Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Manzon appealed the dismissal of the case because Manzon wants the court to right to salary indubitable. Even assuming na hindi puwde ma-appoint, de-facto
actually declare na may right siya to the salaries. officer pa rin siya.
Docena vs. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Eastern Samar join Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino under speaker Mitra who
Cruz administered the oath of office to him when he was appointed to the SPES.
Two persons are claming the same Sangguniang Panlalawigan position in o Docena is claiming a preferential right, having placed 9th, next to
Eastern Samar by virtue of 2 separate appointments extended to them by Capito, while Alar didn’t even run for office.
the same authority. Alar does not contest the qualifications of Docena but contends that the
o The first appointment was replaced by the second appointment, appointment in Docena’s favor had been superseded by the one in favor of
but the second appointment was withdrawn to reinstate the first Alar.
one, but the first one was later recalled to reinstate the second one. o Alar says that the recall of his (alar’s) appointment was null and
o Docena as 1st appointee, Alar as 2nd appointee void ab initio for lack of previous hearing.
Capito had been elected to and was serving as a member of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Eastern Samar when he died and petitioner Docena was The appointment had already been accepted by Docena
appointed to succeed him. Docena had already accepted the appointment and in fact he already assumed office
o The appointment of Docena was issued by Secretary Santos of the as a member of the SPES. For all intents and purposes, Docena’s appointment was
DILG. complete and enforceable at the time it was supposedly superseded by the
o Docena took his oath of office and assumed membership in the appointment of Alar.
Sanggunian.
The record doesn’t show why but Alar was appointed as well, also by DILG Funny how Alar considers the revocation of his appointment as whimsical, capricious,
Secretary Santos. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Eastern Samar and wishy-washy, but doesn’t consider his appointment like that in the first place.
thereafter issued a resolution, recognizing membership of Alar instead of There was no reason to recall Docena’s appointment
Docena.
But this SPES resolution was effectively reversed when Santos wrote a letter As Docena’s appointment was issued earlier and had been accepted, and since
to Alar Docena already assumed office, he could not thereafter be made to accommodate
o “it appears that blah blah an appointment was already issued to Alar. Political rather than legal considerations seem to have influenced the action of
DOCENA as member of the SPES. The appointment to you is hereby the provincial government in rejecting the petitioner's claim despite its obvious
recalled effective the date of issue” merit.
It was the SPES who provoked the DILG – it issued a resolution reiterating the Even assuming that the proper remedy is a petition for quo warranto, the Court may
recognition of Alar and that the revocation of Alar’s appointment had no basis in law. in its own discretion consider the present petition a. such and deal with it accordingly.
This was supported by an opinion of the Provincial Prosecutor, that the We find that as a petition for quo warranto, it complies with the prescribed
recall of Alar was void ab initio because Alar’s right to the office had become requirements, to wit, that it be filed on time and by a proper party asserting title to
vested the office also claimed by the respondent. Acting thereon, we hold that Docena has
proved his right to the disputed office and could not be legally replaced by Alar.
Secretary Santos, issued another recall order addressed to Docena. Santos explained
that the appointment extended to him is hereby recalled effective immediately, to Annex
be turned over to Mr. Alar who was appointed by Santos also. Sec. 50. Permanent Vacancies in Local Sanggunians. — In case of permanent vacancy
Docena came to the SC through a mandamus petition to compel the in the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, sangguniang bayan, or
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Eastern Samar to recognize him. sangguniang barangay, the President of the Philippines, upon recommendation of the
TRO issued. Minister of Local Government, shall appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy in
the sangguniang panlalawigan and the sangguniang panlungsod; the governor, in the
Arguments case of sangguniang bayan members; or the city or municipal mayor, in the case of
Docena argues that both he and Capito ran for the Provincial Board in the sangguniang barangay members. Except for the sangguniang barangay, the
1988 elections under the banner Lakas ng Bansa. They later on would both appointee shall come from the political party of the sanggunian member who caused
the vacancy, and shall serve the unexpired term of the vacant office.
De Rama vs. CA The CA and the CSC decided correctly that this prohibition against midnight
Ynares-Santiago appointments only applied to presidential appointments. There is no law that
Upon his assumption to the position of Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, prohibits local elective officials from making appointments on the last days of his
petitioner de Rama wrote a letter to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) or her tenure.
seeking the recall of the appointment of 14 municipal employees.
De Rama sought for their recall on the ground that the appointments of Dela Rama didn’t even allege fraud or any anomaly in the appointment of the
these persons were midnight appointments of the former mayor – Mayor appointive officials. His solitary reason was that these were midnight appointments.
Abeja, in violation of VII-15 (huh eh presidential lang to)
o Meanwhile, the CSC allowed the claim for salaries of 3 of the 14 Perhaps sensing the weakness of his arguments, Dela Rama filed a supplement to the
appointees, who say that although the CSC had declared their appeal as well as a motion for reconsideration wherein he alleged, for the very first
appointments to be permanent, Mayor De Rama, through an office time, that the appointments violated CSC rules and regulations.
order, prohibited payment to them.
The CSC denied the recall of appointment for lack of merit. CSC cited its Dela Rama faults the CA and the CSC for ignoring his supplemental pleading, while at
Omnibus Rules and declared that the appointments were issued in the same time arguing that the grounds for the recall aren’t new issues because he
accordance with pertinent laws, thus, were effective immediately, and had timely raised them before the CSC.
cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the appointing authority until While supplemental pleadings may be filed, these should not entirely
disapproved by the CSC. substitute the original pleading.
o The CSC also denied the allegation that these were midnight Under the Rules of Court, a supplemental pleading must state the
appointments, saying na DUH proscription against the president supervening events that took place. In this case, the irregularities weren’t
lang yung contained sa Constitutional provision na yun. new developments which only happened after the filing of the original
MORE for the payment of salaries and for the denial of the recall of pleading. Accordingly, tama lang na CSC and CA didn’t consider these as
appointments denied. new evidence w/c are the proper subjects of a supplemental pleading.
o CSC again reiterated its decision na in the absence of any showing The non-posting of notice, merit requirement, and rules on screening
na these appointments were defective in form or in substance, should’ve been included / alleged sa Order of Recall, but it wasn’t, hence
contrary to law, they’re valid and in effect. it’s deemed waived.
CA denied appeal
o RA 7041 – not all appointments must be made within 4 months Valid Appointments
from publication of the vacancies. Upon the issuance of an appointment, and the assumption of the position in the civil
o Likewise, the CSC rules do not require that vacant positions must service, the appointee acquires a legal right which cannot be taken away either by
be filled up before the next quarter. revocation or by removal (except for cause and with previous notice and hearing)
At a MORE, the CA denied the arguments:
o No screening process and no criteria were adopted by the An appointee assuming a CSC position acquires a legal and not just an equitable right
Personnel Selection Board in nominating the respondents (ANNEX) to the position. It’s protected both by statute and by constitutional mandate.
o No posting in 3 conspicuous public places of notice of vacancy
o Merit and Fitness requirements not observed by the selection In this case, no hearing nor notice. Dela Rama acted in undue haste to remove them
board and the appointing authority without regard to due process. In doing so, he overstepped his authority because
o Valid grounds to recall there’s no doubt that despite the fact na appointing power siya, he does not have
Appeal to SC blanket authority to revoke.
New issues sa MORE Under the Omnibus Implementing Regulations of the RAC, an appointment once
CA did not err in holding that the MORE grounds were new issues because when Dela accepted cannot be withdrawn and remains in force til disapproved by the CSC
Rama brought the matter of withdrawing the appointments before the CSC, the main
argument was that these were midnight appointments forbidden under the Consti.
Annex
RA 7041 - Section 80. Public Notice of Vacancy:
Personnel Selection Board. (a) Whenever a local chief executive decides to fill a
vacant career position, there shall be posted notices of the vacancy in at least three
(3) conspicuous public places in the local government unit concerned for a period of
not less than fifteen (15) days.
(c) The personnel selection board shall be headed by the local sanggunian concerned.
A representative of the Civil Service Commission, if any, and the personnel officer of
the local government unit concerned shall be ex officio members of the board.
David vs. COMELEC When the Americans took over, barangays became barrios. They were granted
Panganiban autonomy under the barrio charter and formally recognized as municipal
Two petitions raise the same question: how long is the t erm of barangay corporations.
officials who were elected in May 1994? Is it 3 years as under the Local
Government Code of 1991? Or is it 5 years under RA 6679? Syempre they During the martial law regime, they were renamed into barangays. Nevertheless,
contend na 5 years. They’re asking that the court order the election in 1997 their basic organization and functions under the old Barrio Charter were adopted and
be rescheduled in 1999 (35) expressly referred to as the Barangay Charter. The titles of officials were changed.
o Petitioners argue that the LGC 3-year term doesn’t apply to Punong Barangay + 6 kagawads (councilmen)
barangays because RA 6678 is a special law applying only to Old LGC – 6 year terms (PB, 6 sanggunian, Kabataan chair, Sec, Tres)
barangays Omnibus election Code – reiterated 6 years and stated na their election shall
o No express or implied repeal of barangay terms. be every 2nd Monday of May 1988 and on the same day every 6 years
o X-8 excepts barangays from the 3 year term. thereafter
COMELEC maintains that the LGC amended RA 6679 because the repealing
clause of the law included all laws, general or special, inconsistent with the RA 6653 re-scheduled the 1988 May Brgy elections to November, and every five
provisions of the LGC. years thereafter. Hence the term of office was cut down from 6 to 5. The punong
o COMELEC cited the GAA of 1997 and how it includes appropriations barangay was chosen from among themselves by 7 kagawads, who, in turn, were to
for both national and local (and barangay) elections. be elected at large by the barangay electorate.
Former Senator Pimentel, as amicus curiae, sided with the COMELEC in that
it was the legislative intent to shorten the term of brgy. Officials to three But the November election scheduled by RA 6653 was also delayed and reset to
years, and that such barangay officials should not have a term longer than March 28, 1989 (kaya 1994 ang tapos ng term) by RA 6679 which also provided that
their admin superiors. the term of office ends on May 31, 1994.
First Case
David, as Brgy. Chairman (Brgy. 77) and president of the Liga ng mga Under the LGC, several provisions on barangay officials were introduced
Barangay sa Pilipinas, filed a petition for prohibition to prohibit the holding Term reduced to three years (LGC 43(c)) which shall begin after the regular
of the barangay election scheduled on the 2nd Monday of may 1997. election of Barangay officials on the 2nd Monday of May 1994
SOLGEN filed a four-page comment siding with petitioner praying that the Punong Baranggay + 7 Sangguniang Baranggay Members + Kabataan Chair +
election be held in abeyance. Sec + tres
COMELEC filed a separate comment Punong Baranggay is elected by direct vote
Second Case
Petitioner in this case is the Liga ng mga Baranggay – QC Chapter I. Clear Legislative Intent to limit the term to 3 years
represented by its president Rillon. It sought to declare Section 43(c) of the “emerges as bright as the sunlight”
LGC unconstitutional (sets 3 year term from 2nd Monday of May 1994), as LGC was enacted later, and had an irreconcilable conflict. Hence, it’s the
well as the COMELEC resolutions fixing the date for the same, and a 400- later legislative will.
million appropriation. LGC provided for a direct vote. During the elections held in May 1994, this
direct vote provision was followed. If we follow this, this means na
Brief Historical Background of Barangay Elections petitioner David was voted illegally (directly) and hence can’t be the
Barangays are ruled by Datos who exercised absolute government powers. When the president of the national league of barangays.
Spanish took over, they retained the barangays as a unit but stripped the Dato or GAA provision worth 400 million for the holding of barangay elections.
Rajah of his powers. Instead they were supervised by the Encomiendero, and later LGC is a codified set of laws which apply to each LGU with particularity. It
on, alcalde mayor and the gobernadorcillo. specifically and definitively provides that the term of office shall be 3 years.
Datus became Cabeza de Barangays, from authoritarian to a mere o RA 6679 is a special law, yes, but LGC may be a special law also!
employee. It was elective though. Only the poor who needed a salary
accepted the post.
II. Three-Year term not contrary to the Consti
X-8 provides xxx. The Constitution does not expressly prohibit Congress from fixing
any term of office for Barangay officials. It merely left the determination of such term
to the law-making body, without any specific limitation or prohibition.
Furthermore, it’s worth noting that the LGC provision providing for a 3-year term was
actually proposed by Constitutional Commissioner Davide.
MR. NOLLEDO. One clarificatory question, Madam President. What will be the term
of the office of barangay officials as provided for?
MR. DAVIDE. As may be determined by law.
MR. NOLLEDO. As provided for in the Local Government Code?
MR. DAVIDE. Yes.
David could not have run for the position of Punong Baranggay if, as they claim, RA
6679 was still applicable and not the new LGC because again in RA 6679 the Punong
Barangay was not elected by popular vote but chosen by the elected kagawads.
In other words, following petitioners own theory, the election of Petitioner David as
well as all the barangay chairmen of the two Liga petitioners was illegal.
The sum total of these absurdities in petitioner’s theory is that barangay officials are
estopped from asking for any term other than that which they ran for and were
elected to, under the law governing their very claim to such offices: namely, RA 7160,
the Local Government Code. Petitioners belated claim of ignorance as to what law
governed their election to office in 1994 is unacceptable because under Art. 3 of the
Civil Code, (i)gnorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.