You are on page 1of 24

Deang, Gameng, Ramos, Tejada, Torres, Usman

[G.R. No. 82512. December 19, 1989.]
FACTS: An information was filed charging the six accused including Petitioner Cresencio D. Data,
being then the district Engineer of the province of Rizal, Ministry of Public Works, and as such,
headed and supervised the acquisition of private lands for the right-of-way of the Mangahan
Floodway Project of the Government and Petitioner Amado C. Arias, then the Auditor of Rizal
Engineering District, Pasig, Metro Manila, who passed upon and approved in audit the acquisition
as well as the payment of lands needed for the Mangahan Floodway Project as co-conspirators in
causing undue injury and damage to the Government through the irregular disbursement and
expenditure of public funds. The records show that the six accused persons were convicted in
connection with the overpricing of land purchased by the Bureau of Public Works for the
Mangahan Floodway Project. The project was intended to ease the perennial floods in Marikina
and Pasig, Metro Manila. The accused were prosecuted because 19,004 square meters of "riceland"
in Rosario, Pasig which had been assessed at P5.00 a square meter in 1973 were sold as "residential
land" in 1978 for P80.00 a square meter. The land for the floodway was acquired through
negotiated purchase. The Sandigandayan rendered a decision finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the violation of Section 3, paragraph (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Both Arias and Data appealed.

ISSUE: Whether the Sandiganbayan committed a reversible error in convicting the petitioners,
Amado C. Arias and Cresencio D. Data, of having violated Section 3, paragraph (e), of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in connection with the scandalous overpricing of land purchased
by the Government as right of way for its Mangahan Floodway Project in Pasig, Rizal.

RULING: YES. The Court agrees with the Solicitor-General that the assessor’s tax valuation of
P5.00/sgm of the subject land is completely unrealistic and arbitrary as the basis of conviction.
No undue injury was caused to the Government.
It bears stress that the Agleham property was acquired through negotiated purchase. It was,
therefor, nothing more than an ordinary contract of sale where the purchase price had to be arrived
at by agreement between the parties and could never be left to the discretion of one of the
contracting parties. Necessarily, the parties have to negotiate the reasonableness of the price,
taking into consideration such other factors as location, potentials, surroundings and capabilities.
A negotiated purchase may usually entail a higher buying price than one arrived at in the course of
expropriation proceedings.
On the alleged conspiracy
We would be setting a bad precedent if a head of office plagued by all too common problems —
dishonest or negligent subordinates, overwork, multiple assignments or positions, or plain
incompetence — is suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction simply because he did not
personally examine every single detail, painstakingly trace every step from inception, and
investigate the motives of every person involved in a transaction before affixing his signature as the
final approving authority. It is doubtful if any auditor for a fairly sized office could p e r s o n ally do
all these things in all vouchers presented for his signature. The Court would be asking for the
impossible. All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on the
good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations. There has to be
some added reason why he should examine each voucher in such detail. Any executive head of even
s m all government agencies or commissions can attest to the volume of papers that must be
signed. There are hundreds of documents, letters, memoranda, vouchers, and supporting papers
that routinely pass through his hands. The number in bigger offices or departments is even more
appalling. There should be other grounds than the mere signature or approval appearing on a
voucher to sustain a conspiracy charge and conviction.
There is no adequate evidence to establish the guilt of the petitioners, Amado C. Arias and
Cresencio D. Data, beyond reasonable doubt. The inadequate evidence on record is not sufficient to
sustain a conviction.

2. PEZA vs. COA
G.R. No. 210903. October 11, 2016

Deang, Gameng, Ramos, Tejada, Torres, Usman

The PEZA Charter was amended by RA 8748 exempting PEZA from existing laws, rules and
regulations on compensation, position classification and qualification standards. Pursuant to the
amendment, the PEZA Board in Resolution No. M-99-266, adjusted PEZA's compensation plan
and included in the said compensation plan is the grant of Christmas bonus amounting to P75,

State Auditor V Aurora Liveta-Funa, issued Notice of Disallowance stating that despite the
provisions of Section 16 of R.A. No. 7916, as amended, petitioner is still bound to observe the
guidelines and policies issued by the Office of the President citing this Court's ruling in Intia, Jr. v.
COA where it was ruled that the power of the board of directors to fix the compensation of the
employees is not absolute. The Corporate Government Sector B rendered a decision which was
adverse to petitioner. Upon appeal to respondent, the latter affirmed the Corporate Government
Sector’s decision.

The Supreme Court sustained COA ruling that the charters of those government entities exempt
from the Salary Standardization Law are not without any form of restriction. They are still required
to report to the Office of the President, through the DBM the details of their salary and
compensation system and to endeavor to make the system to conform as closely as possible to the
principles and modes provided in Republic Act No. 6758. Such restriction is the most apparent
indication that the legislature did not divest the President, as Chief Executive of his power of
control over the said government entities.

W/N PEZA’s officials should be held financially accountable for the adoption of certain policies or
programs which are found to be not in accordance with the understanding by the Commission on
Audit several years after the fact.

NO. Good faith has always been a valid defense of public officials that has been considered by this
Court in several cases. Good faith is a state of mind denoting "honesty of intention, and freedom
from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. There is no question
about the need to ferret out and convict public officers whose acts have made the bidding out and
construction of public works and highways synonymous with graft or criminal inefficiency in the
public eye.

However, the remedy is not to indict and jail every person who may have ordered the project, who
signed a document incident to its construction, or who had a hand somewhere in its
implementation. The careless use of the conspiracy theory may sweep into jail even innocent
persons who may have been made unwitting tools by the criminal minds who engineered the

It is unfair to penalize public officials based on overly stretched and strained interpretations of
rules which were not that readily capable of being understood at the time such functionaries acted
in good faith. If there is any ambiguity, which is actually clarified years later, then it should only be
applied prospectively. A contrary rule would be counterproductive. It could result in paralysis, or
lack of innovative ideas getting tried. In addition, it could dissuade others from joining the
government. When government service becomes unattractive, it could only have adverse
consequences for society.

G.R. Nos. 103501-03 February 17, 1997 
Then President Marcos instructed Luis Tabuena over the phone to pay directly to the president’s
office and in cash what the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) owes the Philippine
National Construction Corporation (PNCC), pursuant to the 7 January 1985 memorandum of then
Minister Trade and Industry Roberto Ongpin. Tabuena agreed. About a week later, Tabuena
received from Mrs. Fe Roa-Gimenez, then private secretary of Marcos, a Presidential
Memorandum dated 8 January 1986 reiterating in black and white such verbal instruction. In
obedience to President Marcos’ verbal instruction and memorandum, Tabuena, with the help of
Gerardo G. Dabao and Adolfo Peralta, caused the release of P55 Million of MIAA funds by means of

and in conformity with the requirements thereof. invoking Aguardor vs.R. July 30. is not protected by his office and is personally liable therefor like any private individual. Tabuena surely cannot escape responsibility for such omission. done in excess or beyond the scope of his duty. he was no longer mayor of Norzagaray." did not comply with certain auditing rules and regulations. Torres. One of the justices of the Sandiganbayan actively took part in the questioning of a defense witness and of the accused themselves. Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta are acquitted of the crime of malversation. FACTS: Respondent Court of First Instance rendered judgment ordering defendants Eufemio T. Bulacan personally to pay the salaries which the plaintiffs failed to receive by reason of their illegal removal from office until they are actually reinstated. Sabillano. 4. Ramos. the volume of the questions asked were more the combined questions of the counsels. and not criminal. appealing the Sandiganbayan decision dated 12 October 19990 and the Resolution of 20 December 1991. Nemenzo because his act of dismissing appellee "without previous administrative investigation and without justifiable cause . they have acted by authority of the law. whether or not the same is included as party to the action. This fact. Enerio and Sison vs. EUFEMIO T. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE G. Bulacan. Pajo. Tabuena and Peralta were charged for malversation of funds. the memorandum is patently lawful for no law makes the payment of an obligation illegal. But since he was acting in good faith. municipal mayor and municipal treasurer of Norzagaray. Usman three (3) withdrawals. And on its face. which Tabuena admitted as "out of the ordinary. the judgment is binding upon the corporation. . ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Court in denying the Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution acted with grave abuse of discretion or with lack or excess of jurisdiction. Gameng. Bulacan. There is no denying that the disbursement. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution and to Direct Execution to the Municipality of Norzagaray. HELD: No. Further." A public officer who commits a tort or other wrongful act. petitioner alleges that the fact that he is no longer municipal mayor of Norzagaray. alleging that at the time the writ was served on him. constitutes a substantial change in the situation of the parties which makes the issuance of the writ of execution inequitable. Be that as it may. CORREA vs. It carries with it the presumption that it was regularly issued. The order emanated from the Office of the President and bears the signature of the President himself. Petitioner thus came to this Court." In the discharge of governmental functions. Correa and Virgilio Sarmiento. coupled with the urgent tenor for its execution constrains one to act swiftly without question. the highest official of the land. and only to the extent that. the reported cases saying that by reason of non- . In Nemenzo vs.Deang. L-46096. Tejada. On 12 October 1990. No. which is not the case. "municipal corporations are responsible for the acts of its officers. Tabuena and Peralta filed separate petitions for review. Petitioner invoked the principle that when judgment is rendered against an officer of the municipal corporation who is sued in his official capacity for the payment of back salaries of officers illegally removed. Appellant cannot hide under the mantle of his official capacity and pass the liability to the municipality of which he was mayor. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners are guilty of the crime of malversation. his liability should only be administrative or civil in nature. while Dabao remained at large. RULING: NO. He did not have the luxury of time to observe all auditing procedures of disbursement considering the fact that the MARCOS Memorandum enjoined his "immediate compliance" with the directive that he forward to the President's Ofce the P55 Million in cash. But this deviation was inevitable under the circumstances Tabuena was in. . the Court ruled that appellant Municipal Mayor Bernabe Sabillano was "correctly adjudged liable" for the payment of the back salaries of appellee Police Corporal Joaquin P. This principle of personal liability has been applied to cases where a public officer removes another officer or discharges an employee wrongfully. they were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. maintaining that he could no longer be required to pay the back salaries of the private respondents because payment on his part presupposes his continuance in office. is clearly an injury to appellee's rights. Tabuena acted in strict compliance with the MARCOS Memorandum. 1979. except if and when. He contends that it is the Municipality of Norzagaray that is liable for said payment. Respondent Court issued the Order denying the Motion to Quash Writ of Execution.

The Regional Trial Court. Instead of filing the answer/explanation as ordered. The dismissal of the criminal case will not foreclose administrative action filed against petitioner or give him a clean bill of health in all respects. Thus. The Information alleged that respondent. technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. Torres. Maximino Eclipse. In administrative proceedings. which is a public document. petitioner failed to comply with the order. Thereafter. the administrative case can no longer stand on its own and should be dismissed RULING: NO. Petitioner was required by respondent Ombudsman to file his counter-affidavit within ten (10) days from receipt with a c a v e a t that failure to file the same would be deemed a waiver of his right to present evidence. RAMON G. there is the "substantial evidence" rule in administrative proceedings which merely requires such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. taking advantage of his official position and. is adequate in civil cases. Tejada. 114683. administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict judicial sense. or cause to be forged and falsified. P-89-290. the respondent forwarded to the Court Administrator a letter informing the latter that Criminal Case No. the payment thereof was actually made on May 23. and perhaps even many times more creditably and practicable than oral argument. Again. Respondent Court. OCAMPO vs. a subsidiary of the National Irrigation Administration. January 18. Petitioner moved for reconsideration. not solely by verbal presentation but also. The lack or absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean an absence of any evidence whatsoever for there is another class of evidence which. Deputy Sheriff of Branch XXXI of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila was administratively charged with the crime of falsification of a public document and with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Enriquez. 2000. moreover. though insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The writ was strictly in accordance with the terms of the judgment. 1986. the officials were acting outside their official authority. in dismissing the criminal complaint. 1986 to Genstar Container Corporation through its attorney-in-fact. claiming that he was denied due process in that the administrative case was resolved solely on the basis of the complainant's evidences without affording him the opportunity to file his counter- affidavit. 1993. did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to quash writ of execution. and that the amount of P1. Then too. January 29. as well as the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and MAXIMINO ECLIPSE [G. 1986. representing the bid price for the aforesaid levied properties. petitioner failed.00. petitioner filed the present petition. Usman compliance with the requirements of law in respect to removal from office. the respondent Ombudsman issued a resolution recommending the discharge of petitioner from the service. The Ombudsman denied the motion. through pleadings. forge and falsify. was simply saying that the prosecution was unable to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.. No. ENRIQUEZ [A. ISSUE: Whether or not with the dismissal of the criminal case. the respondent Ombudsman issued another order giving petitioner another chance to file his counter-affidavit. this is preponderance of evidence. INC. petitioner manifested that the administrative case can no longer stand on its own and should be dismissed.Deang.000. Sheriff's (sic) Certificate of Sale dated May 12. he (respondent) should not be held administratively liable.] FACTS: Respondent Ramon G. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. 12987 was still pending resolution before the Sandiganbayan and that therefore. An administrative charge for serious misconduct and/or fraud or willful breach of trust was filed against him before the Office of the Ombudsman by NIACONSULT through its president.M. petitioner filed a manifestation stating that the criminal complaint filed against him based on the same facts or incidents which gave rise to the administrative case was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court. the private respondent. therefore. While the case was pending.R. Gameng. when in truth and in fact. 5. Despite notice. committing the offense in relation to his official duties.] FACTS: Petitioner is the Training Coordinator of NIACONSULT. 6. No. One may be heard. With the dismissal of the criminal case.325. by stating therein that the payment for the properties which he levied and sold at public auction was made on May 12. A year later. On . The essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard. was paid to him on May 12. a condition sin e q u a n o n for conviction. Aggrieved. 1986. the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other. considering the difference in the quantum of evidence. JESUS C. Ramos.

the grounds relied upon not appearing to be indubitable” Respondent Enrile then requested leave from the Sandiganbayan to implead the petitioner and the PCGG officials as party defendants for lodging this alleged "harassment suit" against him. exercising his duty under the law to assist the Government in the filing and prosecution of all cases pursuant to Section 1. 1. Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena correctly observed that there is no general immunity arising solely from occupying a public office. Respondent then filed a Manifestation informing this Court of the promulgation of the above resolution and praying that "by virtue of the dismissal of the Criminal Case filed against the respondent before the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan. . the Administrative Case should be likewise dismissed RULING: NO. Usman 15 May 1989. The motion was granted. FRANCISCO I. recklessness. the Sandiganbayan. the Administrative Case . 1991 FACTS: The Republic of the Philippines. 14. Executive Order No. a condition sin e q u a n o n for conviction because of the presumption of innocence which the Constitution guarantees an accused. The Republic filed its reply to the answer and motion to dismiss the counterclaim.Deang. The general rule is that public officials can be held personally . among others. acting on a demurrer to evidence. was simply saying that the prosecution was unable to prove the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. . Instead of filing an answer. this is p r e p o n d e r a n c e of evidence. Thus. through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) with the assistance of Solicitor General Francisco Chavez filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint against Eduardo Cojuangco. Ramos. and Juan Ponce Enrile. reversion and accounting. Gameng. is adequate in civil cases. No. Jr. all the PCGG officials filed their answer to the counterclaims invoking their immunity from suits as provided in Section 4 of Executive Order No. the petitioner argues that since he is simply the lawyer in the case. The respondent Sandiganbayan issued a resolution holding that “The resolution of the Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim against the Plaintiff government is deferred until after trial. for reconveyance. On the other hand. the respondent Sandiganbayan denied a motion to reconsider the granting of such motion. THE HON. and bad faith but filed specific charges that then PCGG Chairman Jovito Salonga had already cleared the respondent and yet. ISSUE: Whether or not the impleading of the petitioner as additional party defendant in the counterclaim filed by respondent Enrile is proper. 7. though insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. he cannot be sued in a counterclaim in the same case. Then too. The motion was opposed by respondent Enrile. Tejada." ISSUE: Whether or not by virtue of the dismissal of the Criminal Case filed against the respondent before the Sandiganbayan. the petitioner still filed the complaint. restitution and damages. January 24. After the denial of his motion to dismiss. the petitioner comes to this Court assailing the resolutions as rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. knowing the allegations to be false. In a later resolution. the petitioner submits that no counter-claim can be filed against him in his capacity as Solicitor General since he is only acting as counsel for the Republic. be likewise dismissed. there is the "substantial evidence" rule in administrative proceedings which merely requires in these cases such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. in dismissing the same. SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. promulgated a Resolution granting the same and dismissing the case against the respondent "for insufficiency of evidence. Thereafter. respondent Enrile filed his answer with compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim with damages. 91391. Lack or absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean an absence of any evidence whatsoever for there is another class of evidence which. HELD: It may be noted that the private respondent did not limit himself to general averments of malice. Torres. CHAVEZ v.

On Item No. Leyte. Peña (159 SCRA 556 [1988]) then Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee. He was promoted in 1991 as SPO4 of the PNP. Torres. His name was not included in the CSC- National Capital Region (CSC-NCR) Regional Register of Eligibles for the Career Service Professional Examination. The CSC-NCR formally charged Dumduma with Dishonesty. Senator Enrile has to file a separate and distinct civil action for damages against the Solicitor General. 417). his name appeared in the Regional List of Passing/Failing Examinees with a rating of 25. Accordingly. He has the right. In the case of Presidential Commission on Good Government v. . instead. or. 18 of the PDS. 20. NOTE: Under the circumstances of this case. No. 8. contrary to what he disclosed in his PDS. 21. Adoracion F. The actions governed by Articles 19.Deang. The cited section of Executive Order No. 1 provides the Commission's members immunity from suit thus: "No civil action shall lie against the Commission or any member thereof for anything done or omitted in the discharge of the task contemplated by this order. 182606. and 32 of the Civil Code on Human Relations may be taken against public officers or private citizens alike. "maliciously conspir(es) with the PCGG commissioners in persecuting respondent Enrile by filing against him an evidently baseless suit in derogation of the latter's constitutional rights and liberties" (Rollo. the main opinion does not claim absolute immunity for the members of the Commission. His appointment was then forwarded to the PNP-CSC Field Office for verification and approval. He was then designated as officer-in-charge of San Miguel Police Station in San Miguel. Moreover. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION G. Marcos in his Constitution for himself and his subordinates is herein involved." No absolute immunity like that sought by Mr. 2011 FACTS: Dumduma entered public service in 1979 as a patrolman in the then Integrated National Police. The issue is not the right of respondent Enrile to file an action for damages. 1 also extends to him is not well-taken. " (at pp. 581-582) Immunity from suit cannot institutionalize irresponsibility and non-accountability nor grant a privileged status not claimed by any other official of the Republic.R. I just wish to point out two things:  First. Dumduma filled out a Personal Data Sheet (PDS) pursuant to his promotional appointment as Police Inspector. DUMDUMA v. he took the Career Service Professional Examination in Quezon City. December 4. Justice Feliciano in his separate opinion. 1998. we rule that the charges pressed by respondent Enrile for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code arising from the filing of an alleged harassment suit with malice and evident bad faith do not constitute a compulsory counterclaim. the director of the CSC-NCR. Usman accountable for acts claimed to have been performed in connection with official duties where they have acted ultra vires or where there is a showing of bad faith. Dumduma stated that he passed the Career Service Professional Examination Computer-Assisted Test with a rating of 81%.CESAR S. there can be no question that a complaint for damages may be filed against him. On December 15. Ramos. It was then discovered that Dumduma did not have the proper civil service eligibility. A mere invocation of the immunity clause does not ipso facto result in the charges being automatically dropped. p. . Tejada. It is understood that the immunity granted the members of the Commission by virtue of the unimaginable magnitude of its task to recover the plundered wealth and the State's exercise of police power was immunity from liability for damages in the official discharge of the task granted the members of the Commission much in the same manner that judges are immune from suit in the official discharge of the functions of their office . 1 as follows: With respect to the qualifications expressed by Mr. To vindicate his rights. Where the petitioner exceeds his authority as Solicitor General acts in bad faith. as contended by the private respondent. Arenas disapproved Dumduma’s appointment. High position in government does not confer a license to persecute or recklessly injure another. added a clarification of the immunity accorded PCGG officials under Section 4(a) of Executive Order No. . Gameng.82%. the petitioner's argument that the immunity  proviso  under Section 4(a) of Executive Order No.

Tejada. unless there is evidence that he colluded with them. the CSC records are presumed correct and made in the regular course of official business. Corona. The concept of good faith in administrative cases such as this one is explained in a recent case in this wise: Good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. despite the questionable circumstances. Besides. the facts and circumstances surrounding Dumduma’s acquisition of the Certificate of Eligibility cast serious doubts on his good faith. who was allegedly a retired CSC director. he received his Certificate of Eligibility from an unnamed person. we can ascertain a person’s intention not from his own protestation of good faith. who claimed to be Dilodilo’s emissary. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada delivered a privilege speech in the Senate of the Philippines to reveal that some Senators. Gameng. notice. 209287. even through technicalities of law. Dilodilo promised Dumduma her "total support” in exchange of convincing [his] close friend to sell a property [to her]. In short.Deang. BENIGNO SIMEON AQUINO III G. as revealed by the evidence. Dumduma took the Career Service Professional Examination. Ramos. Estrada’s revelation. CSC found Dumduma’s version of how he obtained his certificate of eligibility implausible. Dumduma asserts that. explaining . ARAULLO v. Secretary Florencio Abad of the DBM issued a public statement entitled Abad: Releases to Senators Part of Spending Acceleration Program. How else would a retired employee obtain the said certificate? Dumduma cannot feign innocence given his unquestioning cooperation with Dilodilo. Dumduma met a certain Dilodilo. In the instant case. On December 15. or benefit or belief of facts which render [a] transaction unconscientious.R. 1998. including himself. whether some CSC personnel should be held administratively liable for falsifying Dumduma’s Certificate of Eligibility is beside the point. These circumstances reveal Dumduma’s knowledge that Dilodilo could have pulled strings in order to obtain his Certificate of Eligibility and have it delivered to his residence. good faith is actually a question of intention.  According to him. MARIA CAROLINA P. A week later. HELD: The Court agrees with the CSC and the CA that the undisputed facts. Usman Dumduma denied the charge. Torres. make out a clear case of dishonesty against Dumduma. Unlike his PDS entry. Responding to Sen.  The CSC-NCR held that the Certificate of Eligibility relied upon by Dumduma in making his PDS entry was spurious. which is self-serving. he is in good faith and that the blame is with the CSC personnel who gave him a Certificate of Eligibility. had been allotted an additional ₱50 Million each as "incentive" for voting in favor of the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato C. The fact that someone else falsified the certificate will not excuse Dumduma for knowingly using the same for his career advancement. prior to the date of the examination. The CA found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that Dumduma’s Certificate of Eligibility was spurious. 9. Their actions should not be attributable to him. an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another. it became incumbent upon Dumduma to explain why he made the incorrect entry in his PDS. ISSUE: Whether or not Dumduma is guilty of dishonesty. Although this is something internal. July 1. He made a deal with a retired CSC official and accepted the Certificate of Eligibility from her representative. but from evidence of his conduct and outward acts. When Dumduma’s claim of eligibility was contradicted by the CSC Register of Eligibles and the List of Passing/Failing Examinees. Dumduma’s contention is in stark contrast to his admissions and does not merit belief. No. 2014 FACTS: Sen. together with absence of all information.

to be applied to some general object of governmental expenditure. and made this present controversy inevitable. and that it was not the first time that releases from the DAP had been made because the DAP had already been instituted in 2011 to ramp up spending after sluggish disbursements had caused the growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) to slow down. That the issues against the DAP came at a time when the Nation was still seething in anger over Congressional pork barrel – "an appropriation of government spending meant for localized projects and secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative’s district"– excited the Nation as heatedly as the pork barrel controversy. The DBM listed the following as the legal bases for the DAP’s use of savings. the Executive did not usurp the power vested in Congress under Section 29(1). Usman that the funds released to the Senators had been part of the DAP. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Section 49 (Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes) and Section 38 (Suspension of Expenditure Appropriations). particularly their provisions on the (a) use of savings. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987). or sets apart a specified portion of the public revenue or of the money in the public treasury. Book VI of Executive Order (EO) No. Chapter 5. YES HELD: DAP was not an appropriation measure. the DBM cited as legal bases the special provisions on unprogrammed fund contained in the GAAs of 2011. Unreleased appropriations and withdrawn unobligated allotments under the DAP were not . had sufficient discretion during the execution of the budget to adapt the budget to changes in the country’s economic situation. The pooling of savings pursuant to the DAP. ISSUE: Whether or not DAP is constitutionally infirm. Indeed. namely: Section 25(5). a program designed by the DBM to ramp up spending to accelerate economic expansion. 2012 and 2013. Ramos. He explained that the funds under the DAP were usually taken from unreleased appropriations under Personnel Services." On the other hand. or to some individual purchase or expense. Torres. In such actions. Tejada. Congress could appropriate but would have nothing more to do during the Budget Execution Stage. appropriation was the act by which Congress "designates a particular fund. and budgets for slow-moving items or projects that had been realigned to support faster-disbursing projects. The revelation of Sen. 2012 and 2013. Gameng. the President.Deang. Abad and the DBM brought the DAP to the consciousness of the Nation for the first time. He could pool the savings and identify the PAPs to be funded under the DAP. As for the use of unprogrammed funds under the DAP. Nine petitions assailing the constitutionality of the DAP and the issuances relating to the DAP were filed within days of each other. hence. no appropriation law was required to adopt or to implement it. and (c) priority in the use of savings. Estrada and the reactions of Sec. and the identification of the PAPs to be funded under the DAP did not involve appropriation in the strict sense because the money had been already set apart from the public treasury by Congress through the GAAs. He clarified that the funds had been released to the Senators based on their letters of request for funding. which granted to the President the authority to augment an item for his office in the general appropriations law. and the General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) of 2011. He could adopt a plan like the DAP for the purpose. unprogrammed funds. carry-over appropriations unreleased from the previous year. Article VI of the Constitution. We agree with the OSG’s position. (b) meanings of savings and augmentation. The DAP was a government policy or strategy designed to stimulate the economy through accelerated spending. in keeping with his duty to faithfully execute the laws.

by which the President. Requisites for the valid transfer of appropriated funds under Section 25(5). Notwithstanding our appreciation of the DAP as a plan or strategy validly adopted by the Executive to ramp up spending to accelerate economic growth. No. ULDARICO P. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. G. including government owned . Torres. were likewise administratively charged of Grave Misconduct.OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. The plain language of the constitutional restriction leaves no room for the petitioner’s posture. The DAP – as a strategy to improve the country’s economic position – was one policy that the President decided to carry out in order to fulfill his mandate under the GAAs. Andutan. particularly when the funds are grouped to form lump sum accounts. in the context of a limitation on the President’s discretion over the appropriations during the Budget Execution Phase.R. As government employees. Subsequently. and 3. The Ombudsman found the respondents guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty. retirement and other benefits and privileges. The management and utilization of the public wealth inevitably demands a most careful scrutiny of whether the Executive’s implementation of the DAP was consistent with the Constitution. the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Congress has traditionally allowed much flexibility to the President in allocating funds pursuant to the GAAs. the relevant GAAs and other existing laws. then Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora issued a Memorandum directing all non-career officials or those occupying political positions to vacate their positions effective July 1. Article VI of the Constitution. Andutan resigned from his post. supra. The purpose of the transfer is to augment an item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices. ANDUTAN. Accordingly. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. were criminally charged by the Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) of the Ombudsman with Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents.Deang. Tejada. There is a law authorizing the President. Gameng. the challenges posed by the petitioners constrain us to dissect the mechanics of the actual execution of the DAP. Having been separated from the service. Andutan was imposed the penalty of forfeiture of all leaves. Dishonesty. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution: 1. Although executive discretion and flexibility are necessary in the execution of the budget. the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  This flexibility comes in the form of policies that the Executive may adopt during the budget execution phase. Falsification of Official Documents and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. and violations RA 3019. the President of the Senate. 2011. among others. we should interpret Section 25(5). On June 30. the President of the Senate. Ramos. It is assumed that the agencies of the Government enjoy more flexibility when the GAAs provide broader appropriation items. and the heads of the Constitutional Commissions to transfer funds within their respective offices. and the heads of Constitutional Commissions are authorized to transfer appropriations to augmentany item in the GAA for their respective offices from the savings in other items of their respective appropriations. Pursuant to the Memorandum. Article VI of the Constitution limiting the authority to transfer savings only to augment another item in the GAA is strictly but reasonably construed as exclusive. Article VI of the Constitution. Usman savings. which we should now dispose of as untenable. any transfer of appropriated funds should conform to Section 25(5). 164679. 1998. It bears emphasizing that the exception in favor of the high officials named in Section 25(5). et al. Section 25 (5). and perpetual disqualification from reinstatement and/or reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government. and the use of such appropriations contravened Section 25(5). July 27. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The criminal and administrative charges arose from anomalies in the illegal transfer of Tax Credit Certificates (TCCs) to Steel Asia. 2. FACTS: Andutan was formerly the Deputy Director of the One-Stop Shop Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center of the Department of Finance (DOF). The funds to be transferred are savings generated from the appropriations for their respective offices. 1998. 10. JR. Andutan et al.

6770 prohibit the Ombudsman from conducting an administrative investigation a year after the act was committed. and second. It is irrelevant.  2. either to prevent the continuation of a case already filed or to pre-empt the imminent filing of one. but had already resigned or retired therefrom. (e) and (j) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against Andutan. the Ombudsman was well within its discretion to conduct the administrative investigation. Ramos. Likewise. Whether Section 20(5) of R. Usman and controlled agencies or corporations. al. In the past cases. Torres.A. He likewise prayed for the military to cease from further conducting surveillance and monitoring of his activities and for his name to be excluded from the order of battle and other government records connecting him to . Here. he expressed his fear of being abducted and killed. Without doubt. hence. the Court found that the public officials – subject of the administrative cases – resigned. ruling that the latter “should not have considered the administrative complaints” because: first. No. the object sought is not the punishment of the officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public’s faith and confidence in our government. 1998. that Andutan had already resigned prior to the filing of the administrative case since the operative fact that determines its jurisdiction is the commission of an offense while in the public service. 11. and confiscation or forfeiture of any prohibited interest. if the act committed by the public official is indeed inimical to the interests of the State. Gameng. No. In the petition. 2012 FACTS: On March 6. Even if the Ombudsman may no longer file an administrative case against a public official who has already resigned or retired.Deang. Andutan resigned from his DOF post on July 1. The Ombudsman can no longer institute an administrative case against Andutan because the latter was not a public servant at the time the case was filed. In disciplining public officers and employees. according to the Ombudsman. even if the administrative case was filed beyond the one (1) year period stated in Section 20(5). Well-entrenched is the rule that administrative offenses do not prescribe. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO et. No. Tejada. The SC observed that indeed it has held in the past that a public official’s resignation does not render moot an administrative case that was filed prior to the official’s resignation. If found guilty. 2008.  2. Andutan’s resignation was neither his choice nor of his own doing.A. Section 20 of R. Second. while the administrative case was filed on September 1. ISSUES: 1. NOTE: The State is not without remedy against Andutan or any public official who committed violations while in once. the Ombudsman — through the FFIB — filed a criminal case for Estafa and violations of Section 3 (a). the petitioner led with the Court a petition to be granted the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data with prayers for temporary protection order. If the SC agreed with the interpretation of the Ombudsman. other legal mechanisms are available to redress the same. ad infinitum. inspection of place and production of documents. he was forced to resign. G. criminal and administrative liability. Andutan will not only be meted out the penalty of imprisonment. In fact. 183533." the wrongful acts or omissions of a public officer may give rise to civil. What is clear from the records is that Andutan was forced to resign more than a year before the Ombudsman filed the administrative case against him. here. Clearly. Whether the Ombudsman has authority to institute an administrative complaint against a government employee who had already resigned. Section 20 of R. 6770 provides that the Ombudsman “may not conduct the necessary investigation of any administrative act or omission complained of if it believes that x x x [t]he complaint was filed after one year from the occurrence of the act or omission complained of”. he sought that he be placed in a sanctuary appointed by the Court. 6770 is merely directory and does not prohibit the Ombudsman from conducting an administrative investigation after the lapse of one year.A. but also the penalties of perpetual disqualification from office. September 25. any official – even if he has been separated from the service for a long time – may still be subject to the disciplinary authority of his superiors. The CA annulled and set aside the decision of the Ombudsman. reckoned from the time the alleged act was committed. the administrative case was filed after Andutan’s forced resignation. exactly one year and two months after his resignation. First. neither situation obtains. the Ombudsman may still file criminal and civil cases to vindicate Andutan's alleged transgressions. 1999.  HELD: 1. Administrative offenses by their very nature pertain to the character of public officers and employees.R. Under the "threefold liability rule. FRANCIS SAEZ vs.

can be held responsible or accountable for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. being the commander-in-chief of all armed forces. Thus. Courts look with disfavor upon the presidential privilege of immunity. as the Commander-in Chief of the AFP . (b) the acts have been repeatedly or regularly committed within his area of responsibility. there was no request or demand for any investigation that was brought to the President's attention. as to the issue of failure to prevent or punish. In the instant case. Pursuant to the doctrine of command responsibility. under the doctrine of command responsibility. as commander-in-chief of the military. the President. especially when it impedes the search for truth or impairs the vindication of a right.Deang. the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators thereof. The President cannot be automatically dropped as a respondent pursuant to the doctrine of command responsibility. the petitioner merely included the President's name as a party respondent without any attempt at all to show the latter's actual involvement in. he did not take preventive or corrective action either before. the president has the power to effectively command. Having established the applicability of the doctrine of command responsibility in amparo proceedings. or had failed to exercise necessary and reasonable diligence necessary and reasonable diligence in conducting the necessary investigations required under the rules. In Noriel Rodriguez v. and c. GMA on the ground of her immunity from suit. 226. al the Court stated: Command responsibility of the president. is not exempted from the burden of proving by substantial evidence his allegations against the President to make the latter liable for either acts or omissions violative of rights against life. this presidential privilege of immunity cannot be invoked by a non-sitting president for acts committed during his or her tenure. Usman the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). the petitioner in this case failed to establish accountability of the President. necessarily possesses control over the military that qualifies him as a superior within the purview of the command responsibility doctrine. the superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was about to be or had been committed. or immediately after its commission. is being committed. The petitioner. it must now be resolved whether the president. crimes or offenses is presumed when (a) the acts are widespread within the government official's area of jurisdiction. Torres. To hold someone liable under the doctrine of command responsibility. Tejada. during.O. Meanwhile. Further. or has been committed by his subordinates. b. Without necessarily giving due course to the petition. liberty and security as long as substantial evidence exist to show that he or she had exhibited involvement in or can be imputed with knowledge of the violations. and referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) for hearing and decision. Ramos. the following elements must obtain: a. Under E. it is important to note that as the commander-in- chief of the armed forces. as commander-in-chief. The Court also stresses that rule that the presidential immunity from suit exists only in concurrence with the president's incumbency. Knowledge of the commission of irregularities. Conversely. or by others within his area of responsibility and. the Court issued the writ of amparo commanding the respondents to make a verified return. or knowledge of the alleged violations. the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between the accused as superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his subordinate. ISSUE: Whether or not the president should be immediately dropped as respondent pursuant to the presidential immunity from suit principle. even for acts committed during his or her tenure. . can be held liable for affront against the petitioner's rights to life. despite such knowledge. The CA likewise dropped as respondent Pres. Gameng. The CA ruled that the petitioner failed to adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his petition for the writs. We rule in the affirmative. HELD: No. or (c) members of his immediate staff or office personnel are involved. prior to the filing of the petition. liberty and security. however. The president. while the President cannot be completely dropped as a respondent in a petition for the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data merely on the basis of the presidential immunity from suit. GMA et. a government official may be held liable for neglect of duty under the doctrine of command responsibility if he has knowledge that a crime or offense shall be committed. control and discipline the military.

G. PEOPLE vs. July 5.TESDA VS. HELD: No. Pagunuran merely relied on the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) table of "Typical Construction Costs. Neither does the disposition in one case inevitably govern the resolution of the other case/s and vice versa. correlatively. if the criminal case will be prosecuted based on the same facts and evidence as that in the administrative case. The prosecution is certainly not precluded from adducing additional evidence to discharge the burden of proof required in the criminal cases. then to still burden the accused to present controverting evidence despite the failure of the prosecution to present sufficient and competent evidence. the principle that a single act may offend against two or more distinct and related provisions of law. and (v) whether or not the accused conspired with each other in committing the offense charged. et. even in the absence of a public bidding. all high-ranking public officers were charged with having violated Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 1999" without more. will be a futile and useless exercise. the EME were disbursed to TESDA officials whose positions were not of equivalent ranks as authorized by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). 164577. the Sandiganbayan issued a Pre-trial Order identifying the issues as follows: (i) whether or not the construction projects involved should have been subjected to a public bidding as mandated by P . On the exoneration in the administrative case.R. On August 23. In addition.D. which upheld the validity of the direct negotiated contracts. and second. the same does not hold true if it were the other way around. 3019. For said reason. and (iii) that the ruling of the Court of Appeals in an administrative case (C. the difference in the quantum of evidence required and. the dismissal of the administrative case is being invoked to abate the criminal case. that is. No. On 15 May 2008. 2002. the audit team issued Notice of Disallowance disallowing the payment of EME amounting to P5.R. as amended. (iv) whether or not the accused acted with evident bad faith and/or manifest partiality. criminal liability for the same act is another. 62084). al. or that the same act may give rise to criminal as well as administrative liability. as amended. the TESDA audit team leader discovered that for the calendar years 2004-2007. 1594. 204869 March 11 2014 FACTS: Upon post audit. The reason is that the evidence presented in the administrative case may not necessarily be the same evidence to be presented in the criminal case.706. Administrative liability is one thing. al.A. Instead of presenting their evidence. The distinct and independent nature of one proceeding from the other can be attributed to the following: first. 1999.498. the respondents led their respective motions for leave to file their demurrer to evidence based substantially on the following grounds: (ii) that the prosecution failed to prove that the questioned contracts were indeed overpriced as Atty. Sandiganbayan was of the view that there was disparity in the nature of the two proceedings and in the quantum of evidence required. SANDIGANBAYAN et. However. and the court trying the latter already squarely ruled on the absence of facts and/or circumstances sufficient to negate the basis of the criminal indictment. No. Tejada. and (2) the Technical Education and Skills Development Project (TESDP) Fund for the foreign-assisted projects. Gameng. was already the law of the case. contrary to the provisions of . Basco. ISSUE: Whether the or not the dismissal of an administrative case bars the filing of a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts subject of the administrative complaint. (iii) whether or not the government suffered undue injury or damage as a consequence. TESDA paid EME twice each year to its officials from two sources: (1) the General Fund for locally-funded projects. 13. Torres. 2010 FACTS: On November 23. it was incumbent on the respondents to present controverting evidence.R.Deang. Ramos. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT G. G. SP No. private respondents Victorino A. Although the dismissal of the criminal case cannot be pleaded to abate the administrative proceedings primarily on the ground that the quantum of proof required to sustain administrative charges is significantly lower than that necessary for criminal actions.60 for being in excess of the amount allowed in the 2004-2007 GAAs. The Sandiganbayan denied the demurrers opining that the prosecution's evidence substantiated the essential elements charged in the Information. the procedure observed and sanctions imposed. and so it did not necessarily bar a successful criminal prosecution involving the same or similar acts. (ii) whether or not there was overpricing in the construction costs of the projects. Usman 12. (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan.

specifically the 2004-2007 GAAs. Tejada.R. the petitioners-approving officers are accountable for the refund of the subject incentives which they received. payees and the accountants. They also honestly believed that the additional EME were reimbursement for their designation as project officers by the Director- General. as well as Section 16 of the 2009 Rules and Regulations on Settlement of Accounts. Therefore. they were neither in bad faith nor were they grossly negligent for having received the benefits under the circumstances. the Court applied the Casal ruling in Velasco v. Being in good faith.Deang. The COA faithfully implemented the GAA provisions.18 prescribing the guidelines in the disbursement of EME. Accordingly. likewise states that the amount fixed by the GAA shall be the basis for the control in the disbursement of these funds. 89-300. As for the TESDA officials who had no participation in the approval of the excessive EME. However. Torres. or who received EME in excess of the allowable amount. The Court does not find any grave abuse of discretion when COA disallowed the disbursement of EME to TESDA officials for being excessive and unauthorized by law. COA Circular No. Ramos. When the law is clear. they need not refund the excess EME they received. COA Circular No. the 2004-2007 GAAs and the COA circulars is equivalent to gross negligence amounting to bad faith. RULING: NO. with regard to the employees who had no participation in the approval of the subject incentives. Gameng. Casal and Velasco rulings. 2012-00117 states that the amount fixed under the GAA for the National Government offices and officials shall be the ceiling in the disbursement of EME. The COA emphasized that the provision in the 2004-2007 GAAs that granted EME clearly provided a ceiling for its grant. 14. Being in good faith. there should be no room for interpretation but only its application. With regard to the refund. Thus. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent erred in holding the officers of TESDA individually liable for the disallowance even if they may be rightfully considered in good faith who are entitled for actualy services rendered. Applying by analogy the Blaquera. Accordingly. The COA merely complied with its mandate when it disallowed the EME that were reimbursed to officers who were not entitled to the EME. we hold the approving officers of TESDA liable for the excess EME received by them. the Director-General's blatant violation of the clear provisions of the Constitution. The COA adopted the findings of both the TESDA audit team and the COA Cluster Director that the grant of EME exceeded the allowable limit in the 2004-2007 GAAs. The deliberate disregard of these issuances is equivalent to gross negligence amounting to bad faith. LUIS SANTOS G. the COA ruled that the failure of the TESDA officials to adhere to the 2004-2007 GAAs negated their claim of good faith. the COA ordered them to refund the excess EME they received. they acted in good faith since they had no hand in the approval of the unauthorized EME. No. The approving officers’ allowance of the said awards certainly tended to give it a color of legality from the perspective of these employees. plain and free from ambiguity. they are therefore under no obligation to refund the subject benefits which they received. COA. 94115 August 21 1992 . He is required to refund the EME he received from the TESDP Fund for himself. RODOLFO AGUINALDO vs. HON. Said notice indicated the persons liable for the excessive payment of EME: the approving officers. Usman the 2004-2007 GAAs. to wit: x x x the blatant failure of the petitioners-approving officers to abide with the provisions of AO 103 and AO 161 overcame the presumption of good faith.

Gameng. When a coup d’etat was crushed. While this case was pending. Torres. it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character. Contrary to petitioner’s asseveration. vs. Since petitioners hold . mayors of Cagayan filed a complaint for disloyalty to the Republic and culpable violation of the Constitution against him. the re-election to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor. The foregoing rule. including the mayor. by reason of such fault or misconduct. although he was a sympathizer. respectively. he received a telegram from the DILG Secretary ordering him to show cause why he should not be suspended or removed for his alleged disloyalty. On the basis of the complaint and answers. The Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character. The reelection to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. since they were elective officials who were re- elected.R. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. finds no application to criminal cases pending against Aguinaldo for acts he may have committed during the failed coup. When the people elected a man to office. Ramos. if he had been guilty of any. not the whim of one person who happens to be the appointing authority. by reason of such faults or misconduct. Elmer Dizon. Aguinaldo garnered the most number of votes among the candidates. Coleta. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is liable for the administrative liability incurred prior his reelection in 1992. Jason and Aquino for holding government projects without prior approval from the Sanggunian. to serve a term of 4 years therefrom. 180917 April 23 2010 FACTS: Salumbides and Glenda were appointed as Municipal Legal Officer and Administrator and Municipal Budget Officer. in the case of reappointed coterminous employees. there is neither subversion of the sovereign will nor disenfranchisement of the electorate to speak of. and that they disregarded or forgave his fault or misconduct.SALUMBIDES. Apparently. Petitioner argues that they were unfairly treated and the doctrine of condonation violates the equal protection clause. The Ombudsman dropped the mayor and also Coleta. having been elected to said position during the local elections held on January 17 1988. and Agnes Fabian. RULING: NO. to practically overrule the will of the people. Herein respondents Ricardo Agon. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners can invoke the doctrine of condonation to absolve them from administrative liability. Aguinaldo’s re-election to the position of Governor of Cagayan has rendered the administrative case at bar moot and academic. petitioner filed a certificate of candidacy and subsequently won by a landslide margin in the 1992 elections. After the canvassing of votes. When the people have elected a man to office. He said that he was not privy to the rebel plans. Respondent Secretary suspended petitioner from office for 60 days from notice and later found him guilty as charged and orderd his removal from offce. all members of the Sanggunian. It is not for the court. of Tagkawayan. Jason and Aquino were absolved. the underlying basis of the rule being to uphold the will of the people expressed through the ballot. 15. They asked that Salumbides et al be placed in preventive suspension. Usman FACTS: Petitioner was duly elected Governor of the Province of Cagayan. Salvador Adul. It is the will of the populace. As ruled by the court in Aguinaldo v Comelec. The Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office.Deang. and that they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct. that could extinguish an administrative liability. No. to practically overrule the will of the people. arguing that he had a hand in the failed coup. Quezon. Tejada. The electorates condonation of the previous administrative infractions of the reelected official cannot be extended to that of the reappointed coterminous employees. It is not for the court. RULING: NO. JR. Ramon Villasanta. pursuant to the doctrine of condonation. but Salumbides and Glenda were found guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. In other words. The administrative case alleged a violation of the COA rules and the Local Government Code. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN G. the non-application of the condonation doctrine to appointive officials does not violate the right to equal protection of the law. however. if he had been guilty of any. filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a complaint against Salumbides and Glenda.

The CA granted his petition. they cannot claim the mandate of the electorate. The people cannot be charged with the presumption of full knowledge of the life and character of each and every probable appointee of the elective official ahead of the latter’s actual reelection. pointing to the improper itemization of the expense. Petitioners fell short of the reasonable diligence required of them. loyalty. and lead modest lives. As pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General. held that the funding for the projects should have been taken from the capital outlays that refer to the appropriations for the purchase of goods and services. their infraction becomes intentional. a legal officer who renders a legal opinion on a course of action without any legal basis becomes no different from a lay person who may approve the same because it appears justified. as correctly observed by respondents. Usman appointive positions. accusing them of plunder and violation of RA 3019. which sets forth in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies in Article II that "[t]he State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption. Public office is a public trust. Aside from the lack of competitive bidding. Gameng. otherwise known as the Anti-Graft. for failing to exercise due care and prudence in ascertaining the legal requirements and fiscal soundness of the projects before stamping their imprimatur and giving their advice to their superior." More significantly. Moreover. 217126-27 November 10 2015 FACTS: Atty. The Ombudsman created a Special Panel of Investigators to conduct the fact-finding. petitioner Salumbides failed to uphold the law and provide a sound legal assistance and support to the mayor in carrying out the delivery of basic services and provisions of adequate facilities when he advised the mayor to proceed with the construction of the subject projects without prior competitive bidding. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent can invoke the doctrine of condonation to dismiss the administrative case filed against him. dishonesty. Torres.It added that current operating expenditures like MOOE/RMF refer to appropriations for the purchase of goods and services for the conduct of normal local government operations within the fiscal year. As regards petitioner Glenda. and efficiency and act with patriotism and justice. for if they conspired to act negligently. Ramos. the lack of conspiracy cannot be appreciated in favor of petitioners who were found guilty of simple neglect of duty. RULING: NO. the Filipino People have framed and adopted the 1987 Constitution. and the investigators charged Binay et al with 6 adminsitrative cases of grave misconduct. The appellate court correctly ruled that as municipal legal officer. and other officials of the City Government of Makati. G. 16. etc. There can hardly be conspiracy to commit negligence. Binay was suspended for 6 months without pay pending investigation. Renato Bondal and Nicolas Enciso filed before the Office of the Ombudsman a case against Junjun Binay. the benefits of which extend beyond the fiscal year and which add to the assets of the local government unit. OMBUDSMAN CARPIO-MORALES vs. when by law he is precisely tasked to advise the mayor on matters related to upholding the rule of law. the appellate court. Tejada. integrity. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people. This was in connection with the construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building. No. JR. the 1987 Constitution strengthened and solidified what has been first proclaimed in the 1973 Constitution by commanding public officers to be accountable to the people at all times: Section 1. to absolve Salumbides is tantamount to allowing with impunity the giving of erroneous or illegal advice. After the turbulent decades of Martial Law rule.Deang. serve them with utmost responsibility. COURT OF APPEALS and BINAY. . Binay filed a case before the CA arguing that the suspension order was not in place considering that the acts were allegedly committed in his past terms and by virtue of the condonation doctrine he cannot anymore be suspended on his present term.R. and 6 criminal cases for violation of RA 3019. the appellate court held that the improper use of government funds upon the direction of the mayor and prior advice by the municipal legal officer did not relieve her of liability for willingly cooperating rather than registering her written objection as municipal budget officer. Indeed.

Deang. Mayor Lecaroz informed Red that he could not yet sit as member of the municipal council until the Governor of Marinduque had cleared his appointment. Sandiganbayan G. Election is not a mode of condoning an administrative offense. records disclose that the CA's resolutions directing the issuance of the assailed injunctive writs were all hinged on cases enunciating the condonation doctrine. In this jurisdiction. Equally infirm is Pascual's proposition that the electorate. it is contrary to human experience that the electorate would have full knowledge of a public official's misdeeds. As can be seen from this discourse. However. inferring from this manifest absence. or even another elective post. again." it cannot be concluded that the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion based on its legal attribution above. Accordingly. Meanwhile with the approval of the Mayor. . we hereby reverse the CA’s decision. the Writ of Prohibition and Injunction against the Ombudsman's preventive suspension order was correctly issued. However. no legal basis to conclude that election automatically implies condonation. which at that time unwittingly remained "good law. be clarified that this Court's abandonment of the condonation doctrine should be prospective in application for the reason that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution. 130872. Santa Cruz. Finally Red was able to secure appointment papers from the Aquino administration after three years and nine months from the date he received his appointment paper from President Marcos. the concept of public office is a public trust and the corollary requirement of accountability to the people at all times. Lenlie continued to receive his salary for more than a year. In this jurisdiction. there is. be allowed in this jurisdiction. Red was appointed by then President Marcos as member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Santa Cruz representing the KBs of the municipality. while his son and co-petitioner Lenlie Lecaroz. 1999 FACTS: Petitioner Francisco M. TERMINATION OF OFFICIAL RELATIONS 17. That being said. until reversed. Lecaroz vs. Ramos. Marinduque. Gameng.R. March 25. Santa Cruz. No. and is almost always unknown to the electorate when they cast their votes.and now rendered obsolete by . it cannot be said that the electorate's will has been abdicated. then the same should have been provided by law under our governing legal mechanisms. Usman Reading the 1987 Constitution together with the above-cited legal provisions now leads this Court to the conclusion that THE DOCTRINE OF CONDONATION IS ACTUALLY BEREFT OF LEGAL BASES. however. was the outgoing chairman of the Kabataang Barangay (KB) of Barangay Bagong Silang. Tejada. by merely following settled precedents on the condonation doctrine. it was a doctrine adopted from one class of US rulings way back in 1959 and thus. when re-electing a local official. Thus. It should. Therefore. and that they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct. and there is simply no constitutional or statutory basis in our jurisdiction to support the notion that an official elected for a different term is fully absolved of any administrative liability arising from an offense done during a prior term.302 Besides. To begin with. liability arising from administrative offenses may be condoned by the President.the current legal regime. is plainly inconsistent with the idea that an elective local official's administrative liability for a misconduct committed during a prior term can be wiped off by the fact that he was elected to a second term of office. If condonation of an elective official's administrative liability would perhaps. Misconduct committed by an elective official is easily covered up. as mandated under the 1987 Constitution. are assumed to have done so with knowledge of his life and character. Suffice it to state that no such presumption exists in any statute or procedural rule. As earlier established. Torres. shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. if he had been guilty of any. Lecaroz was the Municipal Mayor of Santa Cruz. THIS COURT SIMPLY FINDS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SUSTAIN THE CONDONATION DOCTRINE IN THIS JURISDICTION. out of touch from . In the 1985 election of the Kabataang Barangay Jowil Red won as the KB Chairman of Barangay Matalaba. and currently a member of its Sangguniang Bayan.

there can be no holdover with respect to positions in the SB. Absent an express or implied constitutional or statutory provision to the contrary. Tejada. Estrada appeared on television for the first time since the beginning of the protests and maintains that he will not resign. 51 does not say that a Sanggunian member can continue to occupy his post after the expiration of his term in case his successor fails to qualify. which culminated in the House of Representatives’ filing of an impeachment case against Estrada on November 13. Activists from the group Bayan and Akbayan as well as lawyers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and other bar associations joined in the thousands of protesters. a crowd continued to grow at EDSA. bolstered by students from private schools and left-wing organizations. RULING: YES. Nos. Ramos. 2001 FACTS: In October 2000. Blg.R. The exposé immediately ignited reactions of rage. stressing that only a guilty verdict will remove him from office.Deang. Petitioners contend that Red failed to qualify as KB sectoral representative to the SB since he did not present an authenticated copy of his appointment papers. Red filed with the Office of the Ombudsman several criminal complaints against the Mayor and Lenlie arising from the refusal of the two officials to let him assume the position of KB sectoral representative. neither did he take a valid oath of office. 7 of B. otherwise it is reasonable to assume that the law-making body favors the same. 51. for the principle of holdover is specifically intended to prevent public convenience from suffering because of a vacancy and to avoid a hiatus in the performance of government functions. alleged that he had personally given Estrada money as payoff from jueteng hidden in a bank account known as “Jose Velarde”. but the present incumbent will carry over until his successor is elected and qualified. Resultantly. the office does not become vacant upon the expiration of the term if there is no successor elected and qualified to assume it. 1 quoted above pertains only to positions in the KB. an officer is entitled to stay in office until his successor is appointed or chosen and has qualified. The Sandiganbayan however rejected this postulate declaring that the holdover provision under Sec. At 2:00pm. 146710-15. ISSUE: W/N the principle of hold-over is applicable in the Sanggunian Bayan. clearly implying that since no similar provision is found in Sec. a close friend of the President. Ilocos Sur governor Luis “Chavit” Singson. He said that he wanted the impeachment trial to continue. The  Philippine National Police  and the  Armed Forces of the Philippines  also withdrew their support for Estrada and joined the crowd at EDSA Shrine. Singson’s allegation also caused controversy across the nation.  On January 18. 18. Torres. This is founded on obvious considerations of public policy. Gameng. March 2. The legislative intent of not allowing holdover must be clearly expressed or at least implied in the legislative enactment. . In the instant case. Where this provision is found. 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. this enabled petitioner Lenlie Lecaroz to continue as member of the SB although in a holdover capacity since his term had already expired. it does not also say that he is proscribed from holding over.P. Usman Subsequently. Arroyo G. On January 19. even though it be beyond the term fixed by law. 2000. although BP Blg. Estrada vs. 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.

Upon petition before the CA. The resignation of the petitioner cannot be doubted. the national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if he did not give up the presidency. No. Collantes was supposedly ordered by then Secretary Orlando Mercado to renounce his post in favor of another presidential appointee. becoming the 14th president of the Philippines. Collantes was not given any other post in the government. In the press release containing his final statement. calling for a snap presidential election to be held concurrently with congressional and local elections on May 14. the latter upheld the resolution of the CSC which allegedly effectively held "that petitioner may be removed from his . His presidency is now in the past tense. the seat of the presidency. Petitioner's reference is to a future challenge after occupying the office of the president which he has given up. It was confirmed by his leaving Malacañang. Tejada. (3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them. for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of our nation. and (5) he called on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. 19. as in fact. saying that Estrada “constructively resigned his post”. he resigned from office believing that he will soon be given a new assignment. Ramos. Usman At 6:15pm. He added that he will not run in this election. (2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace. but saying he would give up his office to avoid being an obstacle to healing the nation. On January 20. Collantes relinquished his post at the DILG. on 1 July 1998. In deference to the President's prerogative. Without doubt. Collantes vs. 169604. Ramos. March 6. As it happened.R. he was referring to the past opportunity given him to serve the people as President. Gameng. CA G. he received a letter from President Estrada terminating his services effective 8 February 1999. With the change of administration. President Estrada appointed Collantes to the controversial post — Undersecretary for Civilian Relations of the Department of National Defense (DND). 2001. ISSUE: W/N Estrada resigned. 2007 FACTS: Petitioner Nelson Collantes was appointed as Undersecretary for Peace and Order of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) by the then President Fidel V. Estrada and his family later left Malacañang Palace. Upon complaint before the CSC. At 2:00 pm. (4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of our country. The press release was petitioner's valedictory. the latter ruled that Collantes is deemed effectively resigned from his position as Undersecretary of the DND. Estrada again appeared on television. Collantes allegedly received word from persons close to then President Ejercito Estrada to give up his position so that the President could unreservedly appoint his key officials.Deang. (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with reservation about its legality.  Noon of the same day. Thereafter. Certainly. RULING: YES. his stint in the DND was short lived. Unfortunately. As such. Estrada released a letter saying he had “strong and serious doubts about the legality and constitutionality of her proclamation as president”. the Supreme Court declared that the seat of presidency was vacant. Torres. his final act of farewell. General Orlando Soriano. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind of inability and that he was going to re-assume the presidency as soon as the disability disappears. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath of office in the presence of the crowd at EDSA.

Torres. Tejada. claiming that the proceedings before the PPA Appeals Board were irregular because (1) she was not notified of the hearing before it. APRIL PD 907 (CPA) xxx 67 4. ANINO. MORTOLA. Gameng. respondent applied for the permanent position of Manager II (SG-19) of the Resource Management Division. which is tantamount to a constructive dismissal. Jr. Maximo Dumlao. The Comparative Data Sheet accomplished by the PPA Reorganization Task Force shows the ranking of the six (6) aspirants to the said position. in violation of his right to security of tenure as a career executive service eligible. 479-88. who ranked second to respondent per the Comparative Data Sheet earlier quoted. be floated perpetually. through Silva her appointment. on the other hand. RULING: YES. There can be no implied promises of another position just because the resignation was made out of courtesy. because there can be no derogation of the discretion of the appointing power. then General Manager of the PPA. TEODOSIO. 1988. DARIO CS Prof. On even date. Petitioner. Any express promise of another position. and because its object is outside the commerce of man. (2) she was not furnished a copy of the August 11. the same is governed by law. Ramos. respondent received a copy of PPA Special Order No. and as such. and (4) their Port Manager (in Iloilo City). respondent filed with the PPA General Manager an appeal/request for clarification dated November 2. 492-88 officially reassigning her to the position of Administrative Officer (SG-15) which was petitioner Anino's former position and was lower than her previous position as Finance Officer (SG 16) before she was appointed as Division Manager.5 6. Anino. would be void. BASCOS RA 1080 xxx 59. . ESPINOSA. RAMON 1st grade xxx 70 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER. ought to have known that such promise offers no assurance in law that the same would be complied with. AMALIK Bar xxx 63.5 2. 1988.5 On February 1. as a ranking member of the bureaucracy. There are no special legal effects when a resignation is one of a courtesy resignation. and cannot be made the subject of personal promises or negotiations by private persons. PERFECTO.. appointed respondent to the position of Manager II. Meanwhile. The time honored rule is that public office is a public trust. in a Resolution dated August 11.Deang. protesting against respondents appointment. PPA VS. sustained the protest and rendered ineffective respondent’s appointment. filed an appeal/petition with the PPA Appeals Board. when the PPA underwent a reorganization. who was then an official member of the Board. MONSERATE FACTS: In the early part of 1988. On July 8. same office. 1988. JULIETA CS Prof. requested for someone's resignation does not give the President the obligation to appoint such person to another position. (3) she was not informed of the reasons behind her replacement. The PPA Appeals Board. xxx 67 5. 1988. 20. on April 18. 1988 PPA Appeals Board Resolution or a copy of the protest filed by petitioner Anino. Pending resolution of her appeal/request for clarification. thus: CANDIDATES ELIGIBILITY xxx TOTAL 1. She questioned her replacement under PPA Special Order No. 1988. respondent assumed office and discharged the functions thereof. Usman position as Undersecretary of the Department of National Defense without the concomitant transfer to a position equivalent in rank or be removed then. MONSERATE. A courtesy resignation is just as effectual as any other resignation. the CSC." ISSUE: W/N a courtesy resignation is valid. Aggrieved. by himself or through another. was not included in the said proceedings. The mere fact that the President. xxx 79.

. 1988 by the CSC. Respondent was eventually issued a permanent appointment as such Division Manager on February 1. Torres. This appointment was later approved on July 8. 1988 Resolution of the PPA Appeals Board which sustained petitioner Aninos timely protest against respondents appointment. respondent was not charged of any administrative case. 2. Petitioners vehemently aver that respondent was never demoted since demotion. It ruled that the August 11. In fact. Rather. and demoted as Administrative Officer. 1988 a precautionary appeal with the CSC. while petitioner Anino ranked No. Gameng. We uphold the Court of Appeals finding that the August 11.Deang. being the appointing authority. 1988 sustaining petitioner Aninos protest against respondents appointment. the implementation of which having been carried out with utmost good faith. she has not yet been furnished a certified copy of the PPA Appeals Board Resolution. during which time she actually assumed office and discharged its functions. contrary to petitioners claim. The Court of Appeals nullify the Resolutions of the CSC. through Assistant Director Guillermo R. Clearly. Jr. to the position of Administrative Officer (SG-15) was a demotion violative of her constitutional right to security of tenure and due process. Resource Management Division (SG-19). Tejada. it was only after the reorganization and upon the issuance of the August 11. being in the nature of administrative penalty. from among the six (6) contenders to the said post. presupposes a conviction in an administrative case. to the lower position of Administrative Officer (SG-15). is the one most knowledgeable to decide who can best perform the functions of the office. the said displacement was just the necessary effect of the August 11. ISSUE: Whether or not there was due process when respondent was replaced by petitioner Anino from her position as Manager II. 1988 Resolution of the PPA Appeals Board was not supported by evidence and that the same was irregularly issued due to lack of proper notice to respondent with respect to the Boards proceedings. Catanduanes and was appointed by the President as member of Sangguniang Bayan.SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF SAN ANDRES VS COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: Private Respondent Augusto T. Therefore. 1988 by then PPA General Maximo Dumlao. Resource Management Office (SG-19). the Comparative Data Sheet accomplished by the PPA Reorganization Task Force itself shows that respondent ranked No. Petitioners also contend that the head of an agency. Here.. in its Resolution dated March 21. Petitioners theorize that the appointment of respondent as Resource Management Division Manager did not become final until the protest filed against her was favorably decided in her favor by the CSC. Resource Management Division. RULING: NO. 21. she was displaced from her position as an aftermath of the PPA reorganization. 1988 Resolution of the PPA Appeals Board when respondent was demoted to the lower position of Administrative Officer. respondent was demoted. Antonio was elected president of the Association of Barangay Councils (ABC) for the Municipality of San Andres. She manifested that as of said date (November 25). Antithetically. Ramos. The appointing authority has a wide latitude of choice subject only to the condition that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law. The CSC. authorized by law. Furthermore. 1998 PPA Appeals Board Resolution was void for lack of evidence and proper notice to respondent. but due to the PPA Appeals Board Resolution dated August 11. dismissed respondents appeal. Usman Respondent filed on November 25. Silva of the Civil Service Field Office-PPA. It concluded that her reassignment from the position of Manager II. 1995. 1. it was precisely because of the said reorganization that respondent applied to the higher position of Division Manager II. PPA reorganization in 1988 has nothing to do with respondent’s demotion from the contested position of Manager II. not by reason of the PPA reorganization in 1988.

the DILG secretary designated private respondent as a temporary member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Catanduanes. Whether or not respondent had totally abandoned his ex-officio membership in Petitioner Sangguniang Bayan RULING: 1. The private respondent wrote to the members of the Sangguniang Bayan of San Andres advising them of his re-assumption of his original position. then vice-president of the ABC. the ruling of DILG Secretary Santos annulling the election of the FABC president was reversed by the Supreme Court in Taule vs. From the time that he was elected as punong barangay up to the time he resigned as a member of Sangguniang Bayan. To constitute a complete and operative resignation from public office. and a copy of the action taken shall be furnished the official responsible for appointing a replacement and the Ministry of Local Government. NO. Sec. (2) his failure to collect the corresponding remuneration for the position. the appointment of Private Respondent Antonio as sectoral representative to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan was declared void. and assuming arguendo that the aforecited Sec. because he did not possess the basic qualification that he should be president of the federation of barangay councils. Tejada. then Secretary of the DILG declared the election for the president of the Federation of the Association of Barangay Councils (FABC) of the same province. void for want of a quorum. (b) an act of relinquishment. (4) his prolonged failure to initiate any act to reassume his post in the Sangguniang Bayan after the Supreme Court had nullified his designation to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. YES. Catanduanes is deemed complete so as to terminate his official relation thereto 2. It is not disputed that private respondents resignation letter was addressed only to the municipal mayor of San Andres. Conformably. Torres. private respondent resigned as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan. ISSUES: 1. In view of his designation. 1990. we nonetheless hold that Private Respondent Antonio has effectively relinquished his membership in the Sangguniang Bayan due to his voluntary abandonment of said post. there is no evidence that the resignation was accepted by any government functionary or office. duties and responsibilities as sectoral representative therein. was subsequently appointed by the provincial governor as member of the Sangguniang Bayan in place of private respondent. Aquino assumed office on July 18. Usman Meanwhile. Catanduanes. In the same case. There are two essential elements of abandonment: first. Ramos. Whether or not respondent’s resignation as ex-officio member of Petitioner Sangguniang Bayan ng San Andres. effective June 15. 6 of Rule XIX is valid and applicable. Neither the mayor nor the officers who had been furnished copies of said letter expressly acted on it. Hence.P. Santos. The records are bereft of any evidence that private respondents resignation was accepted by the proper authority. and (c) an acceptance by the proper authority. 1990 after taking his oath. In any event. an overt or external act by which the intention is carried into effect. 337 or the Local Government Code of 1983. It is indicated thereon that copies were furnished the provincial governor. . Gameng. a reorganization of the provincial council became necessary. the Sanggunian issued a resolution declaring that Antonio had no legal basis to resume office as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan. there must be: (a) an intention to relinquish a part of the term. Subsequently. The following clearly manifest the intention of private respondent to abandon his position: (1) his failure to perform his function as member of the Sangguniang Bayan. an intention to abandon and. 6 of Rule XIX of its implementing rules states that the [r]esignation of sanggunian members shall be acted upon by the sanggunian concerned. 2. the governing law was B. in which private respondent was a voting member. The position shall be deemed vacated only upon acceptance of the resignation. Aquino. On hindsight. the municipal treasurer and the DILG. In response thereto. the mayor should have referred or endorsed the latter to the Sangguniang Bayan for proper action.Deang. Nenito F. While said law was silent as to who specifically should accept the resignation of an appointive member of the Sangguniang Bayan. (3) his failure to object to the appointment of Aquino as his replacement in the Sangguniang Bayan. While we agree with Respondent Court that the resignation was not valid absent any acceptance thereof by the proper authority. second.

Ostensibly restricting the number of positions that Cabinet members. maintain that the phrase "unless otherwise provided in the Constitution" in Section 13. Article I-XB is meant to lay down the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive public officials and employees. Tejada. runs counter to Section 13. on the other hand. the Vice. did not simultaneously discharge the duties and obligations of both positions. The constitutionality of Executive Order No. the national government implemented a devolution program pursuant to R. Public respondents. their deputies and assistants may do so only when expressly authorized by the Constitution itself. and (2) the Secretary of Justice is an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Section 8 (1). No. their deputies and assistants. which affected the Department of Health (DOH) along with other government agencies. 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. Article VII thereof. on the other hand. It must be stressed that when an officer is designated to another post. Dr. allows members of the Cabinet. by virtue of the phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution. par. 284 is being challenged by petitioners on the principal submission that it adds exceptions to Section 13. no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision. Article I-XB which. Members of the Cabinet. 23. Executive Order No. Gameng. Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. Article VIII. silence. Section 7. Usman On the other hand. (The Local Government Code of 1991). Yu (Dr. at that time. . 284 is unconstitutional. Neither did he. however.. namely: (1) The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet under Section 3. thus: "Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position. undersecretaries or assistant secretaries may hold in addition to their primary position to not more than 2 positions in the government and government corporations. (2). Prior to the devolution. (2). 7160. Article VII is meant to be the exception applicable only to the President. IX in Zamboanga City. 22. their deputies or assistants are concerned admit of the broad exceptions made for appointive officials in general under Section 7." RULING: NO. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VS YU FACTS: In 1992. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FACTS: Petitioners maintain that this Executive Order which. Art 7 of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting them from doing so. in effect. their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other government offices or positions in addition to their primary positions. members of the Cabinet. EO 284 actually allows them to hold multiple offices or employment in direct contravention of the express mandate of Sec 13.President. he is usually called upon to discharge duties in addition to his regular responsibilities. Article I-XB insofar as the appointive officials mentioned therein are concerned. including government-owned or controlled corporation or their subsidiaries.A. ISSUE: Whether or not the prohibition in Section 13. Fortunata Castillo (Dr.Deang. According to petitioners. Castillo) held the position of Provincial Health Officer II (PHO II) of the DOH Regional Office No. albeit subject to the limitation therein imposed. while Section 13. par. (3) his faithful discharge of his duties and functions as member of said Sanggunian. for easy reference is quoted anew. when Aquino succeeded him to his original position. (2) his assumption of office as member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. agency or instrumentality thereof. par. and (4) his receipt of the remuneration for such post. Agnes Ouida P. Article VII other than those provided in the Constitution. In other words. Yu). express an intention to resume his office as member of the Sangguniang Bayan. held the position of Provincial Health Officer I (PHO I). Private respondent. the following overt acts demonstrate that he had effected his intention: (1) his letter of resignation from the Sangguniang Bayan. Respondent Dr." the only exceptions against holding any other office or employment in Government are those provided in the Constitution. Torres. His overt acts. Ramos. unless otherwise provided in the 1987 Constitution itself. Article VII makes reference to Section 7. Article VII of the 1987 Constitution insofar as Cabinet members. (2). show that Antonio had abandoned the contested office. inaction and acquiescence.

The law afforded her the right to appeal her case to the CSC. The Basilan Provincial Health Hospital was later renamed the Basilan General Hospital. Castillo as the incumbent of the PHO II position that was to be devolved to the local government unit of Basilan. then Basilan Governor Gerry Salapuddin (Governor Salapuddin) refused to accept Dr. Whether or not there was an abandonment of office when Dr. she was made to retain her original item of PHO II instead of being given the re-classified position of Chief of Hospital II. No. was passed into law whereby the hospital positions previously devolved to the local government unit of Basilan were re- nationalized and reverted to the DOH. Castillo failed to assert her rights. Castillo did not question the refusal which is seemingly lackadaisical attitude towards protecting her rights is not tantamount to abandonment. Had Dr. 503. and (2) an overt or external act by which the intention is carried into effect. Hence. but she had not seen fit to question the justification for her detail. In the case at bar. 2. Abandonment of duties is a voluntary act. prompting the DOH to retain Dr. the NGA personnel shall be retained by the national government. then President Corazon C. which connotes a mandatory order. Governor Salapuddin appointed Dr. Dr. Torres. NO.” On the basis of the foregoing. No. The fact that Dr. On appeal. Meanwhile.Deang. or two years after the implementation of the devolution program. Aquino issued Executive Order (E.O. as well as its incumbent. IX in Zamboanga City. Gameng. 8543. Castillo felt aggrieved by her detail to the DOH Regional Office. into a Tertiary Hospital Under the Full Administrative and Technical Supervision of the Department of Health. there is no voluntary abandonment because of the refusal of the governor to accept the devolved NGA personnel. otherwise known as ―An Act Converting the Basilan Provincial Hospital in the Municipality of Isabela. Ramos. Increasing the Capacity to One Hundred Beds and Appropriating Funds Therefor. meaning. She retired in 1996. Fortunata Castillo. The two essential elements of abandonment are: (1) an intention to abandon. Yu was among the personnel reverted to the DOH with the re-nationalization of the Basilan General Hospital. it was mandatory for Governor Salapuddin to absorb the position of PHO II. 7160 and in Section 2(a)(2) of E. 1998. RULING: 1. Tejada. The only instance that the LGU concerned may choose not to absorb the NGA personnel is when absorption is not administratively viable. in 1994. in which case.) No. Aggrieved. Usman Upon the implementation of the devolution program. and the position of PHO II was then re-classified to Chief of Hospital II. otherwise known as the ―Rules and Regulations Implementing the Transfer of Personnel and Assets. the LGUs shall create the equivalent positions of the affected personnel except when it is not administratively viable. it would result to duplication of functions. Province of Basilan. which laid down the following pertinent guidelines with respect to the transfer of personnel: “The absorption of the NGA personnel by the LGU shall be mandatory. Castillo at the Regional Office No. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that PHO II position previously occupied by respondent Yu is a devolved position. filed a letter protest before the CSC claiming that she has a vested right to the position of Chief of Hospital II. o ensure the proper implementation of the devolution process. Republic Act No. the appointment of Dr. in which case. .A. Yu to the PHO II position. On February 23. Devolution is the act by which the national government confers power and authority upon the various local government units to perform specific functions and responsibilities. Liabilities and Records of National Government Agencies Whose Functions Are To Be Devolved To The Local Government Units And For Other Related Purposes. Abandonment of office is the voluntary relinquishment of an office by the holder with the intention of terminating his possession and control thereof. she was not without recourse. In order to constitute abandonment of office. it springs form and is accompanied by deliberation and freedom of choice. While Dr. NO. Yu to the position PHO II. the CA reversed the CSC. Highlighting the absence of discretion is the use of the word “shall” both in Section 17 (i) of R.O. 2. it must be total and under such circumstance as clearly to indicate absolute relinquishment and there must be a complete abandonment of duties of such continuance that the law will infer a relinquishment. The CSC denied the protest. 503. ISSUES: 1.

Ramos.” . Tejada. according to the Supreme Court. Usman This is because. Gameng. Torres.Deang. “the risk of incurring the ire of a powerful politician effectively tied her hands and “it has become quite understandable that she could not don her gloves and fight even if she wants to.