guilt/ of 1$ engaging in business, occupation or *ocation &ithout securing the permission of and an> in *iolation of C)C Rules and 2$ committing acts of falsification amounting to gra*e misconduct in office, and further recommended that the penalt/ of forced resignation be meted out, in light of the fact that there &ere 2 other administrati*e cases pending against him. and an> appro*ed the +O=s recommendations. On appeal, the 9erit )/stems Protection oard affirmed and an> and additionall/ found ernardo guilt/ of misrepresentation of a material fact amounting to dishonest/ for engaging directl/ in a pri*ate business &ithout the permission reDuired b/ the C)C rules and regulations. C)C found ernardo guilt/ of gra*e misconduct, conduct pre4udicial to the best interest of the ser*ice, and engaging in pri*ate business &ithout prior authorit/ from the head of office and
anchored its ruling on the ground that ernardo, being a ban> emplo/ee, utili=s integrit/ in 4eopard/ and also to the pre4udice of the corporation=s creditors, if an/. Petitioner not guilt/ of 9isrepresentation amounting to Halsification of -ocuments because the latter contemplates that he must ha*e acted in his capacit/ as an emplo/ee or official and must ha*e altered the genuine document or e3ecute the false document rele*ant to or in connection &ith the performance of his dut/ as such. ( ernardo acted in his capacit/ as :reasurer of 9ar>a/ :rading #6$ Reiterating Remolona5 causes &hich &arrant the dismissal of a ci*il ser*ant need not necessaril/ be &or>(related or committed in the course of the performance of dut/ b/ the person charged. :he principle is that &hen an officer or emplo/ee is disciplined, the ob4ect sought is not the punishment of such officer or emplo/ee but the impro*ement of the public ser*ice and the preser*ation of the public=s faith and confidence in the go*ernment. CSC v. Bela%an, O'to*er "1, #$$? 9agdalena and iga/a filed separate complaints against respondent -r. elagan, -EC) )uperintendent. 9agdalena ( for se3ual indignities and harassment. :hat she filed an application for a permit to operate a pre(school, a condition precedent for the appro*al of &hich is the inspection of the school premises for &hich respondent *olunteered. -uring inspection, respondent put his arms around her and >issed her chee>. +e also as>ed her for a date &hen she follo&ed up on the application. iga/a for se3ual harassment and *arious malfeasances. :hat on separate occasions, respondent touched her breasts, >issed her chee>, touched her groins, embraced her from behind and pulled her close to him, his organ pressing the lo&er part of her bac>. %lso, that respondent #1$ dela/ed pa/ment of the teachers= salaries #2$ failed to release pa/ differentials of substitute teachers #6$ &illfull/ refused to release the teachers= uniforms, proportionate
C)C affirmed decision &ith respect to 9agdalena, but dismissed iga/a=s complaint. "t found respondent guilt/ of gra*e misconduct and ordered his dismissal. elagan filed 9HR alleging a string of cases filed against 9agdalena before 9:C aguio Cit/, that these cast doubt on her character, integrit/, and credibilit/. C)C denied paren his 9HR. ut on appeal, C% re*ersed C)C5 that 9agdalena is an unreliable &itness, her character being Duestionable. :hat gi*en her aggressi*eness and propensit/ for trouble, “she is not one &hom an/ male &ould attempt to steal a >iss.! "n fact, her “record immediatel/ raises an alarm in an/ one &ho ma/ cross her path.! :he C% also absol*ed respondent from the charges, considering his “unblemished! ser*ice record for 6 /ears. HELDRATIO+ #1$ @eneral Rule5 the character of a part/ is regarded as legall/ irrele*ant in determining a contro*ers/. :he e3ception to this, in*o>ed b/ respondent is )ection Q1 #a$ 6, Rule 16A of the Re*ised Rules on E*idence5 “:he good or bad moral character of the offended part/ ma/ be pro*ed if it tends to establish in an/ reasonable degree the probabilit/ or improbabilit/ of the offense charged.! ut
this applies onl/ in criminal, not administrati*e, cases[[[
%ssuming the e3ception applies in case at bar, respondent=s argument cannot be sustained because the character e*idence must be onl/ those &hich &ould establish the probabilit/ or improbabilit/ of the offense charged. "n
the present administrati*e case for se3ual harassment, respondent did not offer e*idence that has a bearing on 9agdalena=s chastit/. 7hat he presented are charges for gra*e oral defamation, gra*e threats, un4ust *e3ation, ph/sical in4uries, malicious mischief, etc. filed against her &hich do not establish the probabilit/ or improbabilit/ of the offense charged. #2$ 7ith respect to attac>ing 9agdalena=s credibilit/, a different pro*ision applies. )ection 11, Rule 162 of the same Re*ised Rules on E*idence renders a &itness impeachable b/ e*idence attac>ing his general reputation for truth, honest/, or integrit/. %lthough she is the offended part/, 9agdalena , b / testif/ing in her o&n behalf, opened herself to character or reputation attac> pursuant to the principle that a part/ &ho becomes a &itness in his o&n behalf places himself in the same position as an/ other &itness, and ma/ be impeached b/ an attac> on his character or reputation. #6$ ?:, 9agdalena=s derogator/ record is not sufficient to discredit her credibilit/. Hirst, it is &ell(settled that e*idence of one=s character or reputation must be confined to a time not too remote from the time in Duestion. 7hat is to be determined is the character or reputation of the person at t&e te o( t&e tral and !ror t&ereto, *ut not at a !erod reote (ro t&e 'oen'eent o( t&e sut. "n
the case at bar, the complaints against 9agdalena &ere filed in li>e, the 8A=s, &hile the instant administrati*e case &as filed in 1.
“"t
is unfair to presume that a person &ho has &andered from the path of moral righteousness can ne*er retrace his steps again. Certainl/, e*er/ person is capable to change or reform.!
remo*ed his brother from the post of acting pro*incial administrator as the same &as a nepotic appointment.
)econd, respondent did not pro*e that 9agdalena &as con*icted in an/ of these cases.
Issue+ 7ON the post of pro*incial administrator &as primaril/ confidential such that it &as e3empt from nepotism prohibition
#$ Respondent=s act clearl/ constitutes gra*e misconduct, &hich should be punishable b/ dismissal.
Held+ NO. "t is a nepotic appoin tment.
"n gra*e misconduct as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to *iolate the la& or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest.
Hirstl/, aurel &as estopped b/ his o&n prior admission that the post &as part of the career ser*ice.
Corruption
)econdl/, loo>ing at the characteristics of the position, it is indeed career ser*ice in nature. :he post is thus sub4ect to the prohibition against nepotic appointments. :here is also a standing prohibition from desigating one to a career ser*ice position and a non(career position #the latter embraced the brothersI 2 other appointments$. Hinall/, the Court said that as bet&een BdesignationB and BappointmentB there is no distinction, based on the intent of P- 8A. Hor purposes of nepotism, the/ are the same.
as an element of gra*e misconduct consists in the act of an official or fiduciar/ person &ho unla&full/ and &rongfull/ uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrar/ to dut/ and the rights of others. :his is apparentl/ present in respondent=s case as it concerns not onl/ a stolen >iss but also a demand for a “date,! an unla&ful consideration for the issuance of a permit to operate a pre( school. #Q$ +o&e*er, in light of respondent=s 6 /ears in the ser*ice, length of ser*ice being a 9itigating Circumstance, and the fact that this is his first administrati*e charge, the penalt/ meted out &as merel/ suspension &ithout pa/ for 1 /ear. ed in the couch case$ 'illanue*a &as a egislati*e %ssistant "" at the time he and a married &oman &ere found na>ed asleep on the couch. :he +ouse -isciplinar/ oard found him guilt/ of gra*e misconduct, disgraceful and immoral conduc pre4udicial to best interest of ser*ice. +e &as suspened for 1 /ear. %fter the 9R, he &as dismissed b/ the oard and all his benefits forfeited. :he C)C found him guilt/ of disgraceful and immoral conduct and &as suspended. On appeal to the C%, it reinstated the oardIs decision and dismissed him, finding that the offense related to his official conduct as it &as made possible precisel/ b/ his functions moreo*er, he had used his office to commit the misconduct. Issue+ 7ON 'illanue*a &as guilt/ of gra*e misconduct in office Held+ NO. :he offense here &as in no &a/ connected to the performance of his functions and duties. "t falls short of the gra*e misconduct as defined b/ la&. +e &as guilt/ of disgraceful and immoral conduct ha*ing engaged in an illicit affair, for &hich he can be administrati*el/ liable. Hor first offense of such, penalt/ is 4ust suspension. 9isconduct means intentional &rongdoing. ut =s'ondu't IN OFFICE &as a de(nte eann% &hich is such that it affects the performance of duties as an officer and not such onl/ as affects his character as a pri*ate indi*idual. To 'onsttute an adnstratve o((ense, t ust RELATE TO or BE CONNECTED )t& t&e !er(oran'e o( &s o(('al (un'tons and dutes. 7e separate the personal from the public. :he misconduct herein &as not related to his functions or duties. Laurel < v. CSC, O'to*er #J, "11" #nepotic appointment of the brother$ aurel ' as go*ernor appointed his brother as senior e3ecuti*e assistant, and later to be
Ha%ad v. 5oo3Dadole, De'e*er "#, "112 Criminal and administrati*e complaints &ere filed against respondents #officials of 9andaue Cit/$ &ith the Office of the -eput/ Ombudsman for *iolation of R% 6A1, %rts. 1A Y 11, RPC, and R% 16. :he respondents &ere put under pre*enti*e suspension. Respondents opposed this and filed a 9:-, assailing the 4urisdiction of the Ombudsman, claiming that under the ocal @o*ernment Code, the Office of the President and not the Office of the Ombudsman could la&full/ ta>e cogniing the sta>es too much against our ci*il ser*ants. C)C is not the aggrie*ed part/, hence it has no legal personalit/ to ele*ate the case to the appellate authorit/. T&e a%%reved !art-, &as lon% *een &eld, s t&e %overnent e!lo-ee a%anst )&o an adnstratve 'o!lant s (led. Ru*ene'a v. CSC, =a- ;", "112 :eachers of Catarman +igh )chool filed before the 9)P a complaint against Rubenecia for dishonest/, nepotism, oppression and *iolation of Ci*il )er*ice Rules. -uring the pendenc/ of the case, the C)C issued a Resolution &hich pro*ided that cases then pending before the 9)P &ere to be ele*ated to the C)C for decision. :he C)C, accordingl/, too> o*er Rubenecia=s case and found him guilt/ and ordered his dismissal. Issue"+ 7ON C)C had authorit/ to issue its Resolution and assume 4urisdiction o*er the case5 Held+ es. #Rubenecia=s argument is that since 9)P &as created b/ la&, it could onl/ be abolished b/ la&$. :he 9)P &as originall/ created b/ P- 1A, &hich states5 “:here is hereb/ created n the C)C a 9erit )/stems oard.! )ec. 1 of the present Ci*il )er*ice a& found in the %dministrati*e code of 18 follo&ed the same line and re(created the 9erit )/stems oard as an office of the C)C and ga*e it a ne& name5 9erit )/stem Protection oard. =SPB )as ntended to *e an o(('e o( t&e CSC. It )as not an autonoous entt- 'reated *- la). :he Resolution sought to streamline the operations of the C)C and eliminate the duplication of functions. :he pre*ious procedure made it difficult for cases to be resol*ed &ithin a reasonable period of time. 9oreo*er, the resolution did not purport to abolish the 9)P nor to effect the termination of public emplo/ment bet&een the C)C and an/ of its officers or emplo/ees. Even ( t&e t&e Resoluton &ad !ur!orted to do so /a*ols& =SPB0, Ru*ene'a, not *en% an e!lo-ee o( t&e =SPB, &as no !ersonalt- or standn% to 'ontest su'& ternaton o( !u*l' e!lo-ent. Issue#+ 7ON Rubenecia &as denied due process Held+ No. :he fundamental rule of -P reDuires that a person be accorded notice and an opportunit/ to be heard. :hese &ere present in this case. :he Hormal Charge against Rubenecia &as sufficient notice, &hich enabled him to prepare his defense. +is ans&er to the formal charge &as considered. "n an/ case, his 9HR cured &hate*er defect might ha*e e3isted in respect of
the alleged denial of procedural dp. -enial of dp cannot be successfull/ in*o>ed b/ a part/ &ho has had the opportunit/ to be heard on his 9HR. CSC v. Corte, une ;, #$$? Corteet the mone/ #price of the stamps$. :he C)C found her guilt/ and dismissed her. :he C% said that dismissal is too harsh considering that this is her 1st offense and she had been in ser*ice for 21 /ears. :he C% considered her forcibl/ resigned &ith a right to all the benefits she ma/ be entitled to. :he C)C said that &hat she did constituted dishonest/, gra*e misconduct and pre4udicial to the best interest of the ser*ice &hich under the rules are all gra*e offenses punishable b/ dismissal. Corte< sa/s that her length of ser*ice and the fact that this is her 1 st offense, and that there &as no damage to the go*ernment should be ta>en into consideration. Issue+ 7ON the penalt/ of dismissal is too harsh Held+ No. Cvl Serv'e La) sa-s dsssal (or t&e (ollo)n% o((enses+ dishonest/, gra*e misconduct, and conduct pre4udicial to the best interest of the ser*ice. %lthough in some cases, the )C lo&ered the penalt/ of dismissal to either forced resignation or suspension, under the facts, Corte< is not entitled to a lo&er penalt/. Len%t& o( serv'e is an alternati*e circumstance &hich can be ta>en for or against the respondent. "n this case, Corteen against her because it &as her length of ser*ice &hich helped her in the commission of the offense. Corte< earned her position as Chief of EP)- because of her length of ser*ice. :his position allo&ed her to ha*e access to pre*iousl/ issued stamps. +er act irreparabl/ tarnished the integrit/ of the C)C. :he gra*it/ of her offense is the reason &h/ the circumstance of “1st offense! cannot be considered in her fa*our. C)C ruling reinstated.
Canonado v. A%urre, anuar- #2, #$$$ #N%POCO9 office &as not abolished$ R% 8QQ1 &hich effecti*el/ shortened the terms of the incumbent N%POCO9 commissioners and remo*ed them from office &as being assailed for being unconstitutional. "n defense of the la&, the )@ argues that the la& intended to impliedl/ abolish the N%POCO9 b/ means of reorganiati Cit/ and in such certificate, he indicated that he resided in 9a>ati for 1A months - 9o*e 9a>ati, a political part/, filed a petition to disDualif/ %Duino on the ground that he lac>ed the necessar/ residence reDuirementTshould be at least 1 /ear. - % da/ after, %Duino then filed another certificate of candidac/ amending the first one he filed. :his time stating that he resided in 9a>ati for 1 /ear and 16 da/s. - CO9EEC5 dismissed the petition for disDualification - 9HR &as filed &ith the CO9EEC en banc - Elections &ere held and %Duino &on - 9o*e 9a>ati then filed an urgent motion ad cautelam to suspend the proclamation of %Duino - %Duino opposed such order. +e filed a mo tion to lift the suspension of proclamation and
e3clusi*el/ in the +RE:. - CO9EEC en banc5 granted the petition to disDualif/ %Duino. Issue+ 7ON CO9EEC still has 4urisdiction to determine the disDualification of %Duino. Held+ E)[ :he court made a distinction bet&een an unproclaimed candidate to the +ouse of Representati*es and a member of the same. Obtaining the highest number of *otes in an election does not automaticall/ *est the position of the &ining candidate. ?nder )ection 1 %rticle '" of the 18 Constitution, the electoral tribunal clearl/ assumes 4urisdiction o*e r all contests relati*e to the election, returns and Dua lifications of candidates for either the )enate or the +ouse onl/ &hen the latter become members of either the )enate or the +ouse of Representati*es. % candidate &ho has not been proclaimed and &ho has not ta>en his oath of office cannot be said to be a member of the +ouse of Representati*es. 7hile the proclamation of a &inning candidate in an election is ministerial, P 881 allo&s suspension of proclamation. E*en after the elections, the CO9EEC is empo&ered to continue to hear and decide Duestions relating to the Dualifications of candidates. :his rule is applicable not onl/ in disDualification cases but also to den/ due course to or cancel a certificate of candidac/. Hurther, CO9EEC erred in its order proclaiming the candidate obtaining the second highest number of *otes. :he ineligibilit/ of a candidate recei*ing ma4orit/ *otes does not entitle the eligible candidate recei*ing the ne3t highest number of *otes to be declared elected. % minorit/ or defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office. So'al Weat&er Statons. In'. v. CO=ELEC, =a- 2, #$ $" Fa'ts+ )7) is a research institution &hich conducts sur*e/s &hile Mamahalan Publishing publishes such election sur*e/s. - :he/ filed this action for prohibiton to en4oin CO9EEC from enforcing )ection Q. of R% AA #Hair Election %ct$2 arguing that it constitutes a prior restraint on the e3ercise of freedom of speech &ithout an/ clear and present danger to 4ustif/ such restraint. :hese sur*e/s did not cause confusion among the *oters and there is no e*idence to o sho& that there is an immediate and ine*itable danger in the *oting process. - CO9EEC 4ustifies such as necessar/ to pre*ent the manipulation and corruption of the electoral process b/ unscrupulous and erroneous sur*e/s 4ust before the election Hurther, the restriction is onl/ for a limited du ration. :here is no total ban o Issue+ 7ON )ection Q. of R% AA constitutes an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech, e3pression and the press. Held+ E)[ :he ban on election sur*e/s cannot be 4ustified on the ground that there are other countries &hich has a similar restriction. :he court noted that the ?) has no such restriction. :he test to determine the constitutional *alidit/ of )ection Q. of R% AA is the O=brien test #?) *. O=rien$5 % go*ernment regulation is sufficientl/ 4ustified5 1. if it is &ithin the constitutional po&er of the @o*ernment 2. if it furthers an important or substantial go*ernmental interest 6. if the go*ernmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free e3pression and . if the incidental restriction on alleged Hreedoms of speech, e3pression and press is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. 2
)ur*e/s affecting national candidates shall not be published fifteen #1Q$ da/s before an election and sur*e/s affecting local candidates shall not be published se*en #$ da/s be( fore an
?nder this test, e*en if a la& furthers an important or substantial go*ernmental interest, it should be in*alidated if such go*ernmental interest is Bnot unrelated to the E3pression of free e3pression.B 9oreo*er, e*en if the purpose is unrelated to the suppression of free speech, the la& should ne*ertheless be in*alidated if the restriction on freedom of e3pression is greater than is necessar/ to achie*e the go*ernmental purpose in Duestion. +ERE, )ection Q. fails to meet the abo*e criteria. @irst, it fails to meet the 6 rd criterion. :the purpose of the restriction is for the integrit/ of election. +o&e*er, such go*ernmental interest in fact suppresses a &hole class of e3pression and not 4ust election sur*e/s. )uch go*ernmental interest is not limited to a class of e3pression &hich ma/ be proscribed. Hurther, the prohibition ma/ onl/ be for a limited time but the curtailm ent of the right of e3pression is direct, absolute, and substantial. "t constitutes a total suppression of a categor/ of speech and is not made less so because it is onl/ for a period of fifteen #1Q$ da/s immediatel/ before a national election and se*en #$ da/s immediatel/ before a local election. Second . "t fails to meet the th criterion of the O=rien test. )ection Q. aims at the pre*ention of last(minute pressure on *oters, the creation of band&agon effect, B4un>ingB of &ea> or BlosingB candidates, and resort to the form of election cheating called Bdagdag(ba&as.B +o&e*er, these cannot be attained at the sacrifice of the fundamental right of e3pression, &hen such aim can be more narro&l/ pursued b/ punishing unla&ful acts, rather than speech because of apprehension that such speech creates the danger of such e*ils. :hese aims can be achie*ed b/ other means. :he CO9EEC has the po&er to confiscate bogus sur*e/ results calculated to mislead *oters. %s to the band&agon effect, such cannot 4ustif/ the restriction of free speech. ABS3CBN Broad'astn% Cor!. v. CO=ELEC, anuar- #J, #$$$ Fa'ts+ CO9EEC issued a resolution &hich restrained %)(CN or other groups from conducting e3it sur*e/ on the ground that the/ might conflict &ith the official CO9EEC count and the unofficial count of N%9HRE. Issue+ 7ON CO9EEC=s resolution is *alid. Held+ NO[ :he holding of e3it polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media constitute an essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the press. +ence, the CO9EEC cannot ban them totall/ in the guise of promoting clean, honest, orderl/ and credible elections. Suite the contrar/, e3it polls properl/ conducted and publici
View more...
Comments
