Week 1 & 2- Admin Case Briefs + Concepts

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1. SALVADOR LAUREL V HON. DESIERTO

- BRIEF FACTS: An EO was passed which created the National Centennial Commission in charge of the celebration of Phil
Independence and the Inauguration of the Malolos Consti. Expocorp was created by petiotioner. Pres. Estrada created a
committee to investigate the alleged anomalies in the construction of the Centennial Exposition Project. Petitioner was charged
with violation of RA 3019 Sec 3 e and g. Petitioner argued: (1) no delegation of sovereign functions; (2) no compensation; (3) NCC
is temporary therefore he is not a public officer.

WON PETITIONER LAUREL IS A PUBLIC OFFICER? YES. There was delegation of sovereign functions to him as the Chair of NCC.
NCC was created by EO 128 and delegated executive powers to execute policies and formulate programs and implement in lieu
of the celebration. Compensation is not a characteristic of public office but merely incidental to public office. The important
characteristic is the delegation of sovereign functions by government to an individual for him to exercise to benefit the public.
- A public office is the right, authority and duty created and conferred by law. It is either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure
of the creating power. An individual is invested of a sovereign power conferred by the government to be exercised by him for the
benefit of the public.
- Public office include delegation of sovereign power, created by law, an oath, salary, designation of duties, and a position in
office.

2. SERANA V SB

BRIEF FACTS: Serena was charged with estafa before the SB because she was given funds as a student regent to renovate a
Vinzons Hall in UP. However, the renovations did not materialize— she and her brother allegedly misappropriated the funds. She
argues that the SB does not have jurisdiction because she’s not a public officer and she was not compensated.  SB has
jurisdiction. She clearly misappropriated the funds while in the performance of her official duties.

WON SB HAS JURISDICTION OVER OFFENSES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EES IN RELATION TO THEIR OFFICE? YES.
- Serena is a member of the board of regents which is akin to board of trustees which SB has jurisdiction. SB has jurisdiction over
Pres, BOT, managers directors of GOCCs, state universities and institutions. UP also performs a governmental function and
sovereign functions are delegated to it. SB jurisdiction is not limited to salary grade 27 or higher and compensation is not a factor
but merely incidental to public office therefore even if Serena did not receive compensation, sovereign functions were delegated
to her.
3. DE CASTRO V FIELD INVESTIGATION. OMB (this is the SALN case. There’s a same De Castro in an Election protest case
which is different)

BRIEF FACTS: Leovigildo De Castro is the chief customs officer of BOC he was charged with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and
Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. During the investigation of OMB it was found out that there were
undeclared properties that were not included in his SALNs and based from his income and his wife it was too disproportionate
(30M from 10M). There was also proof that it was impossible for his children to buy the undeclared properties and investments
because their income is not enough.  SC held that he is only liable for Dishonesty NOT for Grave Misconduct

WON DE CASTRO IS LIABLE FOR DISHONESTY AND GRAVE MISCONDUCT? ONLY DISHONESTY
- De Castro claims that heads of departments are the ones invested with powers to review their subordinates SALNs and not with
the OMB therefore OMB encroached on this authority when it reviewed and investigated the SALNs of De Castro. The power of
OMB to investigate is independent of the heads of departments. In this case the head of BOC did not rectify the irregularity or
mistake of De Castro concerning his incomplete SALN. OMB’s power to investigate cannot be barred by an inaction on the part
of the heads of departments.
- He is not liable for grave misconduct because his acts and omission did not affect his duties in BOC. He is liable of Dishonesty
because he deliberately concealed his properties which was disproportionate to his lawful income by transferring it on the named
of his children, which doesn’t have the capacity to buy the said properties.

4. JAVIER V SB – national book development board

BRIEF FACTS: National Book Development Board was created, Javier was appointed as the representative from the private sector.
Javier was supposed to travel to Madrid International bookfair but it didn’t push through. She was paid her travel expense by the
government however she failed to immediately return the money. She was charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices act and violation of code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials and employees for failure to file her SALN.
Javier argues (1) she’s not a public officer; (2) SB does not have jurisdiction over her.
WON PETITIONER WAS INVESTED WITH SOVEREIGN POWERS, THEREFORE SHE IS A PO? YES.
- A law was enacted to ensure the development of the book publishing industry and NDBD was created to implement and
supervise.
- A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed by law or
enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the
government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public officer.
-Notwithstanding that petitioner came from the private sector to sit as a member of the NBDB, the law invested her with some
portion of the sovereign functions of the government, so that the purpose of the government is achieved. Fact that she was
appointed from the public sector and not from the other branches or agencies of the government does not take her position
outside the meaning of a public office. She was appointed to the Governing Board in order to see to it that the purposes for which
the law was enacted are achieved.
-Definition of a public officer in anti graft law is one who is elected or appointed. In this case petitioner was appointed by the
President.

5. ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST V PURISIMA

BRIEF FACTS: Attrition Act was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation of BIR and BOC. The law seeks to incentivize
employees and officials to exceed their revenue quota and also provided sanctions if they did not reach it. DBCC determines the
fund from the excess of collection of BIR and BOC. Abakada Guro as tax payers filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of
the law because they argue that the reward and incentives will turn the BIR and BOC to mercenaries and bounty hunters to
exceed their quota. Respondents counter that the petition is pre mature because there’s no actual case or controversy and
petitioners have not suffered an injury from the said law. - Only sec 12 of the law declared unconstitutional.

WON ATTRITION ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? ONLY SEC 12. LAW IS VALID.

-Public office is a public trust therefore it must be discharged not for the own benefit of the public officer but for the people.
Public office enjoys a presumption of regularity but it is disputable with proof to the contrary is required.
- The attrition act enjoys a presumption of constitutionality. To declare it unconstitutional there must be a clear and unequivocal
breach of the constitution. In this case ABAKADA failed to prove.
- Public service is its own reward. Nevertheless, public officers may by law be rewarded for exemplary and exceptional
performance. A system of incentives for exceeding the set expectations of a public office is not anathema to the concept of public
accountability. In fact, it recognizes and reinforces dedication to duty, industry, efficiency and loyalty to public service of deserving
government personnel.

6. KHAN V OMBUDSMAN

BRIEF FACTS: Petitioners were charged for violation of RA 3019. As PAL employees they used their positions to contract with
Synergy Services (janitorial services) where they were shareholders of the said company.  Omb only has juris over GOCCs with
original charters and Petitioners PAL employees are not public officers.
 WON OMB ONLY EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER GOCCS WITH ORIGINAL CHARTERS? YES THEREFORE PETITIONERS ARE NOT
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.
- Government acquired controlling interest of PAL but there was no delegation of sovereign functions to be exercise by PAL for
the benefit of the public. Also PAL was created under the Corporation code.
-PAL was not delegated sovereign functions to carry out governmental functions. Therefore PAL employees are private EEs out
of the jurisdiction of OMB.
*take note important characteristic is delegation of sovereign functions.

7. CITY OF MAYOR ZAMBOANGA V CA

BREIF FACTS: Respondent Chief Veterinary was charged with Dishonesty, Oppression and Disgraceful and immoral conduct. Based
from 3 female witnesses they were taken out by respondent to eat in restaurants and deliberately suggesting to go with him in
hotels and suggesting that their husbands should not know about his invitation. The city mayor found him guilty with a penalty
of force resignation with prejudice to reinstatement.  Is resp entitled to back wages? NO.
 WON RESPONDENT ENTITLED TO BACK WAGES? NO.
-Public office is public trust. Therefore public officers should serve the people with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency. They must be accountable at all times and lead modest lives.
- GR: to be entitled to back wages respondent should be exonerated of the charges against him and his suspension is deemed
illegal. In this case he’s not.
-Respondent cannot be awarder for his misdeeds He is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct as well as grave misconduct =
DISMISSAL
-Being the chief of office, it was incumbent upon private respondent to set an example to the others as to how they should
conduct themselves in public office, to see to it that his subordinates work efficiently in accordance with Civil Service Rules and
Regulations, and to provide them with a healthy working atmosphere wherein co-workers treat each other with respect, courtesy
and cooperation, so that in the end the public interest will be benefited.
-Private respondent took advantage of his position as superior.

8. LICARDO V LICARDO

BRIEF FACTS: Edgar filed a complaint against his wife, a utility employee of MCTC. She was charged with dishonesty and immoral.
She allegedly has adulterous relationship with other men during the time her husband was working as an OFW.  Juliet is guilty
of immorality.
 WON the wife is guilty of dishonesty and immoral conduct? Guilty of immoral conduct.
- it was not conclusively proven that respondent had illicit affairs with a man other than her husband, as no one actually saw her
having sexual intercourse with him. However, immorality is not based alone on illicit sexual intercourse.
- It is "not confined to sexual matters, but includes conducts inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency,
depravity, and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable
members of the community, and as an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare."
- immoral conduct as such conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community.
- public office is a public trust. All government officials and employees must at all times be accountable to the people; serve them
with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice; and lead modest lives.
- Court employees should adhere to this standard of conduct both in their professional and private lives.

9. ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST YARED

BRIEF FACTS: Yared was a sheriff in MTCC and he was charged with grave misconduct for collecting excessive fees. There were
24 defendants to receive the summons so Yared rented a motocycle. Yared was arguing that the fees he collected was not
exorbitant considering the fact that some defendants live outside of the barangay of where he is assigned.  Yared liable because
he did not secure court’s approval for the fees and the fees were not deposited to Clerk of Court.
 WON sheriff liable? yesss
-GR: Sheriff is not precluded to collect additional funds from the requesting party provided that he (1) makes an estimate of the
expenses; (2) this estimate must be approved by the court; (3) the party must deposit it to the Clerk of Court; (4) clerk of court
shall disburse this; (5) sheriff should liquidate and make a return.
- In this case Sheriff Yared did not follow this procedure. Respondent asked for the amount of P3,000.00 not as lawful fees alone,
but as a consideration for the performance of his duty. Any portion of the amount in excess of the lawful fees allowed by the
Rules of Court is an unlawful exaction, which makes the respondent liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty.
-Public officers and employees must at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
- Court has stressed that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice,
from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. They must, at all
times, not only observe propriety and decorum; they must also be above suspicion.

10. MONTESCLAROS V COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

BRIEF FACTS: Petitioners are SK members and seeks to prevent the postponement of SK election on May 2002 because the
Barangay Elections shall also be conducted at that time. There’s also a pending bill that will be passed to lower the age of SK
membership. Petitioners also wants to prohibit the passing of the bill because they won’t be qualified to vote for the SK elections
that will be moved on July 2002.
 WON the action of petitioners are premature for Judicial Review? YES
 Public office is not a property right within the sense that it is constitutionally guaranteed.
- Judicial review (1) actual case or controversy; (2) personal and substantial interest; (3) pleaded at earliest opportunity; (4)
constitutional question is the list mota of the case.
- Petitioner’s cannot subject a pending bill for a judicial review. Petitioner’s have no substantial right that they have been injured
or is about to be injured.
-Congress can dictate qualifications on SK membership. SK members doesn’t have a right to remain if Congress declared that they
are unqualified for membership therefore they also don’t have the right to contest.
- A public office is not a property right. As the Constitution expressly states, a "[P]ublic office is a public trust."33 No one has a
vested right to any public office, much less a vested right to an expectancy of holding a public office. Therefore also there’s not
proprietary claim over public office or even an expectancy to public office.

11. DE CASTRO V COMELEC

BRIEF FACTS: De castro was proclaimed mayor and respondent filed an election protest but died while it was pending. The heirs
of respondents then substituted him for the protest.
 WON election protest a personal action therefore when the contestant dies the action dies with him? NO.
-Right to public office is personal and exclusive therefore it cannot be transferred to heirs. However, an election protest is
different as to when the parties die in an election protest the heirs can substitute. An election contest, after all, involves not
merely conflicting private aspirations but is imbued with paramount public interests. The death of the protestant, as in this case,
neither constitutes a ground for the dismissal of the contest nor ousts the trial court of its jurisdiction to decide the election
contest.

12. PROVINCIAL GOV. CAMARINES NORTE V GONZALES

BRIEF FACTS: Gonzales was appointed as provincial administrator but upon investigation was dismissed due to charges of gross
insubordination. She appealed to CSC, she was suspended but ordered reinstated. She was reinstated by Governor Pimentel but
was also dismissed the next day for lack of confidence arguing that her position is highly confidential and coterminous in nature.
WON her position as provincial administrator is a primarily confidential career position? YES
 WON she has security of tenure? NO
- Public office is a public trust therefore no proprietary right attaches to the public office hence it is not a property right
guaranteed and protected under the constitution.
- Congress already passed a law reclassifying the position of public administrator as a primarily confidential position which has a
close intimate relationship to the governor.
-Both career and non career position has security of tenure and all employees under the CSC are also guaranteed security of
tenure. However for primarily confidential positions the term of office expires when the appointing authority loses its trust in the
employee. The employee is not removed from office but his term expires and “lost of trust and confidence” is a just cause for
termination of employment.
- Security of tenure in public office simply means that a public officer or employee shall not be suspended or dismissed except
for cause, as provided by law and after due process. It cannot be expanded to grant a right to public office despite a change in
the nature of the office held.

13. DOMINGO V RAYALA

BRIEF FACTS: Rayala charged with sexual harassment. He argued that he did not commit sexual harassment because Domingo
failed to alleged demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor as a condition for her continued employment or for her
promotion to a higher position.
 WON president has the power to dismiss Rayala as chairman of NLRC? YES. Rayala si guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct.
-In the implementing rules of admin code The imposable penalty for immoral conduct is a suspension of 6months and 1 day to 1
year. Whilst dismissal is for the second offence.
- It is enough that the respondent's acts result in creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee.That
the acts of Rayala generated an intimidating and hostile environment for Domingo. Holding and squeezing Domingo’s shoulders,
running his fingers across her neck and tickling her ear, having inappropriate conversations with her, giving her money allegedly
for school expenses with a promise of future privileges, and making statements with unmistakable sexual overtones – all these
acts of Rayala resound with deafening clarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor.

- Basic in the law of public officers is the three-fold liability rule, which states that the wrongful acts or omissions of a public officer
may give rise to civil, criminal and administrative liability. An action for each can proceed independently of the others.43 This rule
applies with full force to sexual harassment.

14. GARCES V CA

BRIEF FACTS: Garces was appointed to replace the incumbent election registrar of Gutalac. However this was deferred because
Conception refused to transfer because he did not request for it. Garces received a letter with a check for funds for polling booths
and interpreted this to supersede the deferment order. Garces filed a petition for Mandamus with injunction and damages.
 WON the position was vacant? NO. Concepcion did not accept his transfer therefore he did not vacate his current position as
election registrar of Gutalac.
-A transfer requires a prior appointment. 19 If the transfer was made without the consent of the official concerned, it is
tantamount to removal without valid cause 20 contrary to the fundamental guarantee on non-removal except for
cause. 21 Concepcion's transfer thus becomes legally infirm and without effect for he was not validly terminated. His appointment
to the Liloy post, in fact, was incomplete because he did not accept it.
- Acceptance, it must be emphasized, it is indispensable to complete an appointment.22 Corollarily, Concepcion's post in Gutalac
never became vacant. It is a basic precept in the law of public officers that "no person, no matter how qualified and eligible he is
for a certain position may be appointed to an office which is not vacant. 23 There can be no appointment to a non-vacant position.
- Garces’ remedy is Quo Warranto test the title to one’s office claimed by another that results to the ouster of the current
occupant of the office. However Garces does not have a legal right over the position and in this case it was even deferred and
cancelled. Snce Concepcion continuously occupies the disputed position the proper remedy should have been a QUO WARRANTO
not mandamus.

15. BERMUDEZ V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

BRIEF FACTS: Bermudez and Quiaoit were candidate for appointment to the position of provincial prosecutor. Quaoit won.
Petitioners challenged the appointment of Quiaoit on the ground of it lacks the recommendation of the Sec. of Justice
 WON ABSENCE OF RECOMMENDATION OF SECRETARY OF JUSTICE TO THE PRESIDENT MAKES THE APPOINTMENT INVALID?
NO
- Constitution17 or the law18 clothes the President with the power to appoint a subordinate officer, such conferment must be
understood as necessarily carrying with it an ample discretion of whom to appoint.
- President is the head of government whose authority includes the power of control over all "executive departments, bureaus
and offices." Control means the authority of an empowered officer to alter or modify, or even nullify or set aside, what a
subordinate officer has done in the performance of his duties, as well as to substitute the judgment of the latter, 19 as and when
the former deems it to be appropriate.
-President can exercise discretion over his subordinate officials and also can ignore their recommendations.
“Upon recommendation of the Secretary interpreted as merely recommendatory or an advise in which the president has the
discretion to ignore or accept.

MODES AND KINDS OF APPOINTMENT

16. ONG V OFFICE OF PRES

BRIEF FACTS: Ong appointed as NBI Director III and he was informed that his appointment will end at June 30 2004 at midnight
because it is coterminous and unless there’s a qualified person to be appointed he will hold his position in a de facto/ holdover
status. A person was appointed to replace him and Ong filed a petition for quo warranto alleging his reinstatement and
entitlement to back wages.
 WON Ong’s appointment was coterminous? Yes. Ong never acquired CES eligibility therefore he’s appointment was temporary
and coterminous.
- Co-terminous appointment is defined as one “co-existing with the tenure of the appointing authority or at his pleasure.”
- general rule, no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.
However, this admits of exceptions for it is settled that the right to security of tenure is not available to those employees whose
appointments are contractual and co-terminous in nature

17. MATIBAG V BENIPAYO (ad interim)

BRIEF FACTS: Benipayo (Comelec chairman) and respondents as commissioners were appointed by Pres. Arroyo ad interim but
was not acted on by COA. It was renewed again however Congress adjourned. Benipayo issued a memo circ to reassign Matibag
to the Law Dept. however Matibag asked him to reconsider the reassignment this was denied. Matibag now assails the
appointment of respondents and her reassignment to the law department.
 WON the ad interim appointments violated the constitution which prohibits temporary appointments? NO.
ad interim appointment as a permanent appointment because it takes effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by
the President once the appointee has qualified into office. The fact that it is subject to the confirmation by the COA does not alter
its permanent character. The Constitution makes an ad interim appointment permanent in character by making it effective until
disapproved by the COA or until the next adjournment of Congress. Thus, the ad interim appointment remains effective until
disapproval or next adjournment, signifying it can no longer be withdrawn or revoked by the President.

An ad interim appointment can be terminated for two causes specified in the Constitution.
1st cause: disapproval of his ad interim appointment by the COA. 2nd cause: adjournment of Congress without the COA acting
on his appointment.

 WON the renewal violated the constitution on prohibition of reappointment? NO.

The ad interim appointments and subsequent renewals of appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason do not violate the
prohibition on reappointments because there were no previous appointments that were confirmed by the COA. A reappointment
presupposes a previous confirmed appointment. The same ad interim appointments and renewals of appointments will also not
breach the seven-year term limit because all the appointments and renewals of appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason are
for a fixed term expiring on February 2, 2008. The continuing renewal of the ad interim appointment of these three respondents,
for so long as their terms of office expire on February 2, 2008, does not violate the prohibition on reappointments in Section 1
(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution. (1) appointed and confirmed by COA and served 7 yr term; (2) appointed and confirmed but
resigns before 7 year term; (3) appointed to serve the remaining term if someone died and completes the term at the end; (4)
appointee served it previously and completed 7 yr term but vacancy arises due to death or resignation.

18. RUFINO V ENDRIGA

WON PRESIDENT HAS THE POWER TO APPOINT MEMBERS OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES? YES
-There’s a dispute concerning the election of CCP BOT between the Rufino and endriga group. Endriga group claims that PD 15
authorizes the members of BOT to elect someone in BOT in case of vacancies and only when the BOT is entirely vacant the
President can fill in the vacancy acting in consultation of CCP officers. The president has the power to appoint regardless if it is
entirely vacant or not. PD 15 sec 6 (b,c) is unconstitutional for violating the constitution that only allows for Heads of departments
to fill in vacancies of lower ranks. This is not the case in this case because BOT elect fellow BOT members to their position. CCP is
part of the executive branch therefore President exercises control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices.

19. PIMENTEL JR V EXEC SECRETARY (acting appointments)

WON THE TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT CONFIRMATION OF COA WHILE CONGRESS IS IN SESSION
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? NO
-Congress resumed its session and Pres. Arroyo appointed her acting secretaries in their respective departments. Petitioners filed
a case contesting the appointments made by the president were unconstitutional because in case of vacancies only the
undersecretary is allowed to be appointed.
- Appointments in acting capacity especially the alter egos of presidents is allowed since their position is in nature holds great
trust and confidence. The president is allowed to appoint an officer already in government or other persons not yet in
government.
- power to appoint is essentially executive in nature and the legislature may not interfere with the exercise of this executive
power except in those instances when the Constitution expressly allows it to interfere. The scope of the legislature's interference
in the executive's power to appoint is limited to the power to prescribe the qualifications to an appointive office.
Ad-interim appointments –extended only during a recess of Congress, submitted to the Commission of Appointments for
confirmation or rejection
Acting appointments –may be extended any time there is a vacancy, not submitted to the Commission on Appointments

20. VELIRACIA-GARAFIL V OFFICE OF PRES (midnight appointments)

BREIF FACTS: - Prior to May 2010 elections Pres. Arroyo issued 800 appointments in various government positions. For purposes
of the 2010 elections March 10 2010 was the cut off for making appointments for government positions therefore March 11,
2010 is the start of the BAN ON MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENTS. President Aquino the newly elected president issued EO 2 recalling,
withdrawing, and revoking all of the appointments that were made which violated the ban on midnight appointments.

WON petitioners appointments were midnight appointments? Yes

General rule: Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting
President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein
will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
Exception: "temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or
endanger public safety."

- In this case all of the midnight appointments are void. For appointments to be valid it must comply with the following: (1)
authority to appoint and evidence of exercise of such authority; (2) transmittal of the appointment paper and evidence of
transmittal; (3) a vacant position at the time of appointment; (4) receipt of the appointment paper and acceptance (assuming the
office and oath taking) of the appointee who possess all of the qualifications and not of the disqualifications. All of these should
be complied with for appointments to be COMPLETE.
- In this case, the appointments were not accepted before March 11, 2010. Therefore petitioners were midnight appointees

WON EO 2 is unconstitutional? no

21. AGUINALDO V AQUINO (JBC CLUSTERED THE SHORTLISTS)

BRIEF FACTS: There were 6 positions vacant in SB associate justice. This case involves the 6 separate shortlists made by the JBC
for appointment of vacancies in SB associate justices. Petitioners were all nominees and argue that JBC is mandated by the
Constitution to submit a shortlist of nominees to the president for every vacancy to the Judiciary and they insist that Pres. Aquino
can only choose one nominee from each of the six separate shortlists. OSG counters that the constitution does not require JBC
to cluster nominees and the JBC nominates 3 people for 1 vacancy therefore there should be 18 people for 6 vacancies (there
were 37 nominees in the list).

WON the clustering of JBC was constitutional? NO.

- The clustering of nominees by the JBC is declared unconstitutional. The appointments for the 6 Associate Justice position are
declared valid. President Aquino did not violate the Constitution or commit grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the clustering
of nominees into 6 separate shortlists for the 6 vacancies for Sandiganbayan Associate Justice
- The independence and discretion of the JBC, however, is not without limits. It cannot impair the President’s power to appoint
members of the Judiciary and his statutory power to determine the seniority of the newly-appointed Sandiganbayan Associate
Justices. The Court cannot sustain the strained interpretation of Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution espoused by the
JBC, which ultimately curtailed the President’s appointing power.
By arbitrarily clustering the nominees for appointment to the six simultaneous vacancies for Sandiganbayan Associate Justice
into separate short lists, the JBC influenced the appointment process and encroached on the President’s power to appoint
members of the Judiciary and determine seniority in the said court, beyond its mandate under the 1987 Constitution.

22. LECAROZ V SB (Hold over)

BRIEF FACTS: Jowel Red won as the KB chairman and was appointed by Pres. Marcos as a Sangguniang Bayan member. Imee sent
a telegram confirming his appointment and advising that copies of his appointment papers will be sent to him in due time. When
he received it, he showed it to Mayor Lecaroz, however Red was informed that he can’t sit as a member yet until the Governor
had cleared his appointment.  red received his appointment papers  sent it to Mayor Lecaroz but at this time Pres. Aquino is
now the president.  Mayor lecaroz disallowed Red to sit as a member  3 years and 9 months passed from Red’s appointment
when Aquino administration confirmed his appointment.  Red filed criminal complaints against petitioners from their refusal
to let him assume the position before. (Estafa and anti graft charges)

WON RED WA PROPERLY APPOINTED THUS HE HAS CAUSE OF ACTION? NO.

- The concept of holdover when applied to a public officer implies that the office has a fixed term and the incumbent is holding
onto the succeeding term. It is usually provided by law that officers elected or appointed for a fixed term shall remain in office
not only for that term but until their successors have been elected and qualified. Where this provision is found, the office does
not become vacant upon the expiration of the term if there is no successor elected and qualified to assume it, but the present
incumbent will carry over until his successor is elected and qualified, even though it be beyond the term fixed by law.

- In this case Red was elected president of the KB and took his oath of office sometime in 1985 before then Assemblywoman
Carmencita O. Reyes his assumption of the KB presidency upon the expiration of the term of accused Lenlie Lecaroz was valid.?
 NO.At this time members of Batasang Pambansa (the assemblywoman) are not authorized to administer oaths therefore the
oath taking of Red was invalid= no oath= no acceptance.
-oath of office is a qualifying requirement for a public office; a prerequisite to the full investiture with the office. Only when the
public officer has satisfied the prerequisite of oath that his right to enter into the position becomes plenary and complete. Until
then, he has none at all. And for as long as he has not qualified, the holdover officer is the rightful occupant.

ELEGIBILITY AND QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

23. FRIVALDO V COMELEC

BRIEF FACTS: Frivaldo (US citizen) won 3 elections for governor but in 2 instances he was disqualified. Raul Lee the 2 nd place filed
a petition to be declared as Governor because of Frivaldo’s disqualification. COMELEC approved and declared LEE as governor.
Frivaldo filed a petition to annul the COMELEC decision.  granted  Lee assails this resolution because it disqualified him. Lee’s
arguments were that Frivaldo’s disqualification was a continuing condition rendering him ineligible to run for governor

WON:(1) REPATRIATION OF FRIVALDO LEGAL? YES; (2) LEE HAS A RIGHT TO CLAIM THE OFFICE AS THE 2 ND PLACER? NO

(1) SC said his disqualification is not a continuing one. On continuing disqualification - Everytime the citizenship of a person
is material or indispensable in a judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or administrative
authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered res judicata, hence it has to be threshed out
again and again, as the occasion demands. In this case he was only disqualified in 1988 and 1992 elections and not 1995
election (current case)
a. Literally, such qualifications—unless otherwise expressly conditioned, as in the case of age and residence—
should thus be possessed when the “elective [or elected] official” begins to govern, i.e., at the time he is
proclaimed and at the start of his term. If the law intended the citizenship qualification to be possessed prior
to election consistent with the requirement of being a registered voter, then it would not have made
citizenship a SEPARATE qualification. In this case the repatriation of Frivaldo retroacted to his filing of
application to run for Governor.
(2) Being a 2nd placer in the elections means nothing, since Lee was not chosen by the people. For the sake of argument
even if Frivaldo was deemed ineligible for office, Lee cannot be declared as the Governor of Sorsogon just for being the
second most voted candidate.

Disabilities and Inhibitions of Public Officers

24. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION V EXEC. SEC (EX OFFICIO- exemption from blanket prohibition and prohibition on Pres and his
family)

BRIEF FACTS: EO 284 was issued by Pres. Aquino. Petitioners claims it is unconstitutional because (1) EO allows cabinet members
and their undersecretaries to hold other gov offices or position in addition to their primary functions; (2) this violates Art VIII Sec
13 which prohibits the President, VP, Cabinet members and their deputies and assistants not to hold any other office/
employment during their tenure, UNLESS otherwise provided by the Constitution. Meaning EO 284 adds more exceptions other
than what Consti allows.
WON: 284 unconstitutional? Yes definitely.
- EO 284 is unconstitutional. To interpret the provisions of the Constitution Sec 7, Art IX-B is the General Rule applicable to all
elective and appointive officials and employees, while Sec 13, Art. VII is meant to be an exception applicable to the President, VP,
Cabinet Members, their deputies and assistants. Because the intent of the framers is to have an absolute prohibition to hold any
other office to the following positions without any qualifications. The exception to Sec 13 is that prohibition does not apply to
those positions held in ex-officio capacities.
Section 7, Article IX-B already contains a blanket prohibition against the holding of multiple offices or employment in the
government subsuming both elective and appointive public officials.

 No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during
his tenure. Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold
any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
Government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

In Sec. 13, Article VII, specifically prohibiting the President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and
assistants from holding any other office or employment during their tenure, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution
itself.
 "(T)he President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise
provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure."
 "They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be
financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or... special privilege granted by the Government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidi-
aries."
 This provision are all-embracing prohibitions imposed on the President and his official family.
 These prohibitions are not similarly imposed on other public officials or employees

"unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" in Section 13, Article VII meaning. These are the only exceptions that the
Consti provide for the President and his family. Therefore if it’s not provided by consti, Pres, VP, cabinet members + deputies
and assistants can’t assume any other position or profession.
 The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet under Section 3, par. (2),Article VII thereof; and
 The Secretary of Justice is an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Section 8 (1), Article VIII.

Prohibition against holding dual/multiple offices/employment under Sec 13, Art VII cannot be construed to apply to positions
occupied by Executive Officials in an EX-OFFICIO capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of said
officials’ office.
 Ex-officio likewise denotes an "act done in an official character, or as a consequence of office, and without any other
appointment or authority than that conferred by the office." An ex-officio member of a board is one who is a member
by virtue of his title to a certain office, and without further warrant or appointment.
 What the Constitution Prohibits: Functions that are merely incidental and remotely related to the primary function of
a cabinet official then such additional functions are considered “Any other office”

25. FUNA V EXEC. SEC (reiterated ruling of Civil Liberties)

BRIEF FACTS: Pres appointed Bautista as Undersecretary of Dept. of Transportation and Communications and she was designated
as Undersecretary for Maritime Transport. Thereafter she was again designated to fill in the position of OIC of Office of the
Administrator of MARINA, in concurrent capacity. Petitioner FUNA filed the petition challenging the constitutionality of Bautista’s
appointment which is proscribed by the constitution that Pres, VP, Cabinet Members, and their deputies and assistants cannot
hold any other office or employment unless otherwise provided by the constitution. (1) Bautista’s concurrent positions as DOTC
undersecretary and MARINA OIC is in violation of Sec 13 VII Consti. (2) the position of Marina administrator is not ex-officio to
the DOST undersecretary position.

WON BAUTISTA IS PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTI TO ASSUME THE DESIGNATION OF MARINA OIC? YES
-The 1987 Constitution in prohibiting dual or multiple offices, as well as incompatible offices, refers to the holding of the office,
and not to the nature of the appointment or designation. To “hold” an office means to “possess or occupy” the same, or “to be
in possession and administration,” which implies nothing less than the actual discharge of the functions and duties of the office.
-Designation may be loosely defined as an appointment because it likewise involves the naming of a particular person to a
specified public office. In fact, even without a known appointment or election, the de facto doctrine comes into play if the duties
of the office were exercised under such circumstances of reputation or acquiescence as were calculated to induce people, without
inquiry, to submit to or invoke his action, supposing him to be the officer he assumed to be.
-While all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office or employment in the government during
their tenure when such is allowed by law or by the primary functions of their positions, members of the Cabinet, their deputies
and assistants may do so only when expressly authorized by the Constitution itself.
-Respondent Bautista being then the appointed Undersecretary of DOTC, she was thus covered by the stricter prohibition under
Section 13, Article VII and consequently she cannot invoke the exception provided in Section 7, paragraph 2, Article IX-B where
holding another office is allowed by law or the primary functions of the position. Neither was she designated OIC of MARINA in
an ex-officio capacity, which is the exception recognized in Civil Liberties Union.

26. FUNA V EXEC. SEC (De Facto Officer)

BRIEF FACTS: Agra was appointed as acting secretary of Justice then after that he was again appointed as acting solicitor General
in a concurrent capacity. Petitioner filed this petition contesting that it violated the constitution (Sec 13, Art VII).

WON appointment of Agra in both offices is constitutional? Yes.

Section 7, paragraph (2), Articile IX-B of the 1987 Constitution provides: Unless otherwise allowed by law or the primary function
of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or an subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporation or their subsidiaries.

There are only 2 exceptions: (1) VP member of the Cabinet; (2) Posts occupied by Executive Officials specified in Section 13, Article
VII without additional compensation in ex officio capacities

The phrase “the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants” found in Section 13, 1987 Constitution, referred only
to the heads of the various executive departments, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries, and did not extend to other
public officials given the rank of Secretary, Undersecretary or Assistant Secretary.

WON Agra was made a de facto officer? YES.

- De Facto officer is one who derives his appointment from one having colorable authority to appoint., if the office is an appointive
office, and whose appointment is valid on its face.
Consequently, the acts of the de facto officer are just as valid for all purposes as those of a de jure officer, in so far as the public
or third persons who are interested therein are concerned.

In Agra’s case, he is considered as a de facto Acting Secretary of Justice, assuming that was his later designation, were presumed
valid, binding and effective as if he was the officer legally appointed and qualified for the office. This protection is necessary in
order to protect the sanctity of the dealing by the public with persons whose ostensible authority emanates from the state.

27. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION V DACOYCOY (Nepotism)

BRIEF FACTS: A case against Dacoycoy was filed with CSC for habitual drunkenness, misconduct, and nepotism. After the
investigation he was formally charged. CSC found him guilty of 2 counts of nepotism— (1) appointed his 2 sons as driver and
utility worker. Dacoycoy was the Vocational School Administrator Balicuatro College of Arts and Trades.  penalty of dismissal

WON dacoycoy guilty of nepotism? Yes

Guilty of nepotism if an appointment is issued in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of any
of the following:
a. Appointing authority
b. Recommending authority
c. Chief of the bureau or office
d. Person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.

In the last two situations, it is immaterial who the appointing authority is, it suffices that an appointment is issued in favor of a
relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of the chief of the bureau or office, or the person exercising
immediate supervision over the appointee.

Even if Dacoycoy did not appoint his two sons directly Mr. Daclag (subordinate of Dacoycoy) was the one who appointed them
but Dacoycoy’s was the one who recommended the appointment, certified the funds for the proposed appointment and the
driver son indicated that his father was his next higher supervisor.
 28. QUINTO V COMELEC (Partisan political activity)

BRIEF FACTS: This is an MR from an earlier case SC declared unconstitutional the second provision in the third paragraph of sec
13 of RA 9369, Sec 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Sec 4 of the COMELEC Resolution 8679in that they violate the equal
protection clause of the Constitution and suffer from overbreadth. outcome of the earlier decision thus paved the way for public
appointive officials to continue discharging the powers, prerogatives and functions of their office notwithstanding their entry into
the political arena.  Therefore respondents filed this MR. They argue the SC ruling violates proscription against the participation
of public appointive officials and members of the military in partisan political activity.

WON appointed public officials considered resigned from their office or position once they have filled their certificates of
candidacy. YES. SC granted MR and reveres their decision.
- Sec 2 Art IX-B of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits civil service officers and employees from engaging in any electioneering
or partisan political campaign. The intention of these laws are to impose a strict limitation on the participation of civil service
officers and employees in partisan political campaign.
- Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective officials and appointive officials. The former occupy their office by virtue
of the mandate of the electorate. They are elected to an office for a definite term and may be removed therefrom only upon
stringent conditions. On the other hand, appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto by an
appointing authority. Some appointive officials hold their office in a permanent capacity and are entitled to security of tenure
while others serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority.
 SC applied equal protection clause for this. In order that there can be valid classification so that a discriminatory
governmental act may pass the constitutional norm of equal protection, it is necessary that the four (4) requisites of
valid classification be complied with, namely: (1) It must be based upon substantial distinctions; (2) It must be germane
to the purposes of the law; (3) It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) It must apply equally to all
members of the class.

- appointive officials who submit their CoCs are deemed resigned from their office or positions on the day of said filing.
- Nicole notes: this case discussed partisan political activity or “electioneering”.
GR: all CS employees cannot engage in such activity except to vote.

 Filing candidacy, a prohibition. Cannot go back to appointive position once you commit electioneering. This prohibition
does not apply to elected officials.

29. DE RAMA V CA

BRIEF FACTS: De Rama (incumbent Mayor) wrote to CSC to recall the appointments made by the previous Mayor on the ground
they were MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENTS. While the matter was pending one of the EEs claim for the payment of salaries but De
Rama withheld despite the declaration of their appointments as permanent by the CSC field office.
WON THE APPOINTMENTS OF 14 MUNICIPAL EES SHOULD BE RECALLED ON THE GROUND OF MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENTS?

Nicole notes: this case was under the ”other prohibitions imposed on PO-statutory” one is the prohibition on midnight
appointments. So in relation to that, this is quoted from the ruling portion of the case:

The records reveal that when the petitioner brought the matter of recalling the appointments of the fourteen (14) private
respondents before the CSC, the only reason he cited to justify his action was that these were "midnight appointments.

- CSC ruled, and correctly so, that the said prohibition applies only to presidential appointments. In truth and in fact, there is no
law that prohibits local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of his or her tenure.
- De Rama certainly did not raise the issue of fraud on the part of the outgoing mayor who made the appointments. Neither did
he allege that the said appointments were tainted by irregularities or anomalies that breached laws and regulations governing
appointments.
 GR: upon issuance of appointment, appointee he acquires a legal right which cannot be taken away either by revocation
of the appointment or by removal
 Except: for cause and with previous notice and hearing
- well-settled that the person assuming a position in the civil service under a completed appointment acquires a legal, not just an
equitable, right to the position. This right is protected not only by statute, but by the Constitution as well, which right cannot be
taken away by either revocation of the appointment, or by removal, unless there is valid cause to do so, provided that there is
previous notice and hearing.

RIGHTS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

30. LUSPO V PEOPLE

BRIEF FACTS: Advices of Sub-Allotment(ASA) worth P5m each totaling P10m for the purchase of Combat, clothing and individual
equipment (CCIE) were issued without approval. Arturo Montano (Montano), Chief Comptroller, North CAPCOM, directed Police
Chief Inspector Salvador Duran, Sr. (Duran), Chief, Regional Finance Service Unit, North CAPCOM, to prepare and draw 100 checks
of P100,000.00 each, for a total of P10,000,000.00.  issued in favor of Tugaoen. Problem arose when there was non delivery of
the combat articles and individual equipment.  Complaint for Malversation was filed against the officers and the Ombudsman-
AFP included Luspo (the one who was acquitted) since he was co-signatory to the 100 check even if the investigation report did
not mention his criminal/administrative liability  The charge was changed to violation of Anti-graft and corrupt practices act.

In this case Nazareno delegated authority to Domondon to sign on his behalf then Damondon delegated to Luspo and Osia the
authority to sign in behalf of him.
 Domondon, as the Chief Director of the Office of the Directorate for Comptrollership, assists the PNP Chief in
determining how the PNP funds would be sub-allocated to the regional commands and their support units. Any
determination made by Domondon and Nazareno would then be implemented by Luspo, as the head of Fiscal Services
and Budget Division, by preparing an ASA and then submitting the same to Nazareno for his signature. To shorten the
process, Nazareno delegated the routine act of affixing his signature to the ASA to his financial assistant, Domondon.
 Duty delegated by Nazareno to Domondon was the ministerial duty of signing ASAs to effect the release of funds. Being
merely ministerial, Domondon was allowed to sub-delegate, as he did sub-delegate, the task to his subordinate, Luspo.
As such, the signature affixed by Luspo to the ASAs had the same effect as if it was made by Nazareno himself.
 Therefore, Luspo, in the same manner as Domondon, had satisfactorily adduced evidence of good faith to overturn and
repudiate the imputation of evident bad faith against him.

WON LUSPO MADE LIABLE? NO HE IS A MERE SUB-DELEGATE BUT DURAN, MONTANO AND TAGAOEN ARE LIABLE.

- No proof that Luspo acted with palpable bias or favor towards Tugaoen. The prosecution failed to show that it was Luspo's duty
to search for, negotiate and contract with suppliers. The only deduction from the prosecution's evidence is that, being then the
Chief of the Fiscal Services and Budget Division of the Office of the Directorate for Comptrollership, it was Luspo's duty to
distribute the funds allocated to the PNP by the DBM by the issuance of an ASA in favor. Once the funds were released from his
custody through the ASAs, his responsibility ceased and it then devolved upon the recipients of the ASA to see to it that the funds
were legally and properly disbursed for the purpose for which they were released. He had no control over the disbursement, and
thus, he could not be blamed if the funds were eventually expended for unauthorized or illegal purposes. Lastly, the prosecution
cannot link Luspo as a conspirator to defraud the PNP/government on the strength merely of his signature, nor can a valid
assumption be made that he connived with Duran and Montano, who subsequently disbursed the ASAs.

- Nicole Notes: this case was discussed with the concept of ministerial v. discretionary duty of a PO. There was a table
differentiating the two.

-Contrary to Duran's claim, affixing his signature on the checks is not a ministerial duty on his part. As he himself stated in his
petition and in his present motion, his position as Chief of the Regional Finance Service Unit of the North CAPCOM imposed on
him the duty "to be responsible for the management and disbursement and accounting of PNP funds." This duty evidently gives
him the discretion, within the bounds of law, to review, scrutinize, or countercheck the supporting documents before facilitating
the payment of public funds. = therefore not ministerial.

 Montano instructed Duran to prepare and draw 100 checks for ₱100,000.00. The checks were all signed by both
Montano and Duran. Montano thereafter released them to Tugaoen, the owner of the four enterprises, without the
required liquidating and supporting documents mandated by Section 4(6) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1445, which
provides that claims against government funds shall be supported by complete documentation. essential element of
bad faith is evident in Montano’s and Duran’s failure to prepare and submit the required documentation ordinarily
attendant to procurement transactions and government expenditures,
  His responsibility for the disbursement and accounting of public funds makes him an accountable officer. Section 106
of Presidential Decree No. 1445 requires an accountable officer, who acts under the direction of a superior officer, to
notify the latter of the illegality of the payment in order to avoid liability. This duty to notify presupposes, however,
that the accountable officer had duly exercised his duty in ensuring that funds are properly disbursed and accounted
for by requiring the submission of the supporting documents for his review.
 By relying on the supposed assurances of his co-accused Montano that the supporting documents are all in
order,20 contrary to what his duties mandate. The nature of his duties is simply inconsistent with his “ministerial”
argument. With Duran’s failure to discharge the duties of his office and given the circumstances attending the making
and issuance of the checks, his conviction must stand.
 Evident bad faith and manifest partiality are imputed to Luspo, Duran, and Montano when they caused the preparation,
issuance, release, and payment of ₱10,000,000.00, without supporting documents, to DI-BEN Trading, MT Enterprises,
J-MOS Enterprises, and Triple 888 Enterprises, all owned and operated by Tugaoen.

- 2 ways for a public official to violate this provision in the performance of his functions, namely: (a) by causing undue injury to
any party, including the government; or (b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference. In
that case, we enumerated the essential elements of the offense:

1. Accused public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions;

2. Acted with partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and

3. Caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or
preference in the discharge of his functions.

TUGAOEN LIABLE AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL UNDER SEC 1 RA 3019. – SHE’S CONSPIRATOR TO THE SCHEME OF DURAN AND
MONTANO TO DEFRAUD THE GOV OF 10M

 It is the policy of the Philippine Government, in line with the principle that a public office is a public trust, to repress
certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead
thereto.
 In the succeeding days, Tugaoen encashed the checks with UCPB, without delivering in exchange a single piece of CCIE
for the uniformed personnel of North CAPCOM.