LOCAL GOV’T CODE OF 1991 SALIENT FEATURES
Plaza II vs Cassion
D. Social Justice Society v. Atienza
G.R. No. 156052 March 7, 2007
Facts: Ordinance No. 8027 enacted by the Sangguniang
Panglungsod of Manila reclassified the area from
industrial to commercial and directed the owners and
operators of businesses disallowed to cease and desist
from operating their businesses within six months from
the date of effectivity of the ordinance. Among the
businesses situated in the area are the so-called
“Pandacan Terminals” of the oil companies Caltex
(Philippines), Inc., Petron Corporation and Pilipinas Shell
Petroleum Corporation.
However, the City of Manila and the Department of
Energy (DOE) entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with the oil companies in which
they agreed that “the scaling down of the Pandacan
Terminals [was] the most viable and practicable
option.” In the MOU, the oil companies were required
to remove 28 tanks starting with the LPG spheres and to
commence work for the creation of safety buffer and
green zones surrounding the Pandacan Terminals. In
exchange, the City Mayor and the DOE will enable the
oil companies to continuously operate within the
limited area resulting from joint operations and the
scale down program. The Sangguniang Panlungosod
ratified the MOU in Resolution No. 97.
Petitioners pray for a mandamus to be issued against
Mayor Atienza to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and
order the immediate removal of the terminals of the oil
companies.
Issue: Whether respondent has the mandatory legal
duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the
removal of the Pandacan Terminals.
Ruling: Yes. The mayor has the mandatory legal duty to
enforce Ordinance No. 8027 because the Local
Government Code imposes upon respondent the duty,
as city mayor, to “enforce all laws and ordinances
relative to the governance of the city.” One of these is
Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive of the city,
he has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long
as it has not been repealed by the Sanggunian or
annulled by the courts. He has no other choice. It is his
ministerial duty to do so.
In Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr., it provides that officers cannot
refuse to perform their duty on the ground of an
alleged invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. It
might seriously hinder the transaction of public
business if these officers were to be permitted in all
cases to question the constitutionality of statutes and
ordinances imposing duties upon them and which have
not judicially been declared unconstitutional.
I.
GR 136809, July 27, 2004
FACTS: The City of Butuan, through its Sanggunian,
passed SP Resolution 427-92 authorizing the City Mayor
to sign the “Memorandum of Agreement for the
Devolution of the DSWD to the City of Butuan”.
Pursuant to the MoA, Mayor Plaza issued EO No. 06-92
reconstituting the City Social Services Development
Office (CSSDO), devolving or adding thereto 19
additional DSWD employees headed by Virginia Tuazon
as Officer-in-charge. Its office was transferred from the
original CSSDO building to the DSWD building.
Aggrieved by the development, Respondents refused to
recognize Tuazon as their new head & to report at the
DSWD building contending that the issuance of EO No.
06-92 & Tuazon’s designation as the CSSDO’s Officer-in-
charge are illegal. Respondents failed to report for work
despite Mayor Plaza’s series of orders directing them to
do so. Thereafter, they were administratively charged
for grave misconduct & insubordination and were
preventively suspended for 60 days.
Upon expiration of their suspension, the respondents
informed the Mayor that they are willing to return to
work but only to their old office, not the DSWD building.
They also failed to report to Tuazon at the DSWD
building despite the Mayor’s instructions to do so.
Mayor Plaza then dropped the respondents from the
rolls pursuant to the CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38,
Series of 1993 which provides that “officers &
employees who are absent for at least 30 days without
approved leave…may be dropped from the service
without prior notice.“
ISSUE:
1. Whether EO No. 06-92 directing the devolution of 19
national DSWD employees to the city DSWD to be
headed by petitioner Tuazon should be upheld as valid.
2. Whether private respondents were denied due
process when they were dropped from the rolls.
HELD:
1. Sec.17 of the LGC authorizes the devolution of
personnel, assets & liabilities, records basic services,
and facilities of a national government agency to LGUs.
Under this Code, the term “devolution” refers to the act
by which the government confers power and authority
upon the various LGUs to perform specific functions &
responsibilities.
Mayor Plaza is empowered to issue EO No. 06-92 in
order to give effect to the devolution decreed by the
LGC. As the local chief executive of Butuan City, Mayor
Plaza has the authority to reappoint devolved personnel
& may designate an employee to take charge of a
department until the appointment of a regular head.
EO No. 06-92 did not violate respondents’ security of
tenure as they were not transferred to another office
without their consent. Transfer is a movement from one
position to another which is of equivalent rank, level or
salary without break in service & may be imposed as an
administrative penalty. The change of respondents’
place of work from the CSSDO to the DSWD building is
not a transfer. It was only a physical transfer of their
office to a new one done in the interest of public
service.
2. Dropping from the rolls is not an administrative
sanction. Thus, private respondents need not be
notified or heard. Their assertion that they were denied
due process is, therefore, untenable.
III. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
C. PIMENTEL vs. AQUIRRE
G.R. No. 132988, 19 JULY 2000
FACTS:
• Subject of this action is Administrative Order
No. 372 (AO 372) requires local government units (LGU)
to reduce their expenditures by 25% of their authorized
regular appropriations for non-personal services (Sec.
1); and allows the LGUs to withhold a portion of their
internal revenue allotments.
• Petitioner filed to the SC a petition for certiorari
and prohibition, contending that the President, in
issuing the said AO, was in effect exercising the power
of control over LGUs; & that the directive to withhold a
portion of their IRA is in contravention of Sec. 286 of
the LGC & Sec. 6, Art. X of the Constitution.
ISSUE: Whether Secs. 1 & 4 of AO 372 are valid
exercises of the President’s power of general
supervision over LGUs.
HELD: Sec. 1 – YES; Sec. 4 – NO
RATIO:
• The Court held that Sec. 1 of AO 372, being
merely an advisory is well within the powers of the
President. It is not a mandatory imposition, and such
directive cannot be characterized as an exercise of the
power of control.
• Local fiscal autonomy does not rule out any manner of
national government intervention by way of
supervision, in order to ensure that local programs,
fiscal and otherwise, are consistent with national goals.
The AO is intended only to advise all government
agencies and instrumentalities to undertake cost-
reduction measures that will help maintain economic
stability in the country. It does not contain any sanction
in case of noncompliance.
• The Local Government Code also allows the
President to interfere in local fiscal matters, provided
that certain requisites are met:
o (1) an unmanaged public sector deficit of the
national government;
o (2) consultations with the presiding officers of
the Senate and the House of Representatives and the
presidents of the various local leagues;
o (3) the corresponding recommendation of the
secretaries of the Department of Finance, Interior and
Local Government, and Budget and Management; and
o (4) any adjustment in the allotment shall in no
case be less than 30% of the collection of national
internal revenue taxes of the third fiscal year preceding
the current one.
• However, Sec. 4 of AO 372 cannot be upheld. A
basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is the automatic
release of the shares of LGUs in the national internal
revenue. This is mandated by the Constitution and the
Local Government Code. Section 4 which orders the
withholding of a portion of the LGU’s IRA clearly
contravenes the Constitution and the law.
J. SECTION 57, LGC
SECTION 57. Review of Barangay Ordinances by the
Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan. - (a)
Within ten (10) days after its enactment, the
Sangguniang Barangay shall furnish copies of all
Barangay ordinances to the Sangguniang Panlungsod or
Sangguniang bayan concerned for review as to whether
the ordinance is consistent with law and city or
municipal ordinances.
(b) If the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang
bayan, as the case may be, fails to take action on
Barangay ordinances within thirty (30) days from
receipt thereof, the same shall be deemed approved.
(c) If the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang
bayan, as the case may be, finds the Barangay
ordinances inconsistent with law or city or municipal
ordinances, the Sanggunian concerned shall, within
thirty (30) days from receipt thereof, return the same
with its comments and recommendations to the
Sangguniang Barangay concerned for adjustment,
amendment, or modification; in which case, the
effectivity of the Barangay ordinance is suspended until
such time as the revision called for is effected.
0. COA VS PROVINCE OF CEBU
G.R. 141386 COA OF THE PROVINCE OF CEBU VS ROY
URSAL – PROVINCIAL AUDITOR
FACTS:
The provincial governor of the province of Cebu, as
chairman of the local school board, under Section 98 of
the Local Government Code, appointed classroom
teachers who have no items in the DECS plantilla to
handle extension classes that would accommodate
students in the public schools.
In the audit of accounts conducted by the Commission
on Audit (COA) of the Province of Cebu, for the period
January to June 1998, it appeared that the salaries and
personnel-related benefits of the teachers appointed by
the province for the extension classes were charged
against the provincial SEF. Likewise charged to the SEF
were the college scholarship grants of the province.
Consequently, the COA issued Notices of Suspension to
the province of Cebu, saying that disbursements for the
salaries of teachers and scholarship grants are not
chargeable to the provincial SEF.
Faced with the Notices of Suspension issued by the
COA, the province of Cebu, represented by its governor,
filed a petition for declaratory relief with the trial court.
On December 13, 1999, the court a quo rendered a
decision declaring the questioned expenses as
authorized expenditures of the SEF. Declaring further,
the respondent's audit findings on pages 36 and 37 in
the Annual Audit Report on the Province of Cebu for the
year ending December 31, 1999 as null and void.
Hence, the instant petition by the Commission on Audit
on the expenses for college scholarship grants, since
chargeable to the Special Education Fund (SEF) of the
local government unit concerned expressly was not
mentioned under R.A. NO.5447.
such grant of scholarship where the legislature has
omitted it.
The salaries and personnel-related benefits of the
teachers appointed by the provincial school board of
Cebu in connection with the establishment and
maintenance of extension classes are declared
chargeable against the Special Education Fund of the
province.
However, the expenses incurred by the provincial
government for the college scholarship grants should
not be charged against the Special Education Fund, but
against the General Funds of the province of Cebu.
Since salaries, personnel-related benefits and
scholarship grants are not among those authorized as
lawful expenditures of the SEF under the Local
Government Code, they should be deemed excluded
there from.
It should be noted that Section 100 of the Local
Government Code substantially reproduced Section 1,
of R.A. No. 5447. But, unlike payment of salaries of
teachers which falls within the ambit of establishment
and maintenance of extension classes and operation
and maintenance of public schools, the granting of
government scholarship to poor but deserving students
was omitted.

With the effectivity of the Local Government Code of

1991, petitioner contends that R.A. No. 5447 was
repealed, leaving Section 100 (c) of the Code to govern
the disposition of the SEF, to wit:

SEC. 100. Meeting and Quorum; Budget

(c) The annual school board budget shall give priority to

the following:

(1) Construction, repair, and maintenance of school

buildings and other facilities of public elementary and
secondary schools;

(2) Establishment and maintenance of extension classes

where necessary; and

(3) Sports activities at the division, district, municipal,

and barangay levels.

ISSUE: Whether or not the salaries and personnel-

related benefits of public school teachers appointed by
the local chief executives in connection with the
establishment and maintenance of extension classes; as
well as the expenses for college scholarship grants,
chargeable to the Special Education Fund (SEF) of the
local government unit concerned?

RULING: The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Cebu City, Branch 20, in Civil Case No. CEB-24422, is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION applying the Doctrine of
Casus Ommisus (Casus omissus pro omisso habendus
es). A person, object, or thing omitted from an
enumeration in a statute must be held to have been
omitted intentionally. It is not for this Court to supply