Executive Summary

18. Eleazar v. Ombudsman (GR. No. 224399, August 24, 2020)

Q:

Administrative complaints were filed against several police and barangay officials for
grave misconduct before the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found the complaints to be lacking,
and dismissed them. The complainant appealed before the CA under Rule 65.

The CA dismissed the appeal and declared that an appeal under Rule 65 was erroneous
and that the appellant should have invoked Rule 43. Was the CA correct?

A:

The CA erroneously ruled that the remedy available to petitioners was the filing of a Rule
65 petition before the Court.

The proper procedure to assail the Ombudsman's dismissal of an administrative case or

the administrative aspect of its decision is via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court, ascribing grave abuse of discretion, to be filed with the CA.
23. Anonymous Complaint Against Clerk of Court Atty. Zenalfie Cuenco (A.M. No. P-10-
2812. August 18, 2020)

Q:

An anonymous letter-complaint was sent to the Office of the Court Adminstrator

regarding irregularities and anomalies in the duties of Malabon RTC Branch 72.

The letter contained several allegations of fraudulent activities such as falsifying daily
time records, misappropriation of government property, employing of unqualified individuals for
positions, gambling, and unauthorized removal of evidence from the records, as well as lewd
behaviors such as adultery and inappropriate workplace intimacy.

The OCA indorsed the letter to the Malabon RTC Executive Judge for investigation. The
Exec Judge’s report confirmed most of the allegations in the letter, and found an unsanctioned
local government-funded employee working for the court.

A:

There was prima facie evidence to hold the concerned court employees administratively
accountable. the OCA revealed that respondents blatantly violated the established office circular
and the Code of Conduct, and had been doing so for a long period of time. They violated Section
3, Canon IV of the CCCP, which states that court personnel shall not alter, falsify, destroy or
mutilate any record within their control. This includes the DTR.
27. Marcos v. Robredo (P.E.T. Case No. 005 November 17, 2020)

Q:

Marcos filed a Strong Manifestation with Extremely Urgent Omnibus Motion. He sought
to inhibit Justice Leonen from the Tribunal. Marcos, along with the Solicitor-General, claimed
that Leonen had a deep-rooted anger for the Marcos family, as evidenced by hi 94 page dissent
on the Marcos burial case, as well as in the way he penned the case of Chavez v. Marcos.
Bongbong also quoted a speech made by Leonen and interpreted it as the latter being against
him. These sentiments were echoed by the Solicitor-General.

The Solicitor-General also added, that in the absence of clear criteria for mandatory
inhibition, Leonen should consider voluntary inhibition. Should J. Leonen inhibit from the
election protest?

A:

No. The Solicitor-General is incorrect. There are clear criteria for mandatory inhibition of
Members of the Court. Rule 8, Section 1 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court is clear on
the grounds for Inhibition of the Members of Court.

The protestant and the Solicitor-General were not able to cite sufficient grounds to
warrant J. Leonen’s inhibition under the Rules.

SECTION 1. Grounds for Inhibition. — A Member of the Court shall inhibit

himself or herself from participating in the resolution of the case for any of
these and similar reasons:
(a) the Member of the Court was the ponente of the decision or
participated in the proceedings in the appellate or trial court;
(b) the Member of the Court was counsel, partner or member of
a law firm that is or was the counsel in the case subject to
Section 3(c) of this rule;
(c) the Member of the Court or his or her spouse, parent or
child is pecuniarily interested in the case;
(d) the Member of the Court is related to either party in the
case within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to
an attorney or any member of a law firm who is counsel of
record in the case within the fourth degree of consanguinity or
affinity;
(e) the Member of the Court was executor, administrator,
guardian or trustee in the case; and
(f) the Member of the Court was an official or is the spouse of
an official or former official of a government agency or private
 entity that is a party to the case, and the Justice or his or her
spouse has reviewed or acted on any matter relating to the case.
A Member of the Court may in the exercise of his or her sound
discretion, inhibit himself or herself for a just or valid reason other than any of
those mentioned above.
The inhibiting Member must state the precise reason for the inhibition.
31. Anacleto Alanis III v. CA (G.R. No. 216425 November 11, 2020)

Q:

Abdulhamid Ballaho was born and registered as Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III. He is a
legitimate child of Mario Alanis and Jarmila Ballaho. However, he never used his registered
name. In fact, in all his records growing up, he had been using the name Abdulhamid Ballaho.
He filed a petition in court seeking to change his name and surname so that he may be officially
known as Abdulhamid Ballaho.

The RTC denied his petition. The CA affirmed the RTC. It was ruled that he cannot
change his first name because doing so will only create more confusion. He cannot change his
last name because according to Article 174 of the Family Code, the use of surnames must be in
accordance with the Civil Code. Article 364 of the Civil Code provides that legitimate and
legitimated children shall principally use the surname of the father. According to the trial court,
Abdulhamid’s remedy was to correct his other records to conform with his birth certificate. May
a legitimate chile use as surname the surname of his or her mother?

A:

Yes. Indeed, the provision states that legitimate children shall “principally” use the
surname of the father, but “principally” does not mean “exclusively.” This gives ample room to
incorporate into Article 364 the State policy of ensuring the fundamental equality of women and
men before the law, and no discernible reason to ignore it.