ebu United Enterprises v.

Gallofin, 106 Phil 491 (1959)

FACTS:

Cebu United Enterprises has import license to purchase over issue newspaper from the US. However, this license
expired on Dec. 16, or one day before the date of the importation of the items. Gallofin, the collector of customs,
refused to deliver the imported items on the ground that Cebu United Enterprises was importing goods without a valid
license.

ISSUE:

W/N duly executed acts of a governmental agency can have valid effects even beyond the life span of said agency

HELD:

Although RA 650 creating the Import Control Commission (ICC) expired on July 31, it is to be conceded that its duly
executed acts can have valid effects even beyond the life span of said government agency. The ICC who issued the
license was abolished yet, the LICENSE was extended, the latter has still its valid effects.

Crisostomo vs. CA, 258 SCRA 134 (1996)


FACTS:

Crisostomo was appointed the President of the Philippine College of Commerce (PCC) by the President of the
Philippines. During his incumbency, two administrative charges were filed against him for illegal use of government
vehicles, misappropriation of construction materials, oppression and harassment, grave misconduct, nepotism and
dishonesty before the Office of the President. Likewise, he was also charged with violation of Anti-Grant and Corrupt
Practices Act with the Tanodbayan. As such, he was preventively suspended and Dr. Mateo was designated as the
officer-in-charge in his place. Meanwhile, Pres. Marcos passed PD 1341 converting PCC into PUP with Mateo as
President. Crisostomo was later acquitted and his administrative charges were dismissed.

ISSUE:

Did PD 1314 abolish PCC?

HELD:

PD 1314 did not abolish, but only changed the PCC into what is now PUP. What took place was a change in the
academic status of the educational institution, not in its corporate life. Hence, the change in its name, the expansion
of its curriculum offerings and changes in its structure and organization.

As a general rule, when the purpose of the lawmaking authority is to abolish the office and create a new one, he says
so. In the instant case, PD 1314 merely states that PCC is converted into the PUP. In addition, the law does not state
that the lands, buildings and equipment owned by the PCC were being transferred to the PUP but only that they
stand transferred to it. Stand transferred simply means, for example, that lands transferred to the PCC were to be
understood as transferred to the PUP as the new name of the institution.
Viola vs Alunan III
Facts:
1.Petitioner questions Art. III, 1-2 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Guidelines for the General Elections of
the Liga ng mga Barangay Officers insofar as they are inconsistent with the Local Govt Code because the latter does
not include 1
st
, 2nd and 3rd VP positions. It is therefore in violation of the principle that implementing rules and
regulations cannot add or detract from the provisions of the law they are designed to implement.Issue:
Issue
W/N the questioned rules are violative of the laws.
Ruling:
1. The additional positions were created under the Constitution and By-laws of the Liga ng MgaBarangay in its
4
th
Article.
Section 1.Organization of Board of Directors of Local Chapters.- The chapters shall directly elect
their respective officers, namely, a president; executive vice president; first, second, and third vice
presidents; auditor; and five (5) membersto constitute the Board of Directors of their respective
chapter...

2. It is also authorized by the LGC under Sec. 493 which reads:

493. Organization. The liga at the municipal, city, provincial, metropolitan political subdivision, and
national levels directly elect a president, a vice-president, and five (5) members of the board of
directors. The boardshall appoint its secretary and treasurer and create such other positions as
it may deem necessary for the management of the chapter...

3. That Congress can delegate the power to create positions such as these has been settled by our decisions
upholding the validity of reorganization statutes authorizing the President of the Philippines to create, abolish
or merge offices in the executive department.

Notes: Dissent of Justice Davide on the capacity to create other necessary positions which he
believes is vested only in the Boards of Directors was answered by Art. 210 of the Implementing
Rules of LGC which gives the samepower to the incumbent members of Pambansang Katipunan
ng mga Barangay(PKB) which is actually the Barangay National Assembly.

Larin vs Executive Secretary
FACTS:
Aquilino Larin was an Assistant Commissioner in the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). He was in charge of the
office of the Excise Tax Service. In 1992, the Sandiganbayan convicted Larin for grave misconduct. His conviction
was reported to the Office of the President, at the same time, an administrative complaint was filed with the same
office. The President then, based on the Sandiganbayan conviction, created a committee to investigate Larin.
Eventually, Larins removal was recommended. The President dismissed Larin.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Larin was removed from office properly.
HELD: No. Larin is a presidential appointee who belongs to the career service of the Civil Service. Although it is a
general rule that the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint, such power to remove I with limitations. In
the case at bar, the limitation can be found in the fact that Larin is a career service officer and under the
Administrative Code of 1987, such officers who fall under career service are characterized by the existence of
security of tenure, as contra-distinguished from non-career service whose tenure is co-terminus with that of the
appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or limited to a period specified by law or to the duration of a particular
project for which purpose the employment was made.
As a career service officer, Larin enjoys the right to security of tenure. He can only be removed from his
office on grounds enumerated in the Administrative Code of 1987. In the case at bar, the basis for his removal was
his conviction in the Sandiganbayan this is not one of those grounds enumerated in the Administrative Code.
Further, the Supreme Court notes that when Larins conviction was appealed to the Supreme Court, the Supreme
Court actually absolved Larin.