Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 80

ifdmtliUtiUIII't' It"

A. Administrative Law.
Defined lhat branch of publiC law wh1ch fixes the organ1zahon and
detennmes thO of authonlies and indicates to the
noividual remed1es f()( the violatiOn of haS rights
2. Kinds.
a) Statutes setting up administrative authonties.
b) Rules, regulations or orders of such admlntstratJve authcnttes
promulgated pursuant to Che purposes fof which they were created.
c) De!enntr.ations. dedsiOilS alld ()(ders of suCh administrative
made tn the set11emcnt of controversies ansing in thelr pal"tiw!ar
d) Body ot doctrines and decas1ons dealing with thn creation,
operation <Jnd effect of dt:terminattons and regulations of such <JdmiOIStratiVe
3 Admlmstrc!llon
r1) Mean1ng Understood In two dtffercnt senses
1) As a functiOn: the executiOn, 10 non-judici;JI matters. of the taw
or will of the State as exJ)(esSI;;!d hy compotent authonly
it) As an OlgamzatiOfl that group or aggregate of persons '"
whose hands lhe re.r.s of govenvnent are for the t1me betng
b) DIStinguiShed from government
c) Kinds
1) Internal: legal SldF.l of publiC admtntstration. e g . matters
concem1ng personnel, fisc:ll and planning actavthes.
II) External deals With problems ot government regulatons
e g regulation of lawful callrng or professaon, mdusrries or businesses
B. Administrative Bodios or Agencies
, Dehooa of govemme!'lt, other than a court and other than a
lcg1sla:ure, wnlch aft cts the nghts of pnva:c parties either through ad ld ca1100
or 1ng
2 Cto8ti0fl They are crCdlcd either by
a) ConstlluttOOul ptovtS_,..
b) LegJSJatrve enactment. or
Cl Authonty of Itt-"
3 (;(J(enon A body Of agency 1s ad!lllnestrabve v.lhere 'ts functiOn ts
pnmanly regulatory even 1f 1t condUClS hearings and delermills
to carry out ts regulatory duty On ts rule-makiOQ authonty, 11 IS admm1strahve
when il does not have to what the law shall l>e but OTe!ely
preSO'Ibes details for the enforcement of the !JoN
4. rr;pes
a) Bodtes set up to fundion 10 Sltuaoons where tne gllvemrrent Is
offenng some gratu1ty, grant or spcaal pnvllege, e.g . Bureau of lAnds
bJ Bodtes set up to function In srtuations wherem the JOVcrnment ts
.. ecktng to carry on certan of lhr. actual l>cs1ness or govemnrent. e g . BIR
c) Bodtes set up to runcuon 10 wneretn the g.Jvemmenls
pe1 form1ng some bus1ness servece for the oubhc. e.g .. MWSS
d) Borues set UlJ to function In SltuabOnS wheretn lhe govcmment IS
seektng to regulate buSi!le5S affected wrth publiC lt'lterest. e g, LTFRB
e) Bod.es set up to functiOn in Sltualion:s wherem the go ...
seekng onder the poliCe power to regulate buStnf!SS and tndl'lofkWals.
e.g . sec
fJ Bod.es set up to lunctton 10 srtuahons whereto the government
1s seelung to adJuSt indrvidoal corttr'lversces ot a strong sot.al
tn'IOived, e g. ECC
{;) Boches set up to make tne governmen: a pnvate partv e g
A. Powers of Administrative Bodies.
1 Ouasi-legslatlvc or rule-maksng power,
2 Ouasl-judoal Ol adtUdicatort power, aod
3. Determrnatrve powers
B. QuasT-feglslatv power.
1. Natute. ThiS es the e)(ercise of (i(-tcgaled legtslattve power. lnvolVlng
no dtscrel.on as to what lhf! law shall be, but metely the authonty to rot the
detaits In 1\e executtOO or enfOI'cemenl of a poliCy set out in the law itself. In
I*Jiy Spmr Homeowners Assoc,atiOfl v Secretaty Defensor. G.R. No. 163980.
August 2006, the Supreme Cour1 snid thLII quaslegislat1vo power s the
power to make rules and regulatJOns whiCh results in delegated legislation that
is wlthln the confines of the granteng statute and the doctnne of
ond SP.paraliOrt of powers
a) Rules and regulatiOns essued by adminlstrotive authonties
pursuant 1o tne powers delegated to them havo the force and effect of law,
they arc brndng on all persons subject to them. and the courts w11l take JUd1aal
notiCe of them .
b) Both letters or InstructiOn and ExectJtive Orders are presJdent.al
ISSUances one may or otherwise allef', modrfy Of' amend the other,
dependin9 on which comes J<Jter {Phlltpplfle AsSOCJaliOn of SeMCO ExpOrters
v. Torros. ?25 SCRA 417/
c) II mav be stressed that the functiOn of promulgating rules and
regulations may be logtJmatety exercised only for the purpose of carry10g out
the prov:sons of the law mto eftect. Thus. adminiStrative regulatlons cannot
extend law Of amend a legiSlatiVe enactment, for settled is the rule that
ndmmstrahve regulatroos must be n harmony With the prOVISions of the law
(LBnCI Bani.. v. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRII 149} Indeed. admimstrattve
assuanc.es must not ovemdc. but must remarn conSIStent w1th ll'le law thP.y
seek to awty ar.d tmplen n! They aru rntended to carry out , no: to supplant
nor to mod1fy, the law (Comm1ssioner ollnrerroal Revenoo v. Court of Appears
"/40 SCR/1 368/.
d} it 1s axl1lmaac an admm!Strattvo agency ftke the Phlleppma
Pens Arthonty nodtscrett<m whether Of not to 1mpfement a law Its duty IS
to enforce tho law Thus. I here rs a confhcl between PPA cuculars and a law
lllte EO 1088, tt:e latter provarls (Easte'TI Shll}ping Lmas .., Cour: cf Appeals.
G R No 116356, June ?-9. 1998}.
) An aamtn1strat1Ve order IS an 01d1nance ISSued by too President
whiCh relates 10 speorrc aspectS m th aam.nistrat.ve .>pcration of Government.
It cannot be argued that Admtnrstralrve Order No 308 (prcsa1btng a National
Computf.artlecl 11entrr1cahon Reference System) merely tmplcmcnts the
Adm1n1sltatrve Code of 1987 Such n national ::omputenzed identrfteatiOn
reterence system requres a ae!Jcate adtuslmenl of vanous Cllntendrng State
policies. the pnmacy of nahonal secunry, the ellteot of pnvacy agarnst doss.er-
galhenng by I he Government, ana the chotee of POliCieS II tleals with a
whiCh should be covered by a law. not tusl an adminrstrowe oraer {OpJe v.
Torres, 2:13 SCRA 141}
2 Kinds of Adm1nlstratl're Rutos or RegoiRitnnS
b) !nterorc:al!ve fe!Jrslat!On They ate rules al'ld regurauonsconstrUtng
or n:erprchng tne proYtSIOOS ol a sta:ute to be enfot'ced and they are blndmg
on all concerned unrtlt hey Bie cnangoo e g., BrR CirCUlars. CB crculars, etc
Thoy have the cttcct of law ana arft enlltlcd to great rospoct, have m thotr
favor the J)fesumphoo ollegal1ty {GOflza'ez" L&nd Bani<, 183 SCRA 520} lhe
erroneous appl!Cahon of the law by pubhc offcers does not bar a
correct apphcatt011 ol the taw (Manila Jockey Club v Coun of Appeals, GR.
No 103533. December 15. 1998]
c) Controgeot !eQtsla(!oo. They are rult>s aod regulatiOns made by an
admnstrauve authonty on the elustence of certalfl facts (I( things upon which
the enforcement of the taw depends See; Cruz v Youngberg. 56 PhJ 234
'3 RequrSJtes tor valtd1tv
a) Issue<! undE:r authonty of law See Olsen v Aldanase, 43 Phil
b) W1th1n the scope anrt purv o! the law
II Tile power of admtnr<;tratwe olfoats !') promugate ru:es rn
me tmplemenrattOn ol a stmu:e IS nccessau!v lrmttP.d to wh.1' IS provtded for
GUll lE PQ.IliC LlA,,
tn UIC legslatrve enactment. The implementing rules and regulatiOnS of a
11aw cnnnot mtend the law or expand lis coverage, as the powt11 to amend or
repeal a statute Is veste<l rn tho logtsla!uro However. admtntstrative botfies are
allowed, uooer thetr power of subOrdtnate !ogis1auon. to implement &he broad
polioics laid dO'ovn 1n the statute by filling m thll details. All that IS requtred is
that the regutatioo be germ.1ne to the objectives and purposes of the taw, that
the regulattOO dOes not contrct<hct but confoons wtth the standards prescrtbed
by lnw /PubliC Schools DiSirict Sllp!lMOOrs AssocJStiOn v Hon Ed1lbMO diJ
Jesus. G R IJo T57299, June 19, 2006}
ir) In Land Bank v. Coun of Appeals, 249 SCRA 149. the Coon
nulhfied DAR Adm. Circular No. 9, which allowed the openrng of a trust account
1n betra!f of the landowner as compensation ror the propeny taken. because
Sec, 16 (e). R.A. 6657, is speortc: thai thedeposrt must be made tn
land Bank bOnds. The impklmenling regutatton cannot outwetgh the clear
proviSIOn or LO,e law See also C'.cb.J Oxygen & Acetylene Co II Drilon. 176
11 } In Romulo Maban:a Law Off1co v Homa Development Mutual
Fund, G R 11-:J 131082, June 19, 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that tM
HOMr cannct. rn the exeraso cl rts rulemalctng issue a fcgutauon
not consistent with the law It to enforce and administer. Admtnistrahvc
1ssuances not ovemde, supplant or mochfy the law
tv) Wnere the regulatory system has been set up by law, rt IS
beyond the pawer of an adm1nisttal1Va agency to dismantle rl. Any change in
poliCy must be made by the department {Association of PM1ppine
Coconut Dosicrotors v Pl'll1ppine Coconut Aut11onty, G.R No f10526.
Fobmarv 10, 19g8}
vl R A 8171 empowers the of Justice. in conjunction
w.tn lhe Secretary or Health anc1 the OrrectOf' ol the Bureau of CorrectJOnS, to
ISSue the necessary lmplementrng rutes and regulatrons. The rules. however,
autt.onzed Direct Of of the BlU'eau of Corrections to prepare a manual setting
forth the detals of the oroceedtngs pr.or to, during and aner ltm admmistrntioo
of the lethal OJecfiOil on the convid.. Because the rule dtd not pro.,ide for
the approval of tne said manual by the Secretary of Justice, conSidenng thclt
the Bureau d Corrections ts met"ely a conslttuent untt of the Department cf
Justice and rt 1s the Secretary of Justice who IS granted rulemaking authonty
under the lav., the rule authorizing the of the Bureau of Corrections
to promulgate satd manual is rnvafld betng an abdrcat10n of responsibU1tv by
the Seaetary of Just1ce [EcJiegaray v Secretary o; Jusc,ce. G.R. No. 132601.
Octobet 12 998/
vr) In the same case, Sec 17 ()f tM rules ano ragul3tion.s
implementing P.. A 8171 whu:;h proVided that the death penalty shall not
bo tnfl cted upon a woman W1th n lhref:' years noxt fOllowing the date o! tne
sentence or while sr1e ts pregnant was declared tnvalid, the same bclflH an
tmpermssble contravenbon of Sec 83 or tne Revsed Penal Code which
PfOVIdeS hat the death penalty shall not bo mtLr.:ed upon a woman whtle sne
IS pregnant Of withm on(! vear after delrvery
c) Rea::;ooable See Lupangco v Court of AppeDls. 160 SCRA
d) Pubhc.atron 111 the OfftCial Gru:ettc or tn a newspaper or gene al
arculatJOn, as provided rn Executive Order No. 200 However. 1nterpretatrve
rules and or those IOOfely rntemal in nat1.1re, or tile lied letters
of instruct100 I ssued by admfrustrabve supenors ccncern ng the rules a!ld
guidehr:.es to 00 followed by thetr SUbofdtnates In the performance or thetr
dubes. may t-o Simply posted in consptCUOUS places n the agency itself. Such
post1r1g already complies with the pubiiC8tion requtrement. PuhtiC8110n most be
1n full. or 11 ts no pubhcaton at a I (Tan.Jda v Trrtera. 146 SCRA 446)
I) Thus. 1n Do Jesus v. Commiss10it onArxM. G R No 109023.
August 12, 199e, 11 was held that admln1strat1Ve rules and regulations the
purpose or whtch IS to enforce or mpfemcnt an ex1sting law pursuant to a
delegation. mw.t be published in the OffiCial 01 in a newsp.,per or
general ciraJiattOn, except rnterpretauvo regulations and tnose merely internal
10 nature, 1 e . regutahn,g ooly the personnel of the adm.nts118trve agency, not
the general public. The same rute was upheld in Csltex (Phlllpplf'les) Inc. v
Court of Appeals 292 SCRA 273. Ukewl$8, In lntemat100of Trad1ng
CcN'poration v CommtS$100 on AuJrt, G.R No 132593. June 25, 1999, 11
was held that the DBM Cof'porate Compensation Circufar (DBM-CCC) No
10. which comptetafy d4sallows payment of allowances and other additional
oompensauon to government offiCials ana employees startng November 1.
1989. 1s nola mere intcrprotatJVe or mtemat regtMttOn, and must go through
the requs:e publicatiOn m the OffiCial Gazette Of tn a newspaper ot general
orculation The fetssuance of the and 1lS submiSSIOn for poblteahOn per
letter to the NatiOnal Pnnhng Off.ce on March 9. 1999 WIU not cure lhe dcfed
preasety because PtJblrcatton is a condrtiOil orece1ent to rts P.ffedrv1ty.
n) In Phlltppme AssooatiOfl of Servtee &porters v Torres. 212.
SCRA 298. DOLE Department Order No. 1691 and POEA Memorandum
Ctrculars Nos 30 and 37. wh1ie recogn1zed a;; "atid exef'Cise of pobce power
as de'egated o cxecut1ve depanment. were deelared l!:gaDv rnvalld
defec1rve and unenfcwceable for lack of proper publtcalK>n and filing In tt1e
Office of the NatlOilal Register (as reqUired by Art 5. Labof
Code of ihe Phil1ppines). Thrs ruling was retterated 10 Phllsa lntematlon!l
Placement and Servroos CorporatiOn v. of Labor and Empfoymont,
G.R No 103144, Apnl 4, 2001. where POEA Memorandum Circular No 2,
Ser s of 19f;3, which provided the schedule of placement and documenll!ton
fe(!S ror employment agcncaos, was declared ineffective because twas
noc pobltShed and filed w1th the Nc;oonal Admnstrative Reg:ster
In Transaction Overseas C<>rporottOtl v. Secretary of LsbOI,
GR. No 109583, September 5. 1997, on the queslton of the validtty of the
cancePatioo of the petitioner's license to rectUtl worketS for ovef"Seas worio;;
because the ReVIsed Rules of Penalties had not been filed wrth the Univcrs1ly
of the Pniltppnes law Center as required by thP. AdminiStrative Code of 1987,
the Supreme C()U(I said that !he Revsed Rules of Penafties did not prescnbe
addthooa! rues goveming overseas employment but merely <U!I3t!od the
admmtstratNe sanc1100s tot prohibited acts . BeSides. the canceltahon of the
license was made under auttlOrity or Art . 35 of tho Labor Code. not pursuant to
the Revised Rules of Penalt es.
4. Admnrstratwv rules wlfll penat sanctions: sdd1t10nal requr.sites
a) The law must Itself docfare as puntshable the v.olabon or thg
admmstraiNe rule or regulat100 See People v. Maceren, 79 SCRA 4!XJ.
b) The "law should deftne or frx the penalry for the violation of the
admrntstrativE rule 01 regulation
5. NecesSity for notico ond heanng
a) There is no consbtut.onal reqUirement for a hearing in the
promulgatiOn of a general regulation by an admnistraltve body When! the
rule is procedural. or where !he rules am. 1t1 effect. merely legal opinions,
lht!re s no nc>rtee reqc!red. Nethec 15 notJCI'! 11"1 the preparabOO or
substc.ntrve ru1es where lhe class to be affected IS large and the questions
to be resolved i nvolve the use of dscrctton oommtted to the
body In Corona v UMed Harbor Pilots Assocl8tl0fl of tt.e Phlltppmes, G R.
No 11H15:.J. Decembf:.r 12. 1997, the Supreme Court rerterated the rule that
a poor lleanng 1s not necessary lor the ssuance or an admintstra1111e rule or
t} HO\\oever, see CommiSSKJnet ollntomal Revenue v Court of
Appears 261 SCRA 236, wtere rt,e Supreme Court diStmgUtshed between
admrniStrawe rules in tile nature of SUbOfdrnate legslatioo an-;1 those whict1 eKe
murety inteq>retat1ve rures. An at1mmistrative rule tn the nature of subord1nate
legtslabon rs des.gned to tmplement a law by 1ts detar s. and before
1t IS adopted must be a heanng under the Admuustratwe Code of 1987
When an &dffilntstrahve rule substant.ally adds to or mcreasroS lhe butdef\ of
those concerned, an adm1nrstrative agency must accord 111ose d1rec'ry affected
a chance to be heard oorore tls rswanc.e. In lhtS case, pnor to the rssuance
of Revenue Memorandum Ctrcular No 3793, the ogarettes manufac..tured by
the respondent were m the c:alegofy of loO"'Ry-manufactured cigarettes not
bear.ng a foreign brand Had i1 not be-en for Revenut Memo No
3793, lflf' enactment of R A. 765-t would not have resulted tn a new tax rate
upon the ogarettes manulact:.ned by the respor.dent The BIR dtd not srmpty
mturpretthe 13w. 1t exerCised authonty. and the reqnements
or nottee, and pubbcatron should not have been tgnore.1.
b) In Phllippme Con$Limers FoundatiOn v Secremry, DECS. 153
SCRA 622. tt was that the funct100 of prescnbing rates by an Rdrrumstrat1ve
agency may be etlher a tegrslahve or an adjudlcatve funct100 II tl were a
tegislawa funct10n, the grant of pnor notiCe and heanng to the affected
part.s rs not a reqwement or due process As regard!> rates by
on admtnlstratrve agency tn the of its function, puor
:'IOhce and Manng are essential to the vahdll\1 of c;ucn ratP.S Where the L;Ies
and the rates are meant to apptr to an of a !Jtven ktnd throughout
the country, they may oartake or a legtslatve character But if they oppt}
exdusivety to a partiCt.llar pany. based upon 11 ftnd1ng ol fact then its functiOI'I
IS quasi)Ud1C18I tn character
c) In Una v Canna. '221 SCRA 515. the Supreme Court upheld the
authonty of the SecretafY of EducatiOn to ISSUe DECS Order t.lo 30. prescrtblng
gutdelules conc:erntng Increases m tulbOO and other SChool fees
d) In ltlaceda Energy Regulatory Board. 192 SCRA 363, the
Supreme Coul dedered tt.at while undef Executtve Order No 1n. a hear!NJ
IS indtSpensabte, tt does not preclude lh'l Boatd from ordenng. ex parte, a
tnc:rease subject to tts ltnal <!ISpOSihon of whether 01 noe to :nake 1t
permanent, to reduce or mcrease rt funher, Of to deny the apohcatiOtl Sec. 3
(e) ts akin t:. a temporary restrarnrng Ofder or a wnt of prebmtnary attachment
rssued by the court. which 01 e q1ven ex parte, and \Nhteh are subject to the
resolutior; of the marn case
6 A t>elll10n for protubsttan IS not the proper remedy to assa1l tmplomeniJnQ
Rules and Regulahons rssued rn the exercase or function;
ProhtbltiOfl 1S an extraordinary wnt drrectee a9A1nst an1 .nbunat. corpomron
board, officer rx person, whether elCercislng judicial. quasi-judiCial or ministenal
funct;ons,Ofdenng said entity or person to desist from further Proceedlf'9S when
the said proceedings are WithoUt or n excess of jUrisdictioo, or is accompa!lled
by grave abuse of d1screlion, and there i& no appeal or any other plain, speedy
Of adequace remedy in the ordmary course of taw. Thus, prohibition ties agatnst
tre exero:se of jodJCSal, Quasl-judtdal or mintstenal functiOns, not agatnst
legtstative or qoasi.Jegislattve functions (Holy Spint Homeowners Assoc1ation
v Secretary Defens01, G.R No 163980, August 3, 2006}
C. Detttrmlnattve Powers.
1 Enabling to permtt or allow something which the taw undertakes to
regulate, e g .. grant or de"'al or hcenses to engage tn a partiCUlar buStneSs.
2. D1tectiog. lllustrateo by the power ot assessment ol the BIR or ttle
Bureau of Customs.
3. Drsoeosing: to exempt from a general prohibitiOn, orrelieveanlndivtdual
or corporation from an af'firmat1ve duty, e g , authonty of zontng boards to vary
provlstons of zontng ord1nances. or the authonty or the Acceptance Board or
the PhOippme Army to retievo certam persons from m1lltary
4 . Examtntng atso called the investtgatory power; consiSts ln requ1nng
prOductiOI'I cf boOI<s, etc., the anendance of wrtnesses and compelling
their testimOny
a) Power to com;>el aHendance of Witnesses not inherent in
admcniStratr.e body, but an admrnrstrat1ve offtcer authonzed to lake testimony
or evidence tS deemed authonzed to administer oath, summon witnesses,
requrre prod!Jdion of documents. etc
b) Power to punish contempt most be expressly granted to the
admlmstrative body, and when so granted, may be exercised only wt1en
administrative body IS actualy performtng quasi-judicaal functions See
Guevara v. CommiSSoiOn on Bedions. 104 Phtl 268, Massngc.ay v CommiSSJOn
on Elections, 6 SCRA 27. Canna v CommiSSIOn on Human Rights. 2CU SCRA
5 Summary power to apply compulsion or force agatnsl persons or
property to efectuate a legal purpose withOut a rudtetal warrant to authorize
action, e g 10 the he1ds ot health inspections. abatement of nUisances
J\dmittiJITaJII lnv.
D. QuasHudlclal or adJudicatory power.
1 Proceed.ngs partake 01 the character ol Judtet.,l proceedn1gs
Admtrustrabve body s normaUy granted the authority to promulgate ts
own rules or procedure, provided they do not 1ncrease. dliTI!ntstl or modtly
substantivl! nghts and SUbJcd to d1sapp:-o'a by the Supreme Coun (Sec
5(5). An. \1111. Coostituhonl lhc roquisttcs ol procedurnl duo rvocess must be
complied Wllfl
2 Admrn.strauve doe proce::.-s
a) The requi511es of edmnistrative due as enumerated "'
Ang v. CIR. 40 O.G. 7th Supp 129 are
1) Rtght to a heanng,
11) Tnbunal must conSIOer ev10ence presented,
111) Deas10n must have something to suppon itself,
rv) Evtdence mll!.t be substantaL
v) Deosion must be based on the evidence adC:uced at the
heanng or at least contamed 10 the reoord and d1SCIOsOO to the parbet.,
vt) The Board or 1ts JUdges must act on s or their independent
consideration of the facts and thO law of the case. and not s.mpty accept the
vP.ws o a subordtnato m amvl9 at a doosion.
lfii) Decrs10n must te rendered in such a manner that the par'.tes
to the controversy can know the vanotJ!1; 1ssues mvolvad and the reasons for
the daos100 rendered
b) Cases
1) In Ute Paterolc v. Bureau of Customs. 193 SCRA 132, the
Supreme Court held that tn a forfelure proc.ecd1ng where 1M owner of the
aJiegedly prohofted article known. mere posting of the notJCC of '"
the reS()Ondent's Bulletin Board does not oonsbtute oomolianoe With nrOCP.dural
due- process.
11) Due process dumands lhRl the persun be duly tnfonned of ha
charges agamst h1m He cannot be conv.cted of an offense wJh Wflich he was no!
charged AdmrnstratNe Pfo.:eedll'QS are not mcempt tram baSic and fundamer.tal
procedural pnnoples. such as the nght to due p(ocess in urvestigahons and
heanngs The nght to subStanhvP. and procooural due process IS applicable
tn adm:nJStrawc proceedrngs (Crvil Serwcc CommiSSI')41 v Lucas, G R No
127838 Jonuaf}' 21. 19991 The of due IS lhat :1 rarty be
alford :i reasonable QPOOttunity lo bf> heard to submit tmv eVIdence ho
may nave in support of his defense In Pfocee<Ungs. such as the
one a! bend:. due process s mp!y means the apportumty to explain one's side
or tho oppott.Jntty to seek e cf the 01' ruling comptairted
r..r, a format or trialtype hearing IS nol, at an hmes. neces$ary [PadiDa v. Sto
Tomos. 243 SCRA 155. M. RafTIIrP.Z lndustncs v secretary of Labor, 266 SCRA
<83. Napolcom v Bemabv. G.R No 12<./943 May 12. 2000). In Arboleda
v NLRC, G.R. No 1195()9, february 11, 1999, the Supreme Court sad thai
tt!e essence or due process In admmstratNe prrxeedings is nn opportun.it';
to explain side or llf1 opportun1ty 10 seek rcconsiderat.iOO of me action
or ruhng COfT.Olatned ot The teQ\.urefl'l(:nt of notiCe and heanng 1n temunauon
cases does not connote fuiS adversanal proc:eecftogs, as actual adlfersanal
proceedings beCOme necessary only for or when there Is n need to
propound searctung questtOOS to WltnesseS who give vague lestrmonleS Th!S
is a prooodural right which the employee must aslt for siooe it is not an
nght, and summary proceedill!JS 1Tl2Y be conducted thereon In Cnfms v. Court
of App8ats. G R No 122187, February 9 1999, 11 was held that as long as the
patbos are given the opportun.ty to side. the requirements of due
process an! satisfactooty compl ed w1th In P.'?<ftppme Manne School
v Court of ADpenls. supra the Court said that lhe fflCIS dearly demonstrate that
before the DECS issued the phase out ond closure orders, tho petrhooer was
duly notified, wamed and given several opportumbes to correct deficicnoes
and to OOITlply with the pertloeOI Ofders and regulatiOnS. The pebhoncr had
gone an the way up to the Offtee of the President to seek a reversal of the phase-
out closure orders t: cawot now dann thai 11 did not have the opportuntty
to be heard.
H1) 1.1 Lumiqued v. G.R. No. 111565. November 18. 1997,
11 was hold tr.at adm10istrative doe process does not necessarily roquire
the assistance of counsel. But in Gonzales v NLRC and Arer1e0 de Dsvao
Umvef'Sity. G.R No 125735. August 26, 1999, the Supreme Court held that
there was a viOlation o1 admtntslrattve due Pf'OCCSS where the teacher was
dsmtssed t)y the universly wrtt,out tmving been gNen full opportunity to
conf!'Of'lt the '"witnesses" her
rv) In the evaluatton by thP- Department ot Fore19n Atfa1rs and the
Department of Justtee of a request for extraditiOn. the prospcct1ve extrad1tee
does not only race a clear and present danger of loss of property or employment.
but of hbeny itself, wtltet: may fend to hts fosCJble bamstlmenl to a
roretgn land He 1s, ltlerefore. ent1tled to tt:e mtntmurn o: nottce
and opportuntty to be heard, as baS!C elements ot due process [Secretar1 of
JuStiCO V. LantiOfl. G.R No 1394fi5 JB!IIHJr)' 18. '7000)
v) Howcvor, adrnmistratJve due proce!;S cannot be fully eauatec 10
due process m he striCIJUdtaaf sense !Ocampo : 011/Ce of the Ombudsman.
rlniiiiUitUTII r In"
G.R. No 114683, January 18. 2000} The standard of du process that
must be met in admnstra!rve tnbunars allows a certalll I::.Jt1tude long
as the e!em,nt of es not Ignored, oven 1n th nesenoe of provtous
nctece. there ts no den1al of due process as long as the paf\les are grven
the opportumty to be heard {Adamson v Amorcs. 152 SCRA 237} The
essence of due process 1S slmpty an cpportuntty to be heard or, as apphed
to admtntstrattve proceedings. an opportun ly to sef!k reconsideral!OII or
the actiOn or rul:ng complained of {De Is Cruz v. Abi!lc, GR. No 130196.
Fbrusry 16, 2001], or an opportuntty to explam one's s1de (Pif,pinos Loan
Company v SflCIJnf!eS and E .. chsnge Commrss1on. G R No 104720. APril
4, '2001}
VI) 1 he Monetary Board. as an admtnistrahve agency. IS legally
bound to observe due prooess In the case at bench. lhe Supreme Court held
that the Monetary Board complied Wllh alltne requtsrtes of admnistrahve due
process. as 1n Ang Tih"dV A.s to pehttt.ners' suspensiOn, no notice
was necessary because 11 was only preventvc n nature JBvsl.l9gO :t, Court of
Appeals. G,R No. 95326. M.1rch 11, 1999]
VII) In Globe Telecom v. NaiiOIISI TelocommuntUJttOIIS Com
m SSJOn, G R No. 143964, July 26. 2004 the Supreme Coun sotd that the
assuiJed Order of NTC lfiOiated due process for failure to suffiCiently explalfl
the reason ror the decisiOn rendered, for beng unsupported by subst.unlial
evidence, and for JITIPUiiOQ ..ootatioo to. and imposng a oonesponding rme
on, Globe, d.!spte the at>senoe of Clue \'\Otice and heanng whiCh would have
afforded Globe the nght to Ofesenl 8VIdence on Its benalf
vm) The Manila lntemat10nal Atrpor1 Authonty (MIAA) cannot
validly raise, Without pnor notiCe and publiC hearmg, tho fees, charges and
rates beng paid by aviatiOn entitles doing bus1ness 81 tho atrpOfl The rate
incteases Imposed are also ultra because. to begtn w.Ut , it is the DOTC
Secretary, no MIAA. who tS authOfiz.ed to tncrea-;e the subied fees {MIAA
Alf'SP/In Corporation. G.R. No 157581, December 1. 2001}
ix) In Nicolas v DeSJe:to, G:R No 15-46611, De!:ember 16, 2{)()4,
the SJpreme Col'rt found that Nicolas wa:. not accotded the rust of
adm.nstratl'ote due process. the nght Lo present has case and subm tl evidence
.n 'Support thereof was not not1led of 'he prcltnunary con:erence
which WO..Jid have affOfCJed nrm thE> oppor.untty to and defend hi!' rlSJ!'lts
fnclucllng lfle ngh' 10 request a format mveshozlion Substanttal -
or suet. relevant evsclenee as a reasonaote m1nd mJQhl a;; adequate to
suppon a oondu."iiifl - whtch 1s the quantum of proof ne('lessarv to orovo a
charge '" an c."se was not met here
x) In adminiStrative proceedtngs, procedural duo precess
sil":l!JI)' means the opportunity to explaon one's side or the opportunity to seck
a reconsideration of the act10n or ruling complained or "'To be heard dOes
not mean only verbal arguments '" court, one may also be heard through
pleadrngs. Where opporturmy to be heard. cther through oral arguments or
r!eadrngs, 1s accorded, there s no denial or procedural due process [caSimuo
v. Tandoi;J. G.R No. 146137. June 8. 2005}.
ri) In adminrslraUve proceedtngs, the fihng of charges and gtlllng
masonable opportuntly for the so charged to answer the accusatiOnS
aga1nst htm constitute the ITllllrmum requarcments of due As long
as the party was given the opportunity lo defend h1s inlcrests m due course.
he was J1()( donaed due process Moreover ter.hnacal rules of procedure and
evidence are not stncuy appled m admmstralM! prooeedtngs: admtll!StratNe
d:.Je prt)(:'eSS cannot be fully equaled to due process jn Its stlid judlOBI sense
{Civff Service Commi.SSJOn v Court ol AIJ{leals. G R No 161086. November
24, 2006]
3 Adninistrat/\'9 determmations where notiCe and heaflng are not
ne<;essary fer duo process
a) Grant of provisiOilol authority for increased rates, or to engage in a
particular linE of business (RCPI v National Telecommunications Commissloi1,
184 SCRA 517; PLOT v NatJOna! Telecommunications Commission. 190
SCRA 717/
b) Summary proceedrngs or d.strnint and levy upon lho property of a
delinquent tac.payer
c) CancellatiOn of a passpof1 where no abuse of drsaetJon as
committed by Secretary or Foreign Affairs (Sunlay v Pooplo. 101 Phil nOJ
d) SUmmary abatement of anussancepefsewhich afferts the immediate
safety of persons or property {Arl 704, Civi Corle of the Philippmes}
e) suspension of a public officer or employee pendog
anvesiJgabon of edmimstrattve charges filed against him {Sec 5 t. Book V. Tnie
I, Sublitlo A J.dmmrstratitte Code of HJ87}
4 R1g11t og<Jmst self"'rn;nrnrnation
a) In \..abaf L' Ksnunan 6 SCRA 1064. at was held that s1ncc .the
adrrnnrstrahvc dlarge o unepl.,!t\ed wealth agamst lhe respondenl
may result In the forle lure of the property under RA 3019, the compla.nant
cannot can the respondent to the Witness stand encroadung on hrs
right against self-incnmtnauon In Pascual v Board ol Mct!tCDI Exammers, 28
SCRA 345, the same rule was toHOWEKI m aomt1'115trat"'e prooocdrngs agatnst
a med!CSI pra<:tthoner where the proceed.ngs could posSibly result rn the loss
of his privilege to practice mccltOne
b) lht:> nghl may bo trlvol<cd by the 1espondent m tne time he is
caUed by :."lc ootnplamant as a w1tness. howeve, if he voluntanly takes th
witoess !!>land, he can be cross-e)Camined; but t1e may shll invoke the nght at
the lime the questiOn whteh cal's tor an ans.wer WhiCh 10\:rlmrnates htm of an
offense other than that which ts charged IS asked Sec People v Judge Ayson
St.lpra ..
5 Power to pumsh contempt is tnherently JudiCial, may be e,:erosed ooty
'' expressly conferred by law. and when adm n
strat111e boOy Is engage<: tn the
perlcxmance of 11S QuastJud!Oal powers See Guevara v Comelec. supra.:
Dumsrpa v Dtmoporo, 177 SCRA 478
6. Adm;n,stmtrve deosrons /lOt pert of the system Art. 8 of the
ctvt Code reoognrzes juchoal deets10ns applying or mterpretang stntutes as
of the legal system o' the countrv But administrative decisions do not
en,oy that level of recognhon A memorandum-<:::rcular of a bure.lu head could
not operate to 'lest a ta11payer wilh a Sl'l1eld fiQa1nst judtetal actiOn For thero
are oo vested rights to speak of respecttng a wrong construction of the law
by the admtnlstrawe offooals and such wrong iotelpfetat10n coold not place
the: Government n estoppel to correct Of overrule the same {Phtftppme 8Rnl'
of Commumcations v Commtssioncr of Internal Revenue G R No 112024,
Jnnuary 28. 1999}
a) When!providedbylaw appealfromanadmmsstrawedetemunatton
may oe made to a hjqher or superior admin strawe ofl"teer or tlody.
b} By vlrtUP. of the pov.er of control which the President exerCises
over all executtve departments, the President - ty himself - or through the
Oepanment Secretanes rpursuant to "alter ego dodnne). may afftrm,
modify, OJr reverse lhe adntntstra:tve deCISIOn of subofdrnate offtoals aod
employees See Amneta v Garmattan, 10: Phil328.
C:) The appellate agency may conduct adchtianal
heanogs .n the appeAled casf' 1f Oef'med nP.Cessary /Reyes v Zamora 90
SCRA 91}
8 Dcclnne of res JudiCata.
a) In 'fsmsel v Deputy Executr.la Sacreuuy 190 SCRA 673, tho
Supreme Court said that deCISIOns and orders ol admin sttaiiVe agcnoes havn
upon ther hnalty, the rorco and bindtng effect or a final Judgment witt11n too
pu.'VIow of llle docume of res Judicara. These deciswns and orders are as
conclusive UPOn the nghts ollhe affocted parties as though the same had been
rendered t:y a court or general junsdict10n The ruJe of ros jud1csta thus forbids
the reopenng or a matter once determined bv competent authonty adlng Within
tOoir exdusi\le JUnsdidiOO See also BoiSQt v National Telecomt'I'ICJ()I(;t/Ons
Commtssion, 169 SCRA 198, NaStptt t.umber v. NLRC, 177 SCRA 93; United
Housmg v Oayrtf. 181 SCRA 285; Na/JonRI Hous!flg 1\U(hOOty v: Pascual, G R
No 158364, November 26, ?007 ..
b) In Umted Peps1 Cola SupeMsory Umon v Laguesma, 188
SCRA 15. the Supreme Court w.tcrated the pnnCtple that tlte doctnno of res
Judicata applies to adversary admu11stralive PfDCeedtngs. Thus, because
proceedmgs for certtflcatoo election are quasi-Judiaal in nature the decis100s
therein can attatn ftnaMy In FOITteh v. Corona, 289 SCRA 624, tt was held
lhat when the Offcce of the President dcdmeo Its decision final becauso the
motion for reconsideration Wil!' filed out of hmo, 11 lost junsd:ctton over the
ac:cadtngly, rts act of modtfying its dectSIOn (upon a serond motiOn for
reconsideration) was tn gross of lhe rules and the legal precept that
acwrds tirahty to admnistratr.;e dectsions
c) However, the doctnne does not apply tn admlmstralive adJudication
retat1ve to ctrzen.c:t\ip {Board of CommtSSioners, CID v. JUdge de Ia Rosa,
197 SCRA 853} On questJons of the doctnne of res judiCata
can apply only when the follow1ng CXlOdtionS r.,entiooed in ZJta Ngo Burca v
RepubliC, wpra obt.atn: (I) the Questoo of atJ7enship is resolved by a court Of
an admin1:wative body as a material cssue 1n tt.o controversy alter a fuiJ.Oiown
(11) with the active of lhe SohatOf General, and (iii) the
iodtng made by the admimstrahve body on lhe citizenship sssue is afftrmed by
the Supreme Court
d) Netther ts the doctnne appliCable here the admtoistrahve decislon
of the WCC Referee awards the employee less than the law provides
f8 F. Goodnch PIJI7rppmes v. Worxmen's Comrensat10n Commission. 1985]
9 Some rt:IIJvant C1CCISIOflS.
a) t aguna Lake Authority (lLOA) has regulatory and
quaSI-JudioaJ powers rn respect to pollutoo cases. w1th autnooty to ISSue a
oeasu and deSlsl" order. and on matter5 affoe!Jng the constructiOn ot illegal
f>sh cages, and othef aqua-cultuu .. structures in Laguna de Bay,
pursuant tCJ R A 4850 and hS amenda1ory tows, The chaner ol UDA
1t exclusave JUnSdtctron to permtts for ftSI'I pens and frsh In
Laguna r1e fhe Local C-.overnmanl Code did not repeal tt>as provtsiOft
expressly - al"'d the charter ol LLDA bong a speaal law prevat s c.11er the
Loc:ll Government Code, a genemllaw /LLDA V: Cou:1 of 251 SCRA
b) The OECS Regonal ;)arector nas the authoraly to ISSUE' a. re:urn
to-work order (to stoking putMc scnoot teacherS}, to tnt1oate admm1:>lrattve
cha.-ges. and to constitute an .nvesr.gattng panel (RegfOnal Director, DECS
Rft{lion VII v CoiJ/1 of Appeals. G R No. 110193, January t 7, r995J.
c) The Houstng and Land Use Regulatory Board (Hl.URB) IS the
suCGeSsorllatmcy of the Human Settlement$ Regu'atory CommiSsiOn
has, tnerefo;e, assumed the tatter's po"" rs and luncttOns ndudmg lllP. power
to hear end docide cases of unsound real estate busness practices ano cases
of speCifiC performance (Reatty Exchange Venturo Cporatton v Senamo,
G R. No 109703, July 5 1995}
d) The Prosecution and Enforcement OwrStOn 'o\'3S cstabhshe<l as
adjodteatOfV arm of the Securities and Erehange /Gafma v
Court of Appeals. G_R. No. 122787, February 9 1999}
e) By wtue ot R A 763., t 1S now the Department of Energy, net the
En rgy Regulatory Board. that has tunsdchoo over dlspucs ltwolvmg
connect100 of eledt!C power. Definitely. the exptoraoon. production, rr.ar1<eting,
distnbullon, utJhzation or any other activity invotvulg any energy resource or
product falls wtthrn the supervrstOn and control of the Department of Energy
(Energy Regullftory BoarrJ and /ligan Light & Power, Inc. v Court of Appeals.
G R No 127373, March 25. 1999)
f) Otsputes 1nvoMng homeowners assocaaiJOnS fall wrthin !he
e)CciUSIIIe tunsdldiOO of the Home Insurance Guarantee (HtGC), as
expressly provided 10 R A 580 as arreooed {Unilongo 11 Courr o1 Appeals, G R
No. 123910, April 5. 1999] Note that at present excluSNe ongmaiJUnsdcaton
ere 5uch dsputes is lodged m tho Housmg and Land Requlatory floani
A. Tho doctrine. Whenever there is an ava lablo ndministratr.;o remedy
provided by law no udldal reoourse can be made unt1l an such remedres
havo been avn'lod of cxhaustE>d See Aqutno v. Mansoo. 129 SCRA 53?,
Nattonal DeveJopmenr Gampany v HetV/Jfa. 151 SCRA 200, Uflion 8Dnh v
Court of Armcals. 190 SCRA 198
1. Reasons
a) 11 reltef 1s first sought from a supeoor admmtslratrvo resort
to lhe courts may be unnecessary In Bangus Fry Ftshcrfol'< v Lanzanss.
GR. No 131442, July 10. 2003. the petruoners, instead of appea&ng the
adtOO of the Reg10nal E)ecut1vc D<fecto' to the OENR Seactmy, 1mmedratcty
filed l.he'r comolalnl with the Manila RTC, thus depnv ng tho OENR Secretary
the opportun :y co review the deosion of his subordmate Under applicable
Junsprudence, pet1tooers' omiSsiOn renders the' r COmJ)Iatnt dtsmasSible for
ladt or cause of act1011
b) The admrntstrabve agency should be gNCn a chance to correct
11s error Thus, n Bernardo v Abalos. G R No t37266, December 5. 2001
f('lr falure of the pelltaoners to file a motion for reconsdoratiOn from the
resolution or the Comelec en b.,nc lhe oompta.nt tor InsuffiCiency ol
evidence. tne petJhon for cerboran filed .1\h the Supreme Court was deemed
premature and was dtsm.ssed. It was held that the purpose of the mobon
for reconsiderat on IS to gave the COmefec an opporturuty to cooect Ule error
unputoo to at
c) Principles of comty Sind conven100ce reqwe that th-e courts stay
thew hand untlllhe admii"'ISlratM? processP.s are completed.
d) Sin<'C judici3J review Of admmtstraltVe deCISIOnS rS usuaHy made
through speoat cwll actiOns, such proceed10QS will not normafly prosper If
IS dnott.er pia n speedy and adequate remedy n lite ord1nary course of
law. ";"hiS was aJso o:ed by the Supreme Court as one of the reasons for the
d :->mtssnt or the pelltton for ce:1roran n Bernardo v Abalos. supra_
2 Thus tn Lopoz v City of Mclnila G.R No. 127139. FobruiJry 19. 1999,
11 was held thai the ru' e must be observed m or:1m to pevent uMecessary
ar.d pmmature resort to the courts.. Scsides, Sec 187, R.A 7160 (local
Government Code) IJrovid s that admrnrstrallvo must be
exhausted bef01e the constrw:.onalily or legaltty of a tax ofnance may be
challenged tn court In NstiOilllllmgatiofl Adm nistrafiOIJ v. Enaso, G.R No
142571, 2006 where lhe contractor to \\'!den a nver mmedtatcly
sued the Natooal trngatlon Admrnlstratoo rn coon lor payment WJthOut fast
l'ihng a clA.m w th the Comm:ss100 on Audit. rt was lhat the oontractor's
fatfure to exhaust admnst.rarrve remed1es IS fatal to hts conccuon suit
3 It must te ooted, howe11ct , thai oo y those c:eas ons of oonnmstratwe
agencaes made m the exerosn of quast-Jucf,oat powers are sobfect to the rule
on exhaustiOn of admntstrat,ve remcdms (Asscoat10n of Phi/;ppine Coconut
DeSICCators v Philippine Coconut Authonty. G R No 110526. February 10,
r 998/ In like manr.er, the doc.tnne of pnm.'lry admtnrs:rative JUnsdtctton applies
only Where the admtntstr.ltive agency exefoses tis QuaSJ-judtCI81 or adJudiCatory
powers Thus, wtlefe wttrtt IS assac ed is validity or constitutionality of a
rule Of regulatlOO ISSUed by the admsntStrallve agency 10 the performance Of tiS
quaSI-'1-estsbtive functon. lhe regut:u courts h;ne jurasoichon to pa!>S unon the
same {Smart Commumcat,ons v NJJiiOI'ItJ.I Te10commumcat10ns CommisSiOn,
G.R No 151908, August12. 1003]
B. Corollary Principles;
1 Doanne of Pnor Resort, also known as the doctnne or J)(lrnary
odmrntstrativo JUrisdtehon Where there 1s competence or junsd.clton vested
upon an admmstrattve body to act upon a mr1tter no esort to the courts may
De made before such admtmstrahve body shall have acted upon the matter.
a) In Industrial Enterpnses, Inc v. Court of Appeals. 184 SCRA 426,
it was held ttlat lnasmud'l as the memorandum of lei
and MMIC was denved from the coaJ...operar.ng contract and t.ltnnsically tJeO
up With the ngt\t to develop coal-beanng lands, lEI's cause or action was not
merely resossaon of contract but the tne opetatiOO of the coal
blocks. Aooordtngfy, the case shoutd have been rtled with the Board of Energy
Development. not With the Reg10nal Trial Court See also CommiSSJOner of
v Navarro. 77 SCRA 264 Alme:tdras Mrmng v, OffiCe of the hsurance
Commiss1011er, 160 SCRA 656; PCGG v Pena, 15Y SCRA 556.
o J In Regl()()s/ Dtrecrot, DECS Regtc. 1 V/1 v Court of Appeals s:Jpro
thP. Supremtl Court the Cou:1 or Appeals to su!>pcnd actron 0:1 the
cases brought before the until the final outcome ot the
conformably with the doctnne of pnmary adrmmstrai.Jve
JUfiSd!ctton In G.ucia v Coun Of Appea's G R No 100579 June 6. 2001
where pethoner, wno was at that ttme the Admm,strator or PhtJ,
)1)111!'! Coconut
Adminrslration aher havmg bePn rlfC\iP.nttvely O'l tM ba!:.IS o!
filed agamsl hrm, ammediatoly filed e petJhon for
rerttorari, prohbltion and mandamus. h was held that resort to lho courts
was premature and preoplaie, beeause tho admtntstratiVe proceodtngs
we(e strll Furthermore. from lhe decaslon of the Phalcoa Board, the
ad.llrn "tratrve remedy of ap.pealto the Ctvtl Service Commission would str oo
a ...ai!pble to tOO admanastrntor StM! also Gonzales v Ccun ol Appeals, G.R.
No. 106028, May 9. 2001
c) Ouest10ns relauve to comphance wrtn the requtrements for the
conversion of subdiVision lots are property by the Housing and
Land Usc Regulatory Board, not by the regular .:ourts. Thus, no feS(>rt to the
CtXJrt may be made Defore the admmestrative body shall haVf! acted upon the
mautor (Cristobal v Court of AppealS. 291 SCRA 122)
d) The P.ntorcement of forestry luws, n.:les and tegutattOns tan Wlttun
the pnmary and speoalmsponsthiltlles or tho Department of Envronment and
t..:atural Resources: thus, the assumption by ttw> RTC of jurisdiCtiOn over the
fdod by respondents ooost.tutes an encroac.'lment into the domatn of tne
admmtstratrve agency (Psat" Court of Appeals. 266 SCRA 167) Thus, in Sy
v Court of Appeals. GR. No. 121587, March 9. 1999, the Supreme Court said
that the lumber forferted under P.O. 705 whidl the pe tJoner sooght to recover
came under the custody 01 tho DENR, and all actions seeking to recover
posseSSIOO shOuld be to that before any resort to the
oourts may be made.
e) In the matter of tssuang lteenses to operate radio stations, the
National TelecommumcatlOns CommissiOn ts tn a better positiOn than the courts
to determtne to whom the pnvalege should be granted In order that pubbc interest
may be sttrved. The doctrine of primary JUrisdiCtion prevents the court from
arrogabng unto Itself lhe authority to resolve a controversy whiCh falls under
the juisdidion or a tnbunal possessed With speoal competence [Ctusaders
BroadciJstmg System" TeleoommumcatiOIJS CommiSSIOn. G.R. No
139583, MB)' 31, 2000}. -
I) Exccutilfe Order No 1008 vests 1n the ConstrucOOn Industry
Arbftraton Comrrnss10r1 (CIAC) onganal and exclusiVe jurisdiCtiOn over disputes
ariSing from C)( oonnected wath cons1ruct100 contmcts entered Into by partes
wtto have agreed to submtt !herr dtspute to voluntary arbitratlon [Phlfrock '1.
ConstmcttOr.lndustryArbltrntiOn CommesSJOn, G.R Nos. f3284849, Jun> 28,
g) The mte(JJI'etataon ot a law, made by an administrative agency
,,:,e tho Energy Regulatory Board rs accorded great respect and ord1narlty
controls II rs the basiC rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which
ilte addressed to the sound d1scretJon of govemflll'!nt Wlth
tile regulalion of actiVIties com1ng under the :sreoal technical knowlodgo and
of st.tch agencaf!s ihe courts g1vc mucn wetghl to the govt:rnment
ageney or ot1oals cnargeo wtlh the Implementation or the law. consldenng
!hesr competence, experhse. expenence and 1nforme<f judgment, and the fact
tha 'heJ freouenll)' are tne dralters of the law th-.ytnterprel (EnmTly Regulatorv
Board 11 Cowt of Appeals. G R No. 113079, Apnl ?0, 2001 J
h} In Prosecutor rabao v Judge UI8Qan. A.M No RV-0116:,1,
September .t. 200:. Since the complatnt fer replevin stared that the sr.ipment
of tanbark. as well as the vessel on whid'll1 was loaded. was seiZed hy the 1\81
lor venfteattOn of supporting documents. and that u,e NBI had tu ned over the
serzed items to the OENR "for offiCial d1spostt1011 and appropr.ate ac110n, these
allegations should have been sufftc ent to atar1 the respondent JUdge lhat the
OENR had custooy of the serzed tems and that procee.Jogs
may have already oeen commenced concerr1ng the sh1Pffit!nl. t e
dcx:tnne or pnmary admlnstrative jurisdctton. couns cannot take cogniZance
of cases pending belore of speanl competencll
8esid<Js, 1L was ocar tnat the plarntrff 1n the rep.ev.n surl had not exhausted
admrntstrattve remed1es ava1lable to h.m Respondent fudge's act or taklnJ
cogntz.ance of the replevin suit clearly demonstrates 1gnoraoce of tho law
) Sec 50. RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agranan Reform Law) vests
the Department or Agranan Reform Wtlh Ql.mSIJudletal powers Since the law
does 001 d,sbngu1sn, the JUI'ISdrclion of OARAB should. therefore, Include an
-agricultural lands under the coverage or the CARP", rncJudtng pnvate lands
devoted to or SUI!able for agnculture. as defrned 1n Sec 4 or thf: taw Accotdtng y,
11 was held that DARAB may properly take cogniZance of this case involvng a
CO(Tiplalnt for rFJemptiOn, st beifl9 a case concemsnQ the of respondents
as tenants on agricultural land {Same v MaquJimg. G.R No 138839. May g,
t) Thf.t Polh.Jtloo Ad1ud.catl0n Boord 1s lM of government
tasked Wllh determ1ntrlg whether the etnuents of a tndustnal
ostabltsl'lr,,enl comply wrlh or violate applrcable 3nhpo lultQn statutory ar:d
regulatory proVISions It also has the power to JSStJe, ex parte. cea"..e and desisl
orders Thus. lhe premature nvocat10n of the court's interventiOn renders the
compta101 Without cause or actron and on sue:-. yround (Estrada
Court of Appeals, G R No 137862. November 11, 2004}.
l he pelltoners prem<:.ture resort to the courts necessanty
becomP." tarai ro tnerr r:ause or .-.chon II ts prf>sumed that an oJdmmistratl',e
agency. In rhls case lhe Board of OotometTy, 1f al'forded an to pass
upon a mat1er would decide thP. same a>rrer.lly, or correct any prevtous error
commttted in rs forum [Coballcs v. Stson. G.R No. 131759, March 23. 2()()4}
I) H.;wever. tn Rogtno v. Pangssmnn Colleges of Science and
1echnolcgy. G.R No. 156109, November 18, 2004, Where the petitioner su<!d
the school for damages berore the RTC for prevenbng her from ta .ng the final
ellams due to her fatlure to pay for tckels a school rund-ralslog actlvirv. and
respondent inSISted that the oompla1nt shoUld hrst be filed w1th the CommiSSion
on Htghel' EduCatiOn (CHEO), the Supreme Court said that the CHEO does not
have the po-Ner to award damages, and thus. the pcl1t10ner could not have
commenood hef case before the CHED
2. Doctme of finalrty of Bdmmistratwe ucttan No resort to &he courts WIU
be allowed uliess the admtmstrat1ve actiOn has been completed and lhe_ro s
nothng left to be done in the admlntstrnhvP. structure See Sla. Rosa Minmp
"I. Loldo. 1 S6 SCRA 1 Because the pehttonr:r dtd not take an appeal from thO
order of &he Otfector, Bureau of Labor Relations, to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, out went directly to court , 11 was held that the court ectron was
m3de premallirefY and tl'lo petitioner failed to exhaust adm1mstrauve remedre.'i
[SSS v. Bsthan-Velascn, GR No. 108765. AuQUSI 27.
a) A party aggneved must not merely inrtiate the prescnbed
adm1mstrat1Vf' procedure to obtatn rehef. but must also pursue It to its
appropriate conclusiOn before seekrng judtCiallnterveniJon in order lo grve that
adm1nastral1ve agency an opportun1ty lo doode the maller by 1tself correctly
and prevent u'lneoessary and premature resort to the courts (Zabat v. Court of
Appeals. 338 seRA 551/
C. Effect of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The JUrisdiction
of the oourt ts not affected, but the compla1nant iS depoved of a cause of act1on
wtllch is a ground for a moliOO to dlSillrss However. 1f no motion to diSll\tss IS
fded onlhs ground, lhefe is deemed to be a watver See &.>to v. Jareno. 144
SCRA 116, Eastern Shrppmg Unes v POEA, 166 SCRA 533.
0 Exceptions to the doctrine:
1. Doctme of qualified poflttcat agency (alter ego tk><:tnne) See Ktlusanq
Baran. etc. v. Oominguez. 205 SCRA 92. In Nazareno v Court of Appeals 267
SCRA 589, the Supreme Court held that v.hcn the Undersecretary or Natural
ReSO\.'rces den1ed the mot1on r01 reconsideration, he was actmg on behalf or
ltle or Natural Resource.." acr.on:tingly, admtnsstmtJvt: remedies had
been exhausted
a) Exce:>t where the taw provides 'or e,:ttaushon See f.'1n
v Director of ForestJY. 125 SCRA 302. wnere the falure or the pehttoner to
appeal the order or tM Secretary or Natural Re!:ources lo the PreSident of
the PhdWtnes ( wVho ExecutiVe Prodamahun No 238. wtthdmwlllg tile
area from pov.tte explolahon and estabhshsng 11 as the Olongaoo Watershed
Forest Reserve) was deemed fatal to the pet1t10n.
b) In Calo v FUt:rtos. 5 SCRA 399. woore appeal had already been
made to the und, before the PresiOOnt cou'd aC1 on the appeal.
the same was Withdrawn. lhefe wdf. ':1comed to ha11e to exhaust
admin.str&tive remedieS Besides, by appealeng to the President, the party
recognezed a plan. soeedy and adequate remedy sttll ope11 to hm 1n too
ordmary or law - and lhu:., hiS speoat etv 1 act.on must fnil Sac also
Nat10nRI Development Company v: Hervtlfa, supra . lt'ldustrial Power Sales
11 Smsuat. 160 SCRA 19. However. where the appeal to the Office of the
President had not been acted upon (and de!'J)4te for two months,
no reply was rece1ved by the petrtionet), and m the meantrme, the Phltppme
Coconut Aulhonty, pursuant to the assailed resol:rtion. was ssutng certJficates
of registration tnd1scnmtMIP.Iy, lhe Supreme Court held that the Association
of Philippne Coconllt Desteeators was jushftea Ill fthng ttle case in court
(AssooatJOn of Phlltppme Coconl/t DcSICcatOf'S v Philtppine Cocom.t Authonty
286 109/
c) In Samaflang Magbubulod ng Kspdula, Inc 11 Coun ol App68ls,
G.R No 103953, Marc/1 25, 1999. 11 was held mat the deasions of the
DAR Secretary cannot be QUeStiOned befofe the DARAB ExhaustJon cf
adrmntltratf\le remedjes is impopet., this case. becaUse Sec. 5o4 of R.A 6657
&pecifically prov1des that decisions and awards of the DAR shalf be bmoght up
10 the Court of Appeals by c:en.oran
2. Where the administrative remedy IS fruldess, e.g., sul1 kA recovery ct
trUe co offtee most be mslrtuted wrth1o one year from Illegal OU"'er ott.ef'Nise
the actiOn prescnbes
3 Wt;ere there is 'estoppe4 on the part o' lhf: :..gencv (Vda
De ran"' Veterans Bacl<pay Commission 105 Pllil3n).
4 Where !he ssstJC tnvotved s a legal queshon [Palma-Femand 1
v. De Ia
az, 160 SCRA 751. Eastern ShiJ)ptng L 1es v. r>OEA. :.vprs . Satr.son
v NLRC. 253 SCRA 112/ rn Castro v Secretary Glona. G R No 132774,
AU{lCJst 20, 2001, the Supreme Court said that lhefe IS a question of law when
the doubts dtlferences anse as to what the law tS on a certa1n stato or facts.
1 h re lS a of v.hen the doubts or differences arise as to the truth
or talstlv or alleged facts
a) In CaS:ro, ttl() po.Hiloner was not dJSflUhng the ndmtnlslrativ(!
ndsng of gUilt, but the correctness or the penalty tmposcd He clatmcd that
!he PfQPel penalty for the first offense of unmoral or disgraceful rs onty
suspens.on, not diStnlssal from tile service. Understandably. the ISSUe 1s
qvest100 of law. Similarly. 1n Bordallo v ProtessiOIIIJI Regulation ComrJHSSIOfl
& Bo8rd of Uanne Deck OffiCers, G.R No 140920, November 19, 2001. tt
was held that the 1ssue was purely a legal question, masmuch as the quesbon
was which taw to appty: RA 8544 (Phlltpp&ne Merchant Manne Offecers Act
or 1998) whch presc:nbed a pa<>Stng grade in the hcensure examtnallon of
7::1%. or Pntstdeni1al Decroc No 97, whteh pre:;c.nt>ed a passng grade of
15% liki!'Wise, in Boncodn v Nationnf Power CorporatiOn, GR. No 168476,
September 27. 2006, Whore tile d1spute was on the of the resol.uttOn
ndopted by ll'le Board of Ql(ectors of National Power Corpofabon granting a
sa!ary step trcrement to all offiCials and employees who had served the NPC
tor ten years as or 1999. tt was held that :he ISSUE' ln\IO!Ved were ptJroly legal
b) In Ty v Trampo. 250 SCRA 500, 1t was held thai there was no
necesSity to appeal co the Board of Assessment Appeals, considenng that the
part1es agreed that lho issues 1n 1he petitiOfl wer'! purely legal. and thus. no
c. vldenoe was presented in 1t1e lower court In Espna 11 Court of Appears. G R.
No 97903, AJ.Jgust 24, 1998, considenng thai the ssue rrused called for the
Interpretation and apphc:abon or the taw creatmg the National Electttf.cabon
Administration and the of leyte IV Eloctnc Cooperatrve. 11 was
held that as the tSSOO was R purely legal one. there was no need to
exhaust administrative remedses.
!) . administrative actiOn IS patently tllegal. amounting to lack or
excess of junsfiCbon (1ndustrial Power Sales v supra.]. In cabads v
Alunan. 260 SCRA 838, the Supreme Court said that the Comrtllssiooer of the
NatlOI'\al Polece CommisSIOn who dented pellhoners' appeal to the Secretary
of tntenor and Local GoiiCmment aclcd tn a patcnlly Illegal manner, because
only the Secre!ary of DILG coo1d act on the aweal and !hat the National Police
Commession, telng a colk?g at body, cannot be bound by the act of an ind:vtdual
6 Whf're tnere 1s unreasonHble delay or offtctallnaction. In Repvb/lc v
255 SCRA 438. the tnact10n ot the PCGG on lhe mot100 filed
by lhe resPOndent and c:o-responden! 11 tool-; .seven bef<lfe the PCGG
loJmtn rtnulw lAIA
filed its motiOn to dismrss based on 'failure to exhaust admimsttative remed.es)
gave nsc to delay
7 Where there es rrrepara!Jie 1njury or thfcat thereof unle:.s JUdiCial
recourse IS llTimed&atety made (De Lara v Cl onbel 14 SCRA 269) In Nattonat
Food Authonty v Coort of Appeals, 253 SCRA 470, beCause the contractS of
the se<:unty agenctes had already been termtnated aod t.'leir repa-:cments
were hired, appeal to the Boartl of of the NatiOnal Food t.uthOrity
and to the Secretary of Agnculture was not a pla1n speedy rtnd adequate
remedy 10 lhe of law The reSPOndents had ro go to coun to stop
1mplementa1ton of the new contracts
8 In 13nd ca!.eS, where tile sut}ject maller IS pnvatt lan<J {Soto v Jareno,
9 Where the law does not make exhaustion a coochtu:m precedent to
1ud1Ciat recourse
10 Where observance of the dcx:trme Will result tn the nut 1fiC2hon of ltle
1'1 Where there are specJ.'l reasons or crrcum::.tances demant11ng
tmmed&ate court <K:tion.
a) In Roxos & Co v Court of Apfxials, G ,q, No I 27876, Deren10er
17, 1999, the Supreme Coun held lh&t where extlausllott of administrative
remedies before the OAR dOes not proVIde the party with u pmin, spoody and
adequate remedy, then the pany may seek 1mmedate Ill cour1
b) In Department of Agrarian Refonn ' ApeJt and
Fmancmg Corporation, GR. No 149422. Apnl 10, 2003, the Supreme Coun
aald that the doctrine of exhaustiOn ot admntstratrve remedtes may be
diSregarded whfon, s n this case. (t) there an: cm;umstanoes indteatnlg the
urgency of jUdiCial 10ltmtent10n; and Cii) the aam1msralJve actiOn is patently
tllegal and aniO'Jnts to laclo. or ucess of junsdteiiOn :n this case, the PARO
did not talt.e Immediate actiOn on lhe respondent's prt>test , and 1t was only
after more than one year that It Nas forwarded to the OAR Since then,
what t>et11100er OAR did was to reQuire rP.spondent every noN and then to
submtt COptes of c;upponmg documents were a teady attached to 11s
Protest In the meantime, resPOndent round lha the PAHO had C<lused the
canccllatson of tis hlle ana that a new onP wtts IS!'ued to :m alleged farmer-
12 When due process of law is dearfY vl()(ated (Anzaldo v Clave, t :t9
SCRA 353. Zambales Chromite v Court of Appeals. 94 SCRA 261/ In
Pogaf1J v Court of Appeals. 254 SCRA 606, becauSe lhe parcels of land
of the respc.noont were placed under OperatiOn Land or 1M Land
Reform Program and the cenlf.cates of hUe Issued to the Without
the respondent haVIIlQ been gwen an opportuMy to be heard, the Supreme
Court said thrtl there was dental of due and thcrefcre. there was no
neP.d fOf the respondenl to exhaust admsrnstrative remedies.
13 When the rule does noc provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy
{QuisumbiiiQ v. Judge Gumban, 193 SCRA 520/ In Estuerte v. Court of Appeals,
t93 SCRA 541, the Supreme Court said that 1n a civil action ror damages.
the mort's concern is whether or not damages. personal lo the platn'.df. were
caused by acts of the defendants: it can proceed Independently of the
admtnistrat"'o acbon. Acoord1ngly, the docttlne ol exhaustiOn of admmistratJve
rcmedtes ooes not aPriY
a) nlnformat10n Comelec.
GR. No 159139, January t .'l. 2004, the Supreme Court referred to :hiS as
one o1 the reasons why there was no necessi ty f04' the petrbone to exhaust
adminiSirati\'0 remedies. In the Court, Citing Paat v Court of Appeals,
266 SCRA 167, enumerated the 1nstanoes when the rute on exhaustion may
be diSf'egarded. as follows' 1J When there is violation of due process: 121 when
tha issue involved is purely a legal question, 3) When the admsnistrati...e ad100
ss patently 1llegal amounting to lack or excess of JUnsdlclton, [4) When there is
estoppel on lle pan of the admtnl!ttabve agency concerned, (5) When there l::i
irreparable itiJwy; (6] When the respondent is a Department Secretary whose
acts. as an a!er ego of the President. bears the implied and presumed approval
of the latter; (71 When to require exhaustion or administrative remedies would
be unreasonab'e; (8) When tl would amount to a nuflificalion of the daim; [9)
When the matter 1s a private land in land case proceedings, (10] When
the rule does not provide a pla1n speedy or adequate remedy, and (1 1] When
there are arcumst8nces 1ndiC8t1ng the urgency of judicial intervention.
Adnunwrnltl't' lflH
A. Rule: Except wtwm the Consttuhon reQutres or aMows 11, JUdiCta
may be granted or Wlthh@ld as Congess chooses Thus. the law may provide
that a determtnalJOn tnade by an acmtnts<.ratrve agency be final and
irrevtewable In such a case, toore lS no VIola liOn of duo process
1 However,Sec.l,par 2. An VIII. PhthpptneConstitution whichproVldcs
that the Judicial ';)O'Nef includes the power of the c.ourts of JW>liCe to determene
whether oc not there has been a grave or dlscrehon tantamount to
lad( or excess or on the part of any agency or nstrumentahty ol
govemment, cleartv means that Judioal reVIeW or aem.nisllabve decisiOnS
cannot be dented the courts when there is an or grave abtl5e ol
8 B;ose:l for JudlelaJ Review:
1 The Conshtulton For tnstance. Sec 7, Art. IX-A, Conslltut.on.
provides x x Unless otherwise provided by this ConstitutiOn or by law, any
doeisiOil, order, or ruling of eaCh Commss10n may be brought o the Supreme
Court on ce111oran by the aggr ved party Wllhm lh1rty days from rerotpt of a
mpy thereor
2 Statutes
3 General pnnciplcs of law In San Miguel CorporatiOn v Secretary
of Labor (1975). It was held that there Is an undertying power 111 UlP. Courts
IO scruhnlle the acts of admtniStrall\tO agencies on quesflr)Os or law and
)\Jrlsdtction al\hough no nghl Of revtew IS grven by ThiS IS deSIQoed to
keep the admlntStraiJVe agency Wlthrn Is jurisdiction and to protect substantial
nghts or parttec affeded by Itt. 11 "' pr1 or the system or checks
and ba
ances wnidl reslrtcts the separabon of powers and forestads arbitrafY
ond unjust adjudicahon In Contmenlal Marble v NLRC, 161 S((RA 151,
Supreme Court he&d that by the nature of h1s functiOnS. the voluntary arbitrator
acts in a quaSf-jud10al capaoty The Court must pass upon h !:; worlt where
a of law ts rnvolved. or where a showing ol abuse o. autholtty or
dscret10n 10 trlelf otfoal acts IS prO!Jerty rased 10 a pet1t101l for cert1oran In
Umcraft lnoustnes lnterrmt10nal v Court of Appeals, G R No 134903, March
23, 2001, t was held that ltlc deas.on of a Voluntary Artwator. a!lhough
generally accorded rtOally, may stu be subject to judiCial revev. 1f thefe '-aS
a violatton of due process In thiS case, the omtssion to g1ve the petitioner a
chance t.> present a clear viola liOn of a party s consttutional right.
and ha!> the effect of rendenng 1110 Artlllrator's judgment null and void
C. Method5 of obtaining Judicial Review; Classe<>
1. at non-statutory
a) StaiOtOfY- avaUab pursuant to speof.c statutory pro'IISIOOS.
b) llloll-statutory. where there 1s no express statute grantmg review,
relief s obtamed by means o1 tne common law or by the prerogativo
wnts of cert,oran, mandamus habeas corpus, quo warranto or prohrbibon.
[NOTE: If statutory methods for Judicial rev.ew are avalable, they are Ofdinarity
edosive, and the use of non-statutory methods wtll not likely be nemuttod.]
2. Direct or coltacerol:
a) Otrect - attempt :o quesuon rn subsequent proc.eedlllQS the
adnMIStrahve action for ack of funsdiction, grave abuse of discretion, etc..
i) In Co v House of Representatives Electoral Tnbunal, 199
SCRA 692, 11 was held that the otaenship of an ndJV dual cannot be attad<ed
in n collateral proceeding.
b) Collateral- from admmcstratJve act100 sought in a proceeding
the :>rimafY purpose 01 w'hich 1s some reliel other 111an the settmg aside of the
judgment. although an attaclc on the judgment may be lncideotalty involved.
e g., a damage su1t aga.nst the admnistratrve offuals
D. What court has jurisdict;on.
1. Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of CMI Procedure provides that the Court of
Appeals shall have appeilate jurisdiction 0'1/or tudgmeoiS or final orders or the
Court of Ta" Appeals and from awards, JudgmeniS, ftnal orders or resolutions
of Of authonzcd by any quastiud:oal agency ' " the exercise of 1ts
2. In Pfll;,pp;ne Smter Ct:>rporation v Cagaysn Efectnc Power & Light,
G.R No 127371, Apnl 25, 2002 the Supreme Court noted that Sec. 10 or
Executive Order No. 172 (the creallng the Energy Regula!OfY Board)
provtdes !hat a revrew of ERB's deos10ns or .>rdor!i s lodged Supreme
Cotm (now m the Coon cf Appeals' Th Coon then re1erated the rute that
wheru the law prol/ides for an appeal from the deOSJOfls of admtnlStratrve bOdies
to the Supteme Coun or to the Cour. o! Appeals, tt means that suctl bociies
or co-equal with the RegiOnal Tnal Courts 1n terms nf rar.k and stature, and
logta!IIV. tnc control o! the latter II bears stressmg tttatlhls dOctnne of
non-mtcrterence by tnal couns w1th c-equal bodres ts tntenoed
to ensure tudaat stabilrty rn the adrrunr!>Lrahon ot justce whereby the Judgment
of a court of competent JUnsdlchon may not be opened modr'iOO or vacated by
any court or concurrent junsdiCliOn
3 Howe\ler, tn Boarr1 of CID v Judge de ta Rosa. supra.,
the Supreme Court r uJed that there s nothing 10 tne l<lw creatrng lhc Commission
on lmmlgrabon aod Oeportaboo (now Bureau of lmm.grouon) wnu:h provides that
Ill deasions may be reVIeWed only by the Court of Appeals. accon:lrngl;.
by the RTC was upheld in Commendodorv de Vl/18 2C'O SCRA 80 .. it
was held that the dccisioolorder or a court marttal may be reviewed by the RTC
By the same althoogt1 the Laguna Lal<o Development Authony (lt.OA)
has eJCpres.s powers as a rpgutalofy nnd Qti3SIJlldiCI31 body 1trs not co-equal to
the Regiondl Tnal Court /Lt.DA v Cc'o<m of suora J
E. which may be subject of judicial review:
OueSIIOOS of La:.v
2. QuestiOns of Fact. Factual ftndrngs of admnistratrve ttgenoes are
genera ly oo:lduSIVe upoo the courts rf supported by sub:>tanhal
thus, Courts are preduded from revr&Mng questiOns of fact
a) When expressly by statute.
t>) r:raud tmposrtlon or mstake other lhon error ol 1ucJgmen: tn
evntuotrng the evidence (Orlua v Smgson 59 Phtl '40j, or
c) Error in aweoation of the pleadngs and "' mtcrpretatiOll
of the documentary ev.oenoe presen\e<l by lhe (Tan Ttar,g TeeJ;, v
Commission, 40 O.G . 6lh Supp. 125)
3 Muced Ouest10m of l:aw and Doctnoo ol ASSJmilatiOil
of Facts] Where what purpons to be a fiOdmg upon a quASIIOO of lS so
involved w1th and dependent upon a que'S1ton of law as to be in substance
and a deosion on lhe l;ltter, lh'! Court wil rn order to decide lhe legal
questiOn, examrne t.,e enure record lndudng the ev11ence rf necessary
f . Gutdelines for the exerctse of the power.
1 Fln<!tngS of fac1 ae :lS long as tney Orr! suppOrted by
:.ubstantJal cv1dttncc, !VJII d not 01 preponoerant Sec
4-: I
BagSICan v Courr of 141 SCRA 226: LJanga Bay Logging v, Court
of Appeals, SCRA 357; Beaur,font;; Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 481:
Comm v NLRC, G.R. No 121696, Febnmry 11, 1999; Artuz v.
Court of Appeo/s, G R No. 142444, September 13. 2001.
a) Findings of administratiVe off1oats and agenaes who havu
acquired ekperttse because the if jurtSdlctioo Is conrined 10 speccfiC matters are
genernlfy accorded not only rE:spec.l but at times even finality if such tindtngs
are supported bf substantial evidence {Biak-naBato Mmrng v. Tanco. 193
SCRA 323: Nvoso v Court of Aopcals, GR. No. 132048, March 06, 2002}
b) However, the poncrple that t-.. ctual findings of administrative
bodtCS are btndtog upon the Coun rnay be sustained only When no issue of
aedi.;)(llty is ratsed Thus, when the factual find1ngs of lhe NLRC do not agree
With thOse of the Labor Arbrter, the Coun roost, or necosstty, revtew the records
to determtno wnldl findings should be preferred as moro conformable to tM
evidenuary facts [Arboleda v NLRC, GR. No 119509. February 11, 1999}.
2 It rs not for the rcvleWtng court to weigh the evidence,
de:errrune the etedbllrty of Wltrlnl'ses, or otherwise substJtute its judpment for
that or the admtnistratiVe agency on the sufficiency of evidence. The Court
recogniZes thai the tnal court or the admirustrative body, as the triet-of facts, IS
111 a better positon to the demeanor of the w1tnesses and the aed1bility
of lhelr tcsllmon1es as they were Wlthtn tis proxmal during the hearing or
tnvestrg<iiiOfl/Molfaneda v Umaoob. G.R No. 140128, June 6, 2001/.
3. The decision in matters v.tlh111 the executrve fUnsdiCtion
can only be set aside on proof ot grave abuse of discrehon, fraud, collusion or
error of law. See Anzaldo v Clave. suora Atlas Consolidated v Factoran,
t!A SCRA49
a) In Remolona v. Cwtl ServiCe Comm1ssion, GR. No 137473,
August 2, 2001, the Supreme Court said that courts Wl'lf not gooernlly tntorh!re
With purely admrnistrative matter.> addressed to the so\ll'ld discretion of
government agenoes, un ess there IS a dear showing of arbitrary, capricious
or grnve a of d1screti0f'l amountmg to lacJ.; of junsdiCIIOn
G Judicial Review is not tnal de novo: It is merely an ascertammenl of
wtlt:ther the findrngs of the admrllstralive agency are consiStent w1th la.v, free
from fraud or l!npos.ttron, and supported by
General Pnoaples
II El.gbill!y and fJua!iftcatons
hi De Facto Off!O:f'S
IV Commencement o1 Off;c,aJ Relations
v Powers ana OviJES of PubIC 01foce!'S
Vi Liabi.rty o Office:rs
VII. R;ghrs of PubliC Officers
Vlll Termna1Joo of Olfic.al
A. Publtc Office. The authonty or duty, created and conferred by Ia .... ,
w ror a gven penOd, e thcr nxed by law or enduring at the pleasure of
the cteatmg power, an rndr,tdual s wwested wtth some sovere.gn power of
government l:l be exerosed by hrm for the of the public (Femande:. "
Sto Tomas. G.R, No 116418, MarcJ, i. 1995]
Elements a) Created by law or by autnonty of taw, b) Possess a
dclegat1011 or a portion of the sovere.gn powers of government, to be exerased
lor the of lhe publlc: c) Powers oooferred and duties 1mposed must be
defined dtredly or ampliedty, by the legislature or by legislative aulhonty, d)
Oubes must be performed independently and without the conlrof of a superior
power other lt\an the 1av.. unless they be those of an infenor or subordmate
office c::eatec or authOrized by tt:e legtslatul'E!. and by it p
aced under
general control of a St.Jpenot office or body, and e) Must hav rennanence or
2 Crontron Pubhc offices Are created a) By the ConstJtuhon. e g., Office
of the Presi\lent b) By vahd statutory enactments, e.g., Office of the Insurance
Commissioner: ann c) By authonty of law, e.g the Davida CommiSSton.
B. Public Officer. A person who holds a public office
D1stmguished fom pullltc officer as understood in cnmtMI law.
a) In Art 203. Rev1sed Penal COde. any person who, by direc.t
PfOVISIOn of law, popular eledion or apponlmeol by competent authonty,
shall take part in the perlormance of publ1c functiOns tn the Government of
the Phthppine Islands. or shall peform m satd Govemment or in any of Its
branches, PtJbltc dulles as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any
rank or class. shalt be deemed to be a pubfc officer.
b) U"lder Sec 2 R A 3019, the term public offteer indudes eeectJve
and appo.ntllll" otf1oals and e-mployees, permanent or temporary, whether 1n
the cl.1s.Sifled. unclasstfiE!d or exempt service. receiving compcnsaiJon. even
nomrnar, from the govemmenr
I) The terms "clasSified, undasstfed or eiCempt setv1ce" ....ere
the old calegJnes of !he posrhons rn the CNd ServiCe, wh1ch have been
'"'O Career and Non-Career serv.ce by P.O. 807. Pel.luoner, as
Ptoteel Manager of a government building construction falls under
the Non-Career seMCe category, an1 as, thus. a publiC otfteer undef the
law Aocordingty, the Sand.ganbayan has jurisdi<:tiort over htm [Picln.-o \
SollCfrganbsyan, G R No 110544, October 16, 1995).
c) At'llough the NatiOnal Internal Revenue '.:ode OJuthonzes the
Bureau of Internal Revenue to effect a constructtve dstrarnt by requiring an)
person to preserve property. there rs oo prOVISIOn constrtutmg such
person as a offrcer by reason of such reqwement ltle Sandtganbayan.
therefore, has no JUnsdiCtiOf\ over tho case tnvolvrng such a person [Azsrcon v
Sllnd.ganbayan, 268 747)
2 Distinguisl'red from cleric or employee Officer" refers to a perscn
whose duties, not be.ng of a derlcal Of manua: nature, Involve the
of diiCfeliOn '" the perfom1aoce of the funcbons of government When used
with reference to a person haviOQ autnonty to do a partiCUlar act 01' perfotm
a particular functron tn the ot governmental power, offiCf'.r includes
any government employee, agenl or authorrty to do the act or
exen:rse that function {Sec. 2 (14) AdmtmstmftVe Code ot 1981}
a) In Laurelv Desterto. GR. No 145360.Apnl 12, 2002, theSupreme
Court said that the most Important cnaractenshc "hich dis11ngu1shes an office
from an 1S that the creatiOn and confemog of an office nvoiVes a
delegation to U1e kldMdi.Jal of SOfM of the sovre.gn functiOns of government,
to be exerosed by hm for the benefit ol the public, and that the f arne pontoo of
soveretgnly of the country, erthc log1slatve, axe<:U11vc or judtetol, attactles,
fOI' lhe hme betng, to be exerosed for the pt.tblrc b-:?neftt Unless the powers so
conferred are o' thrs nature I he mdiVklual ts not a pubhc offcer
A. QualtficatJon.
1 UndetSiood 111 two d1fferent senses (a) May refer to endo'hments,
qoalitres or wtlictl make an lnelivldual el!glble fOf public offrce, e Q
cr1rzenshp. 01 (b) May refer to the ad of entenng rnto the performance or tho
functions of a pubhc offtee, e p , taking the oath of offtee.
2 Wher. used tn rhe sense of endowments. quaht.es or attnbt.ltes. thO
rndrvidual must possess the quahficahons at tne lime of appointment 01' eledlon
and contlnUO\;sty fOf as long as the offiCial relationship conbnues
a) lr. Fnvsldo v. 257 SCRA 727, the Supreme Court said
the Local Government Code does not speofy the dat,. when the candidatP.
must possess Ftltp.no otu:ens"P Phllrpptne Cllzenship rs requrod m order to
ensure that no ahen shall govern our people. An official begtns to govern only
upon hiS procsmat100 and oo the day that hrs tenn begrns. Srnoe F nvaldo took
hiS oath of al)egian<:e (as Filipino) on June 30. 1995 when has app(teation for
reputnatiOn was granted by the Speoal Comrml1ee on Naturahzahon created
urv1er PO 825. he W1!S lherefOfe qualrf.ed to be proclarmed Besides, Sec 39
or the local G:wemment Code speaks of quahfteations of elective otfiCia:s. oot
of candidates
b) P:operty mAy no: be Imposed for the exerose of the
oghttorun forpubr!Coff!a! In MaqUtra v Borra, 15SCRA 7,the Supreme Coon
as u'lCOOstrtuhonal the law requ ring each candidate to post a bond
of P20.000 upon the filing of the certtf.cate of candidacy, subject to forfeiture tf
htco did not obtain at least 10% of lhe total voles e:>st tn the c:onsb1uency where
he ran
c) loss of any of the qualifications dunng tncumbency will be a
grcund for termtnation. See Frivaldo v CotnP.ff>c. 174 SCRA 245: Labo v.
Comelec. 176 SCRA 1
3 When refernng to the .act of entenng Into the performance of the
funchons cf offiCe, far
JrC of otfce lo perform an act requrred by taw
coul<1 affect the htJe to gfVel'l otlrce
a) Pr:>tonged farlure 01 refusal to take the oath of oniCe could result
in forfetture of the office. See Sec 11, 8 P 881, wh1ch provides ":fhe offioo
of any offtcl31 elected who farls Of refuses to ta!tP. hrs oath of W1th1n sx
months from his proclam:llion sMII bo considered vacant, un ss farlure
rs fOt' or a.uses beyond hrs control:
b) An oaUt of otftee rs a quah!ytng reQu cment lor a publiC offiCe.
Only wllcn pubbc offrcer has satiSf ed INs prerec.urs,te can hts nght to enter
mlo the JJOSI!Ion be considered pif:Mry and complete UnM then he h, s none
at au. af'l<l for as long as ho has not qunhf1gd, the holdover offio r IS the nghtful
occupant [Lecaroz v Sllndifl8'1bttycm, GR. No. 130872. March 25. 1999} An
oath of off.ce tai<en before on wno has no authonty to adnuruster ootn IS no
oath at all
c) However. once and duty sworn n office a pobltcotf.cer
1s ent1Ued to assume offrce and 10 ex erase the functions theroof The pendency
or an eledion protest IS not r,uffJCJent baSIS to enjoin htm from assumrng otf.ce
Of from discharging hts functiOns [Mendoza Laxm.1. c; R. No. 146875, Jufy
11f, 1003}
4 Aulhonty to proscrilHJ oual!ficattons
al When the (in the sense of aunbutes.
etc ) are prescribed by the Constrtuoon they are geMf'a!ly exclusrve, except
where the Constttullon 1tsetf proYides oltrerwt5e
b) Relahvo to publrc o fces cretlted by sta\llle, Congres .. has lllrtuallr
plenary powers to rrescnbe qualrftcaiiOOS prOVIded that 11) the qua tfiCations
nre germane to the objec:Jvets lor which the oublrc offJce was crc2ted and
(ii) lh quahfrcatiO:'lS arc not 100 specifiC as to fit a pat1rOUtar, ldcnhtrab e
person, because that would depnvP the a;>potnhng authonty of d1scrctJ'.:)o rn
the se!ect1on of the appotnt(:c See Onion GR. No Jc:ne
22. 1993
B . Dlsquflflations.
1. Authority. The legisla!ure has lhe nghl to prescnbe oiSQtR!ahcattOOS
rn the same that 11 can JJrescnbe orovlded that tne
prescribed d1squahfr<:ahons do not viOlate t"u Constttutoon In Dum/a<' v
Comelec, 95 SCRA 400, the part ul the law whrch provt<led that tht! mere
!ihng of a cnm1na1 informahon fOf' diSloyalty wao; poms faae proo! o' gotl.
and thus suff.ctcnt to drsquahli a person from nmrur:g tor puOlic othoe.
held .. mwnstJtuhor.al lor ben'lg contrary to the ccnst tutonal of
1nnocence See also PomiJ v Teferon, 86 SCRA 413 The
prescnbed by law may t'le because of unfitness for publtc olfrce. or
person s rendered for the offrce
2 Gent>rnl diSqualifications under the Consltlutll)()
a) No candK!ate woo loslm an e.lcctiOI' shaU, w1thin one year after
such etect/011, be appomred co any office 111 Government (Soc 6. M IX-B).
b) No electiVe offiCsl.shart be eJrg101e for appomtmcnr or deslf}nBIIOII
n c,Jf)Redy to any public office or poS'fion dur:ng h1s tonuro [Sec 7(1 ), Art
1) In Flores v Dn1on G.R No l047J2, June 22. 1993. the
Supreme Court declared as conslltuiiOna.l the proviSion of the law creating the
Subrc Bay Me'ropohtan Authonty which mandated the ai)PONment - as first
Adm10rstrat01 or the Authortly- tne incumbent Pfayor of Olongapo Crty.
c) Unless Olherwiso ollov.'od by Jaw or by the pnmsry funclJOns of
hts POSition, 110 acpointhle offiC!al t;hB/1 hOld any other posrtr011 Ill
(Sec. l(L). At:. IXB].
1} In Nat#OnBI Amnttsty Comm1ssion " CommfssiOf) on Audtt,
G R No 15!982, September 8, 2004, It was held that when another olf!CC
ts held by a publac offiCer In an ex offiCIO capacity, as provided by law and as
requ1red by the pr:mary fuodJOns of hiS offiCe, there IS 1'10 Violation, because
othe: otftCI3 does not compns,. any other posrbon. The ex officiO
posruon 15 actually and, '" legal conremplaliOn. part of Ire pnnctpal office. But
the ococerned IS not entrt'Qd to roc:erve addrtJonal compensatron fof
h s service!. &n the sad posotloo oocause h1s services are already paid for and
covered by the COfTipensation attached to hls pnnapal office
3. Speolic drsquaflflca110ns under the Constttution
a) The President, Va PreSKJOnt. tne Membors ollhe Cabinet. and thew
depufle.S Of aSSistants shaf not, unless OlhofWISG providtld m the ConstJtutJon,
hVkJ eny other offiCe or employment dunng thoir tonure [Sec. 13, Att VII).
1) See Civil Llbet1res Umoo v Executlll8 Secretary, 194 SCRA
317, wher.a the Supreme Court aoclared unconsbtutronal Executive Ordtr
No. 284, wtliCl Y.OUtd allow C:lornet SP.Crctanes to hold two other offiCeS. But
when the other offiCe s hekJ n an ex offiCIO capaoty, there Is no violatiOn,
pro1ided that the offiCial ocncemcd IS not enutled to additional compensauon
for hrs serviCeS JNaiiOnal Amnesty CommiSSIOfl v COA supra J
b) Nr; Senatot or Member of the House of Rcprcsentati\tes moy
t10k1 any other ofl/CP Of employment m the Govelf?(JJ(Jnt. or ;my subdMsion
OJfll!tt I IN LA"'
agency, or mslrurnentaldy thereof. tnci1Jd1f19 or controlled
corporations or their subskiianos, dunng hrs term without forlmtmg his seat.
Neither shall he be appointed to :my office which may have cr tlled or
he emoluments thereof I!ICFt?ssec dunng 1:1o term for whiCIJ t1e -.as alocteo
/Sec. 13, Art VI/ See Adaza v Pacann, 135 SCRA 431
c) The Members of 111 Suvreml} Coort end of ollwr ccurts cstsbiiShCO
i 1y Jaw s/latl not be deSJgnated to nny Bgency performing quii.<;J-judiCICJI 01
odmimst.-ntlllfl functions {Sei: 12, Art VIII} Sec :n Re Manzano, 166
d) No Member of a ConstJtut/OilBI CommtssiOn Shall, dunng hiS
tenure, hold .any other offiCe 01 employment [Sec 2. Att IXA} The same
drsquahfiCatiOO applies to the Om.bodsman and hrs Of!f,Aities {Sec B. Art XI}
e 1 The Ombudsmnn and t11s Denutte .<;flaft "JOt bP. qusllfted to run for
any off1ce tn the electiOn tmmed,ate!y succ.ef!dmg /hell cessatiOn from offtei1
(Sec. 11, Art. XI}
t) ,\4embers ol ConslituN>na/ CommtSSIOIIS, the Ombudsman nn<J
hts Deputtes must no/ have been csnd;dates for any t:lect1vo poSition tn the
elecfions tmmedtately precedmg their sppomtment /Sec 1, Ar1 IX-8. Sec. 1.
Art IXC: Sec 1, Art IX-D. Sec. B. Ar: XI/
a) MemOers uf ConslltutiOilBI Commis.:uons, the Ombudsman and
fits DeputJes are to a term of seven (7) yt:ars, WithOut
[Sec 1{2}, Art IXB: Sec 1 (2). Art IXC: Sec. 1 {2), At1 IX-D. Sec 11, Art
h) The spouse and relattves by consar>gumity or alfunty wrtttm the
fout1h civil Cflg(e6 of the President "\haD not dunng hts tenure be appotnted as
Members of the ConslitutJOnBI CommiSSIOils, or the Office oJ the Ombudsman,
or as Secreranes. UndfHsectecaries. <llairmen or of burea11s or
includmg or contro#ed corporatons {Sec: 13, Art VII}
Law nJ l '1tlllit' f!!!i rr:t
A. Deflned One who has the reootation of betng the offteer that hP. assumes
to be. and yet s not a good offacer an point or law {Torres v Ribo. 81 Phil).
He must have acted as an officer ror such ength of time. under color of trtle
aod under such circumstances of reputahon or acquiesCMce by the publiC and
public authont1es. as to afford a presumptiOn o! electiOn or appointment, and
Induce people, wrthout lnQUtl)', and refying on lhe supposition thai he is the
off.cer he 11ssumes lo be, to submtt to or tnvoke h1s actiOn.
B. Leg./ Effect of Acts; Rati onale. The aets of the de facto publtc officer,
rnsorar as they affect lhe pobhc, are valid, binding and with full legal effect
The dodnne IS rntended not for the protectiOn of the publrc orr.cer, but fOf' the
protection or the public and IndiViduals who get invofved in the official acts of
persons drschargtng the duties of a pLrblrc off:ce (Monroy v Court of Appeals,
20SCRA 620]
C. Elemtmts.
1. A valtdfy existi.'?g publ1c office See Tuamda v.. Sandiganbayan, G R
No. 110544, October 16. 1995
2. Aclua' pflyslcnf possess;on of said office
J. Color of title to the offtce. There is color of btle to the off1ce in any or
the following cases
a) By reputaboo or aoouiescence. the publrc. wrthout tnqurry, relies
on the suppositiOn that he IS the public orrrcer that he purportS to be. This IS
usuall y when the ind1viduaf has acted as an offloer for such a length
of tJme that the pubic be :.eves that he is the public offiOef that he assumes to
b) Under a known and vahd appotntment or eJection, but the officer
to confcrr:J to a regufremem fmoosed by law, tak1ng the oath of
c) Under a known appo1ntmcnt Of' clc:::tion, void oocause of the
of ne officer, or want ol authontv ol the apoomtmg or e!ed1ng
ii!U1tloMY, Of bo:cause pf ao lfTOOylantv lO hiS aOOOlOtme"t 0! elechoo Such
me!.g1bihtv. want of authonty pr r!regularjty being u.1known to the pub!$
52 .. t?JI'bfrr Offi;. cr1

d) Under a a;>pointment or e1ect10n put"Guant to 2!1
unconstl!uttOOallaw. oe!ore the W'N is declared unconslti\Jt!On:tl
0 Entirlement to Salartes. Tile general rue IS tnal tne nghllul mcumoent
of a publtc offiCe mny recover hom an otfrcer de !M:to the salary recc"-'ed by
ttlo taller dunng the time ot hts wrongful tenure. even though entered rnto
the offtee tn good faith and under color ol trUe (Monroy v Co1111 of Appeals
t.upra J In Generaf Mannger, PF'.A. v Monserate, G R No 129616, A.pni
17, 2002, the Supreme Court ordered pet1t100 Ramon Anlno to pay to the
respondent t::adq)ay dlfferenuals pertatn ng to me penoo rrom the lime he
(Amno) wrongfun)' assumed the contested posruon of II up to hts
reltrement on November 30, 1997
1. However. where there is no de jure public officer, the offteer de facto
who m good farth has had possesSIOn of the o!ra and nas dscharged ttle
dutie!: perta:nmg thereto IS leQaf?y entitled to the emoluments of the otfrcc and
may, .nan appropnate act ron. the salary, fees and other compensatrons
attached to the offrce.
a) In CMI Liberties Umon v Executive St.>cretary. supra., even as
Execottve Order No 2&4 was declared unconststutJooal beCause It ancw..ed
Cabinet members to hold multple offlees In direct oontravent10n of Sec 1
Art VII, it was oeld that dunng their tenure in the questtoned posrhcms. the
respondents may be conslderec! ie f:1cto otfreers and as such to
he emolumenlo; of !h6 offioe/s for actual seMCeS rendered 111 Monzon v
Potdls, 197 SCRA 251. the Supreme Court dedatad that even granting tha1
the President, actrng through the Secreta()' of Local Govemment, possesses
no power to appomt pehtroner (as Ac1rng Vice GollefllO(j, at the very lf..ast. the
petlioner IS a de lscto offecer enlllled compensatJOn. There is nc denytng that
the pebllooer assuMed the Offrce orVroo-Govemor under appo.ntment.
exerCised the dUties attached co sard offrce fOf a long penod of ume. and was
adaimed os such by the people of LeytP Under the pnnciple or pubic policy
on which tro de fttcto doclnne IS and on basic tXlrofderatrons of tu:>bce,
11 would be iniqullous lo now d<lny him the saf8f)' due him for the ser .nces he
actually rendered In Sampayan v Dazs. 213 SCRA 807 II was held that
Daz.a would have been a de facto offrcer, and as such. he carnol be made
to remborse funds disbursed dunng hs term of office because hiS &cts were
valid. Se.J also Flores v Drllon, supra .
2. In Roonguez v 91 Ph1l 724, thE Supreme Court said tnat havrnq
been duly proclarmed Senator and havrng assumed offiCe &S reqUired by Ia;,
the defendant Is enhtled to ttle compensation. emorume:1ts and allowan::es
whiCh the Conshtutron provides fOf the posrt100 for the duraooo ot htS tcnurr
(But note the concurring optnton ot JtJ'Sttee Pao111a If tho ClofenOant. directly or
ndlteC.tly, cor.1mitted unlawful or lortious acts wt\ich led to and resulted 11'1 has
prod;tmattOO as he would be answerable for damages.)
3 In M81aluanv. Contelcc. G R.No. 120193. March6, J996.theComelec,
hndrng ment tn Evangelista s appeal from the regl(}flnl uial court. ordeted
Mala! an lo 1aca!e ltle Clffice of mayor and to pay Evangchsta attorney's
fet:s, actual 8Jipenses. unearned salary and otner emotomcnts, ob't'lously
coosidenng Malafuan a usurper, rn.asmuch as he 'Nas ordered proclaimed only
by the reg1ooal tnal court The Supreme Court deemed the award of salaries
ar.d other emoluments hOlding thai Ma'aluan was not a usurper bUt
<1 oc facto otrn:er, having exerosed the duhes of the electiVe offtce under colof
;,f election (having been declared Wlflner by the feglonal tnal coortl
A. Official relatons iJre commenced: (rJ By npp(Jlntmcnt or (2) By
Definrt10n of tenns
a) Apoojntmem the seteci!On, by the authonty vested With thn power,
uf an rndtll1dual who 15 to perform the funct100s of a grven offtc.e
b) wntten evidence ot tne appo1ntrnent
c) Destqnat!Q!!' the 1mpoSttiOO of addrt100al dubes usual b:,r lnw vn
8 person already in oubttC ::.t:rvtce
2 ClaSSJfiCatiOn
a) PermaO!lt and Temoorary A permanenl appointment .s extended
to El person possesstng the requls1to quahf1C8ttons. ulcludtng the eltgblltly
req.,lr.Jd, for the positiOO, and thus protected tf/ the- const1tuttOOalgua111nty of
secunty of tenure. A temporary appomtmP.nt is an a<:Lng 11ppointment: 11 is
extended to cue Who may not rossess the requtSt:e qJahf,::auons I)( eligibility
reQUired by law fOf the posttJOn. and 1S revocable at will. wilh:>ut the necessny
ot cause or a vahd i nvestigatiOn
t) Ao act.ng appointment IS a :emporal') appomtment and
revocab4e in character (Marohombsar v AJonto, 194 SCRA 391/ AcquStton
of the appropnate dvtl servtoe eligtblltty by a temporary appotntee w1ll not
ipso f&cto convert the temporary appomtmentmto a permanent one; a new
appomtment is nevessary (Mat11ran v Maglana. 113 SCRA 268, reiterated tn
Province of Camarines Sur v Court of Appeals, G R No. 104639. July 14.
1995] .
. 11} In Achacoso " MacartJ19 195 SCRA 235, 11 was held ll\31 an
appotntment to a posttion 10 toe CAreer Service of the Crvrl Ser'>'tce does not
lllf:an that the appomtrr.en! as a permanent one and the
entitled lo sewnty of tenure Where the appo1ntee dOes not passess lhe
qualifications toe the pos1tion. the apPQmtment 15 temporary and may be
term1na_:ed at wrl Th1s was re tera'ed 10 Do Leon v Court of G R
No. 12,182, Jonuary 22, 2{)01 whPrP the Su;lfeme Court saiClthat the mere
fact that a PQSriiOf l belongs : o the S .. MCe does not automauca'Jy
eotlfer seamty of tenure. Such nght will have lo depend on the MIUfe of tho
appomtment whiCh, 10 turn depends on the appontee's ahgib ltty or lack of 11.
A pe on who does not have the requ1slte Qualtfcations for the posttion cannot
be ClJ)pornted to 11 In lt-..e first pl8ce or, only as an oxcephon to lhe rutc. may be
appointed to 11 only 10 an acting 10 the absence of .appropnate
TI1c appomtment extended to hun cannot be regarcred as permanent even if
il mny be so designated Such ben1g l!1e case he could be transferred or
wthout viOiatlng ltle const1tut1ona1 guamntee or secunty of tenure
1ii) In Romuafdez Ill v Civil Sennce CommisS10fJ, 197 SCRA t68
!he by the pet1lloner ot a temporary appotntment resulted tn the
terrntnatiOO Of OffiCial relabonshtp Wfth hiS fonner pennanent posrtJon When
the temporary appomtmenl was not renewed. the petitioner had no cause to
demand retnstalemcnt therelo In Feltx Buensseda GR. No. 109704,
July l'l. 1995. tne Supreme Court said that whatever objections the petitioner
had og<unst the earlrer ehange from hts sk1tus as pt!Smanent Senior RP..sident
Physcaan to temporary Semor Resident Phys10an v.ere never pursuod llOf
mentioned at, or after h1s designation as temPOrary Medical Speaaltst I.
He IS therefore estopped from 1nsasbng upon a nght or cJatm wtlich f1e had
plainly abandoned when, from all1nd1cahoos. he enthusiastiCally accepted lhe
promohon A simtlar Situation occurred n PabulYB v Coyn of Appeals, G.R.
No f 28082, Apn1 18, 2001, where pelt honer, holdng a permanent appointment
as Utiltty Wooer. accepted a temporary appointment as Bootd>nder II, 10
Che OffiCe of the Prow1e1al Board of Negros Occidental Smce rt temporary
appomtment snan not exceed twef\le months, pursuant to Sec. 13 (b). Omnibus
Rules Implementing Book V, Admtnistrahve Code o! 1987, petitioner coold
oot clam secunty of tenure upon the exptraiiOn of lhe ooeyear period and
demand reappointment or retnstatemenl 1n Padllfa v. CMI ServiCe
CommissiOn. G.R No 149451. May 8. 2003. pe11110ner resigned from her
permanent poSitiOn and accepted casual 01 temporary appointments.
IV) A rMre designation does not confet secuntv of tenure, as lho
pen,oo designated the poSition only 10 an aet.ing eapacrty (Sevila v.
Coutt of AppeaL<: 209 SCRA 637] ThiS was reiterated n Gloria v. de Guzman,
G n. No 116183. October 6 1995. where 11 was held that prrvate respondent's
aSSignment as COordltlator of ExtenSIOn SeMCes (CES) at PSCA was a mere
desl{;naton; tnus. not be1ng a permanent appo1ntroont. the designatiOn to the
POSitiOr cannot be the subtP.CI of a case for tc1ns1atement
v) Where the appontment1s subjecttC! condllons, e 9 . thatlhero
s no Ptndmg protest c.ga nst the or any rtecasion by competent
autnoutv wtliCh Will adversely affect ttle of the the
is not permanent In any event lhQ appomtee cannot dam
a "c::ompfete a'>POtntmenr tong as the re-evaluation metdental to th re.
ocgamz.ahon is !.till pend;ng [S1110n v Civil Service CommiSSIOn 215 SCRA
4 10) Where the employment rs QualtftOO by the phrase unless tem"Mnnloo
sooner ... d i s clear thnt even If the employment rs co-termmou& With tho project,
the emplo-yee nevertheless sc"'es 1 the p4easure of the appombng authority
(Orcvfl:J v Ctvrl Scrwco CommJSS,on, G R. No
3878() Msy 22, 2001)
VI) Howevcr .n Ambas v Buenasoda. 201 SCRA 308. II was held
that where the temporary rs lor a fiXed periOd. the appOintment
may be revoked on!y at the cxprrahon of the period, or, r revoca1.1on is ma<Xl
before such expira11011, the same has to be for a 11a id and JUSt c:Guse.
vri) In connectiOn wrtt. Sec 99 o! the Local Govcrnmant Code
wtliCll requrres consultaiJon v.rth the local SChool board n the of a
schools drvrs.on supenntendenL, the Supreme Court In Osea MaiBytJ,
G R No 139821 JRnuary 30. 2002, that the reqwement otmously applied to
apporntments extendoo by the DECS. In 1994. when the pos1tron of schools
dtvislon supenntendent was placed wrth1n lho career executive servtce, ihe
power to appotnt was vested '" the President rhus. tile President
the appointment wt11Ch was not speaf.c.as to locatron The prerogative to
oestftnate the appontoes to lheu respective sta110ns was vested ln tne OECS,
to tne of the The pe'Jtioner could not demand
!hat stle be desagnated to the Gamarines Sur dvfs!Ofl beca..rst? she ladied ooe
essenhalrngr6drenl, her appom:ment to u.e posrtron Her ear1rer destgnatron as
OIC, Ass Schools OIVISoo Supeflntendent of Sur, was tempc>fary.
giVIng her no vested nght to the posttion of Schools 01Vlsron Superintendent
1mi) An for a fr'lted tenn of ftve years SOOflf!l
lemllllated' IS not tcrmnable at \A.'tll . II is not an appotntment tn an admg
capacrty, and the appomtee cannot be tennlna1ed Without rust cause [Sta Ma,.
lopez, GR. No. L-30773, February 18, 1970]. navmg an appomtment with
a fixed term. he cannot. Without hs consent, be transferreo before tt.e entt of
his term Thus. in thrs case, the appointee's transfer to the o: Spedat
Assr..tant With the rank of Dean was a because dC.Jnship in the
unrverslly es more cJCalte<J than thm of a Speoal Asststant (Sra Mana v: Lopez.
supra 1
b) Regu!ar and A regular appt-nunent ts one maJe by
the Presdenr while Congress 1:; rn snSSion alter the nomnaLJon ts coofume<l by
thP- Commtssron on Appomtmcnts, and ronttnws unhl the end 01 tne term An
adtnlenm appomtment s one maae wtlde Congress s not n sessiOn, before
confrrmatron by the Comrntsson on Appotntments, ts rmmec!Jatety eftectlle,
nd to bP. valid 11 dtsaPt)rovPd or bypassed by the Comm:sston on
ftppot111ments upo11 llle ne t adj oumn.ent ot
I) An ad-inteom oppointment IS a permanent appotntment,
and Its beng subject to ronfirmation <Jocs not alter 1ts permanent Character
fPamnntasarr ng Lungsod ng M.1ym1n v lntcrmed1atn llppeliato Cou11. 140
It) Classtcatron of appomtmcnts and .aQ 1rum. can
be tJSP.d only"' hen relemng to the four (4) categories of appointments made by
the President of the Phtlippmes tnlhe f1rst sentence or Sec 16. Art. VIII of the
Cc,nstt:ullon whiCh require c::onrtnnaliOtl by the Comm[sslon on Appotntments,
vtz (ra) Heads ol executive departments (ibl Ambassadors, other pubhc
rTll'ltstcrs and (te) Officers of the armed forces o! the Phihppmes. from
the raf'k or rolonel Of naval captatn; and (td) Officers whose appototments are
11estcd '"the President under the Conshtul!On See SarmHmto v M1son, 156
SCRA 549; &1/11SI8 \' Salonga. 172 SCRA 169, vumtos-Dolos v Conumttee
011 ConstlrUCiG/'181 ComlniSSIOnS, CommiSSIOn on Appomtments. 1 n SCRA
J5'J: Calderon v. 208 SCRA 254
3 Steps'" Appomt1ng
a) For regular apoomtmPots (i) Nomina11011 by the President: (1i)
Conlrmabon by the Commisson on Appomtments: (iii) Issuance ol thE
commissiOn, ald (v)Ac:ceptance by the appotntee In the case of ad intenm
apPOintments. the normnation,tSSWince of the appointment and acceptance by
Che appomtee orecede the conftrmation by the CommtsSion on Appointments
b) for apoojntments wtJich do not reoUtre conf!!!T1a1ron: (t)
Appointment by appointJng authonty, (ii) I-ssuance of lhc comflllSS.ion. and {iii)
Aooeptance by the appointee.
1) In Lscson v Romero. 84 Phil 740 lt:e Supreme Court OOld
that acceptance or the eppc>tntment by tnc appointee rs the Jaost act that
completes the process. A person cannot be compelled 10 accept
an appo!Otnenl to publtc offroe, as the samo wr1l constrtute a violation or the
constitutional nght aga1nst inVOiuntuy servrtude. except when the appointment
rs made ICI an office required m defense of the State. as oontemplated In Sec.
4, Art II of the
c) the nppointmenl is to the caeer sarv <".O of I'* CIVIl Servtce.
ar.estnhoo by tt e CiYJI Seryx:e Commssoo 1s reQu1red An appotntmem to the
career of the Qv:l Service rs not deemed complete ur.fil attestation/
approval by I he CJVJ Servtce CommiSSIOn The Omnttlus Riles lmplemcnhng
Book V. E 0 provides that an appotntmen! not submrtted lo the CNII
SeMce Comm6Ston Wlttun 30 davs trom tssuatce ( ..... htC.h shall be thP. date
appeanng en the face or the appo!l'ltme:nt) shall be meffectiV Wttnoot the
favorable certification or approval of Civil Set\llce Comn.tSSton no lttle
10 the office can be deemed to bP. pennanentlt vcs!f'!d tn fm;r}( of IM
appomtee, and the appomtmcnl can Sttfl be revol:ed or wt:hdriHm the
appomtmg authorrty tho appomtment shalf nave bel;!n a completed act, 1t
would hkewtse be preop tate to 1nvo1<e secun. or tenure {Tomal1 v G1v1l Stirv1ce
CommiSSK)I), G R No 1 tlJ508, Ve<;cmoor 1, 1994) Hov.t!ver, I that thu CMI
Sent tee CommssJOn i s to Clo IS to chao. tf ltle possesses
tile ouat1fecaltons and appropnate eligtbtbty, "f he does hls apporntment IS
approved. 1f not. 11 rs (Lopt>z v. C1Vfll Service CommJss;on, 194
SCRA 269}
An appomtment becomes complete only when the last act ruqutred
ol the appoeobog power Is pelformed, unt.: the process rs cormleted the
appotntee can claim no vested nghl 10 the offiCe nor darm secunty of tenure.
The years of sel"iiee of the mvolved cannot subst111.11e want of
consent of another body requred by law to comple:e tne appomtment [Corpuz
v Covrt of AapeaL'>, G.R No 123989, January 26 19q8j. For tne duratiOn
of Ns occupancy of the othc:e, lS merely a tlc facto offiCer, becau:.e l'le
assumed otr.ce under color of htle of a known appomtrnenl 'Nhich is void by
reason of some defect
5 For the appontment It' be v;,lid the oositon must be .rocaot (Costlll
v 041tmOo. 120 SCRA 159, Jooom \1: Regalado, 201 SCRA 73) In Gayilt80
v CIVI1 ServiCe Comm1ssion, '210 SCRA 183, where th bv
Customs Commrss100er Mison of Incumbent C:,.;toms OperatiOns Chief
as Acbng Chel of the Expon DIVISIOn o! NAJA Customs House
was illegal, the subsequent appomtment of Gayatao as Customs OperatiOns
Chief was nu: and vOtd, bf!caust' the pos1t10n to whiCn Gayatao was appomtOd
was not vac.ant In Gan::es v. Cotvt of Appettls 259 SCRA 99, where pnvate
respondent refused to vacate his offu because ne was being transferred
consent, the SuPfeme Cour1 said that the appomtment of the pebtiOOef
was anvatid because the I)OSitiOO to which he was appomted .... -as not vacant
6. OtscretJOn of Appomtmg Aufhonly Appotntmenl rs essenltally a
diSCretionary power and must be per1onned by tht: otflOOr tn wt!OITliiiS vested
ltCCOrC:11ng to h1s test lrghts the only condrlton be ng IT'at the appotntee should
possess the min1mom qulrficat!on rl>QUtrements prescr;bed by law for the
p()Sihoo [Luego v Civrl Servtee CommiSSion, r 43 SCRA 327 Laprnid ., CIVil
SeMCe CommtSSJOn, 197 SCRA 106]. The appomtmg authority has the
nght o ch<.1ce whiCh he may ellerCise freely acu>rd ng to htS best Judgment ,
deod1ng for himself who IS best qualified among thOse Who have the
QuahfJCatJOns and cltQtbth:tes Not only IS the authortV offroor
pnman y responstble for the admtnistrnt'on of hs office, he 1s also in the beSt
pOSitron to ootermine who among the pmspect1ve appointees can effectively
d1scnarge rile functions of the pos1110n Thus. the final choiCe of tho appointing
aumonty stou1a be respcrJed t'lnd left undtsturbed St:f\1100
v De ra Cna, G.R. No 158737, August 31, 2004}
a) In Aqumo v. CIVN SetV{oo Cc.mrrnSSion, 208 SCRA 24D, re.terated
1n Medal/a " Sro. Tomas '208 SCRA 351, and m Uy v. Court of Appeals
?86 SCRA '343, It was held that when lhe appoinoog authori!y has already
!!Jtercisoo hts pawe1 of appointment. the CommissiOn cannot revOf<e the same
onlhe ground tnat another 1S be Iter qualtfiCd, for that wilt const tute
an encroact ment on the dscrehon ves:ed in the appointing authority The
Cornmrss1on may not and should not substitute tiS judgment for that of the
b) WMe the Crvil Serv.ce Law grants career service offiCers
prererence io promotion under the ne);t-n-rank rule [Anzslr:JO v. Clave, 119
SCRA 353, Yoram v Edralm 154 SCRA 238}. it is not mandatory ttl at the
appotnhng a\.lthorily f1U a vacancy by prcmo'IOn, as the a,ppo111ttn:g authority
should be the chotce of men of hts conftdenoe, provtdcd they are
Qualfred and eligible (Espanol v. Chlr1 ServiCe Commtssfon. 208 SCRA 715,
Mantata v Salvador. 206 SCRA 264 Umoso v. Civil SctviC6 Commission, G.R.
No 110276. July 29, 1994/ For d1sregard1ng lOIS doctrine. the CSC drew a
stem rebuke from the Court rn Lapmid v, Civil Sef'lltce COmmrsSJon, supra
warned 1n Gu:eb v CM Setvtee CommiSSion, G R No 93935 February 9
1994, and again "duly warned, henceforth, it disobeys at tis peril", in Mauna v
Civil Service CommtSSJOn. G.R No 97794, May 13, 1994.
1) Sec. 9, Chapter II, Tttle Ill, Book IV of the Admtnistrative Code
of 1987 (EO 292) provides that all prowlCial and City prosecutors and thelf
assslants .shall be appo.nted by the President upoo recommendatiOn of the
SP.cretary of Justice. The phrase upon recommeoda1ion of tho Secretary
or Justice' should be incetpreted to be a mere advise, exhortatiOn and
indorsement, which IS essentially per5uasrve '"character bullS not binding or
obligatocy upoo the person to v.hom '' is made Accordingfy. the d screbon or
the <Jppolnltng authonty sllll prevails /Bermudez v Executive Secretary. G R
No 131429, At.Jgust 4. 1999}.
c) Tt'"' dscroton or too app<>onltng auU10ntv 1s not only In the chotee
of the oerson Ntlo ts to be .:ed but also .rn the narure and character
ot tne appoimmenl extended. i e whether tnc apJlOLfllll\(>nt IS permanent or
temporCJry In Provmcc of Camar:nes Sur v Cc;,urt of Appeals, 246 SCRA 281
th(' Supreme Court re1!eralc-J the rule thaltne Cwil ServiCe cannot
convert a temporary appollltmcn1 1nto a permanent one. as 11 would constitute
an arrogation or a power proper1y bP!ongrng to the appornling authonly. The
Civil Service ComnusSJon may, however appro'lle a:; temporary an appoontmcnt
tntenoed to be permaflent where the appomtee does not ltle requis11e
!ltg1bthly, and the e.rrgency of lhe sei'VIee dt!mands that pas1hon bo filled
up, even 1n a te:nporary eapaaty
7 Revtew ot Appotntmonts Grven the dscreron ve<led n the
appo.ntlng authonty, an appomtmcnt IS generally a poltll':a question so long as
the appointee rvlfilts the mlnmum qualrficabon requirements prescnlJed by law
fOt the In Tanada v Phtltppme AtomiC Energy CommtSSIOtl, supm
the Cour1 held that where the validitY of lhe appointment IS no1 cha!lengd m
appro;>nate proceedtngs, the questiOn of the oompetence of the pubhc officer
tS beyond the pale of Judl081 IOQUJI)'
3) An actiOn for usurc>al1on of oH1ce may be brough: only by one who
cta1ms tt:le to the oH,ce (Bon_gbom v Parazo. 57 SCRA 623}
8 JunsdtCitOn of the C1vil Servtce Commrsstan Dtsc1pln;}ry C<!Ses,
.and cases Involving acuon affectmg employees In ttle C1vit
SeN lce, 1nctud1ng .-ppomtment through certftcahon, promotiOn, transfer,
reinstatement. reemployment, deta1l reassignment, demoltonand separation".
as v.ell as employment status and qualrficat10n standards. are wthin the
exdusiVe JUrisdctJon of tho Crvil Serv1ce Comm1ss10n The Regional Tnal
Court s Without JUrisdiChon lo take cogmzance of an acton fOf quo warranto
nnd mandarous filed tly one who, c!aming she fs nP.xt-ln-r.lnk and better
Quahfted, should have been e:.rtcOded lhe promohonal appontment (Manta/a
v. Salvador. supra./.
a) The power of the Ctvd Service Comm1ss10n includes the authority
to recall an appomtrneflt which has been tMtany apptOved when 11 as shown
that the same was is.soed tn disregard ol penmen! C1vt1 Serv.ce rules
and (Debulgodo v Ov11 SeMc8 Comm1sS10n, 23? SCRA 184.
retterated 1n Msthay v CIVil Service CommtsstOn. G R No 130214. August
9, 1999}
b) But th .. C1v11 Servtce CommiSSIOn s not a CO'llanager, or
surrogate adm1ntstra1or of government and agenc1es Its knctl()ns
and are hmted to approvtng or rev1ewmg 10
thEt1r compliance w.th the Ctvl Serv:ce law On Is own, the Comm;ssion
does nnl have lhe power 10 1trmtnaiP. empiOyr"ent or to dop from
the rolls fUmvPrStly or lhe and A/lredo drJ Torr.;s v CtVIf Serwce
Comm.ss'o'' G R No J32BGO Jlpfl1.1. 2001}
C. Appointments to the Civil Serv1ce.
1 Scope of the Civlf Ser\'ICo: Embraces all branches, subdwh;i<ms,
fnstrumentalrties and .agenCies of the Government. inctudmg government
ownerl and controlled CDf'P()faiiOns wrth ongmnl chartets {Sec. 2(1 ). Art IX-8}
a) In Umversty of the Pttwppmes v. Regno. 221 SCRA tl
wns hP.Id that the of ttle Ptu'sppmes. havtng been created by a
speoal law and havtrlg an ong nat charier. IS cJearly part of lho C1vil Sei'VIce
In M81()0 v Court of Apposts. 24 7 SCRA 284. it was held that the Morong
Water Distr:ict a quas1-publ1c coff)Of8tl0n created pursuant to PO \98, as a
govE:mment-owned C()(J)Orabon 'Mih an origtnal d'larter Accordrngly. 11ts
emplOyees rau w1thtn the junsdiction of the CIVil Serv.ce CommisSIOn, and tne
RTC has no Junsdicbon to enter1ain cases m'IOMng d1smtSSal or offoers and
employees in the said water district In EIIB v. Covrt of Appeals, G R. No
r2!J133. November 25, 1998. II .... held that the EconomiC Intelligence and
Jnforrtl2ll0n Bureau 1S a go11emmen1 agency W1thm the coverage of the CMI
Serv1ce L1ke1.1se. the Jose M Rodnguez Memonal Hosptal is a government
hosp1tal exercismg go\'o;mmental functtons, and s w.:h1n the coverage of the
CIVIl (Deparfment of Health v. NLRC. 251 $CRA 700} The
Nat.onal Red Cross (PNRC) IS R govemment-owncd or controlled corporation
Wl:h an ongnal charter" under RA 95, as amendetJ. Pa1d staff or the PNRC
ate employees who are members of the GSIS and t;Overed by
the Civil Servial Law {CamporedondO 11 NLRC GR No 129049. August 6,
b) On the other tvlnd, 10 Juco v. NLRC. G R No 98107. Augusr
f 8, 2997, 1t was held that the employment rclatlcns .., Che NatiOnal Housmg
Corporation (NHC) are within the JUnsd,ction of the NLRC, not tho Civtl Service
CommissiOI'I even as the controversy arose prior to 1987, because. as held
tn National Servroe CorporatiOn 1< NLRC. 168 SCRA 122, 11 is the Constitution
m place at the time or the decis>n whtdl governs. In this case. the Supreme
Court doclared that the phrase -wrth ongmal charter refers to corporatiOnS
chartered by specsallaw, as distingushed from corporations organzed under
the Corporat100 Code
c) In ught Ran Transit Authonty (LRTA) v Venus, G.f< No 163782,
March 24, 2006 the Supreme Court sa1d that LRTA be1og <1 government-owned
corporallOn Wllt, an orig nal charter employment therein is governed by CJVrl
rules, not by the tabor Code and 1S beyono the reach of the DOLE
However. METRO was oogrnally organiZed under the Corporation Code and
became a gQvernmcnl-ov.ned and contwlled corporal/on only when 11 was
acqu1red by LRTA Thus, rt tS the DOt E. not the C " '' Ser'VIce CommiSsiOn,
that has JurisdicttOO OYer disputeS anseng from lhe employment of Its WOI'tl.ers
since METRO has no OOQinal charter
d) tn OffiCo of the Ombudsman v Ciwl ServiCe CommJSSIOTI. G.R
No. 162215 July 30. 2007. 11 was held thai the person occupymg the postlton
of (Jtrector II :n the Centrai AdrnintstratJVe ServiCe or Flttaoce und M3nagement
ServiCe of the Offtee of the Ombudsman 1s &p:,>Ointed by the Ombudsman, not
by tt'le President As SUCh, he ts netther embraced m tt.e Career Executtve
Serva (CES) nor does he need to posse5s Career & aQJtrve Scrvtee ohgibihty.
To the positiOnS as covered by the CES and requwe appointees thereto
k> acq..,re CES or CSE eltgtbtlrty before acqu . tng secunty of tenure lead
to unconstitutional end unta'vfut oonsequences. as rl witl result either '" (1)
vestno the appointing power fm said in the President '" v!Oiaboo of
the ConstitutiOn, Of (2) inc:Juchng'" tf.e CES a positiOn not held b, a
appomtee, oootra1y to the Admcmstmhvo Code
2 Classes 01 S91VICe.
a) Careeer Sery1ce I.Jy entrancs base:J on nerri and
fttness to be determtned, as far as practcable by compel we exam10ations,
or based on hiQhly opportun1ty for advancement to
htgher career positiOI'\S. and secuoty of tenure The positiOns nduded are, (I)
Open career PQSJtons, where pnor QualificatiOn in an appropria1e examination
s requtred, (M) Closed career posthoos, e.g . sdenhfic Of tedlnl\:al
n nature. (iii) Career Servtee, e.g UodeiSE"Ctetanes, bunrou
dtrectors, etc., where tht: appomtee Is rcqwed to possess tne appropriate
Career ExecutiVE SP.rvtee Offteer (CESO) ehgtbilty, (1v) Career offars (other
than those belong 10 the Care4>r Executive SeNece) who are appo1nted by
the PreSident; (v) Positions m the Arme<l Forces or t.,e Phihpptnes. although
governed by a separate ment sy&tem, (vi) Personnel of gow!mment-owned or
-<:OOtrolled corporations w1th ongmal charter; and ( 111) Permanent laborers,
WhethP.r skiNed, Of unskilled
1) Car8ereXP.C'Ufl\l'8 .seMOe. The two reqUISites that must OOOQJt
'"order that an 10 the career executrve sei'VICP. nu.y anatn sec:..;nty
of tenure are. (1 I career executl\'9 serv10e eltgDilitv. aoo 121 flppontmP.nt to
the appropnate career executrve servtce rank It must be stressed ihat the
seamty of tenure of employees in the career execulve se!VICO {except first
and second level employees n the CNII serv1ce) penarr>s onty to rank and
not to office or to tile postlton to NhiCh :ney may be appo1nte<1 Thus, a
C.'lreer exeCUtive serv.ce offl(.1 may be transferred or reasSJO"led !rom one
poshon to anotne wtlhout losmg h.s rank wh!Ctl follows htm wherever he ts
transferred or reassgoed In fact a career exP.CUt1ve servtee olfteer suffers
no diminutJOO tn salary even If assigned to a CES position With tower salary
grade, as he is compensated accordng to his CES rank and not on lhe basis
of the pos 100 or which he occup; {Goneral v Roco. G R Nos. 143366
& 143524 January 29. 2001/ Accord.ngly. wt:ere the appomtee does not
possess the reQwred career eY.ecotrve seJVJCe elig1bility, hss appointment will
not attan pe!J'nanency On ms baSiS, ttw appointment of the cespondent as
M1rustry Legal Counsel CESO IV, Department legal Counsel 0!' Diractor Ill
-- t'lasmuch as he did not possess the CESO ef.gbl11ty - was
merely temporary. Thus, he could be ttansferrod or r885Signed Without violatmg
security of tenure (D,mayuga v. BenediCIO. G R No 144153 January 16,
b) Non<are>r 5ef\ltce Characten2ed by entrance on bases other
than fhose o the usual tests uttlaed for the career seMCe, tenure limtted to
a peood spe<:Jfied by law, or wh ch tS co-termtnous With that of the appomting
u'hority or subject to h1s pleasure, or whch ts ltmrted to the duration of 11
pantCUiar prqecl for which purpose the employment was made. The offrCP.rs
and embraced in tt'te non-career sent1ce are. () Electve offtQals,
nnd !lletr pefSooal and staff, (11) Department Heads and officials
of Cab1net rank who hold at the pleasure ot the President and lhetr
personal and confldentral staff; (111) Chamnen ond members of commtssions
and boaros with fixed terms of offiCe, and ttletr personal and confidenhal
staff. (tv) Conlradual personnel Of those whose employment in government
lo; tn accordaxe with a speoal contract to undertake a specif1c wOO\ or job
requmng speaal or tecnnlcat skills nol avatlable in the employ11'lg agency, 10 be
accomphsheC within a speofte period not e"ceedtng one year, under lhetf own
respoi'\Stblhty, With the mtntmum dtrectton and supei'VISIOtl; and {v) Emergency
and seasonal persooncf.
1) In Montecllo v CMI CommtsSIOit, G.R No 131954,
June 28. 2001, the Supreme Coon said that under the Admimstrative Code
ot 1987, the Civil SeMoe COfllrTlfS$t()n ts expressly empowered to dedarP.
posdlons m ltle CMI Service as pnmarily confidential. Thts signifres that lhG
enumeration the Ctv!l decree. which defmes the non-career seMc:e.
ro; not ao exduslve list The CommtSSion can enumeration. as
11 d1d when 11 i!sued MemOI'andum C rcular No 22, s 1991, spoofytng pos11ions
1n the C1111l Service whiCh are conslOered pnmAn!y confioenrial and. therefore,
tht"!lr occupars s hold tenure co-term nous w1lh the offictals they serve.
u) In Orculfo v C1111l Servic& CommiSSIOn. G R No 138780, May
22. 2001. rhe COtermtnous satus or an officer 01' emolo;-ee may be clasSifted
as follOws [a) co-termtnous th the e . When the appo ntmenl is co-
e> stef1t WJih the c1urauon of a partc:ul<tr pro,ea lor wt\tch purpose
l.mt ul l'ubl! t.l'fk tn
was made or subjed to the avalab!hty of funds f<X the same.(b] co-terminous
Wllh tho appow1tmg authc.nty, 1 c , ......tlen the appomtment IS co ex1stent w.th
the tenure of the eppontlng authonly or at hiS pleasure: [c) co-terrrunous Wllh
the Incumbent. 1 e when 111e apponlment IS ao-e,.,IStent v.tth ttte
to that after the resrgnaton separahon m termmat10n of tho servtccs ol tne
tocunbent. the poSilJOn shall be deemed aulomatca'ly abohsht!d, and ldl oo-
lerminous with a speofc period, 1 e , the appotntment 1!. for a period
and UPOn expratron thereof the poshon 1s deemed obohshed
3 RoqwsdN Snail be only accordtng to ment aod r11ness to be
deterrmned, as far as practicable. and, excepl appomtments to pos1bons whtc:h
are pohcy determtnlllQ, pnmanly confrdenl!al or highly techOJCal. by compet1trve
examnatron (Sec 2(2). Arl. IX-BJ
a) In a department, lhe appomttng power IS vested m the Dei>artment
Secretary, and although such power may be deleqated to tne Reg1ooat Ouector.
the same rs still subjecl to lhe approval. rev1sron, modlftcabon or re\ersal by
the Oepartment .Secrelary [Umoso loi. Ctvll Servrce Comm1ssron sup1a 1
b) In PAGCOR v Rilloroza. G R No. 141141, June 25, 2001, three
unport:mt pomts are underscomd: ll Tho classtfcahon of a p3rttcutnr postt1on
as pot.cy-determmmg. pnmanty Of h.ghty technical amounts to no
more han an e)lecutrve or legtslatl\le dedaratoo that ts not conclus111e upon
the courts, the true test being the nature of the postt10n, luJ Tnc exemprlon
ProvidOO 1n thiS pertans only to exemptiOf'l from compehbve examrnat10n
to dotermtne menl and fitness to enter the CIVIl sei'VIce and (tn] Sec. 16, P.O
1669. nsofar as 11 declares ali poshons m PAGCOR as pnmanly oonfidentlal,
Is not absolutely bmding on the courts.
c) from the compehtwe exam1natton JeQU!fefllent are
appointments to positiOns which are
PoiK:y determN'Iini}. in which the officer lays down pnnapal
or fundamental guidelines Of' r.Jies, Of fOOTlUJates a method of aaM>n fOf
go-.oemment or any of its subdMsJOns, e g a department head
11) Pflmanty confidentral. ocnotJng not only conflden<-e tn the
aptJio(je or for the o' the otfl(:e but Cl')se tnhmacv
which ensures of mtercou1se without embarrassment or freedom
from rntsgtvmgs or betrayals on confidential mauers of state, o om: declared
lo be so by the PreSldenl of the Ph1hpp.nes upon recon nenC<ilron ol lhe CtJt'
ServiCe CommisSion [De los Santos v. 87 Phil 289. S<!laz:-r v Matnay.
73 SCRA 275}
'"' I1J l'uf./1, Ott
1ia) In Civl SeMOe Coolf7ttSSIIOn Dnd PAGCOR v. satas, G.R.
No. 123708, June 19, Jt)97, IJle Soprt:me Court said that pnor to Che passage
ot lhe Setvic:e Act of 1959, there were lwO reoogmzP.d Instances 1l"f'hen a
post !JOn mav tle cortsiOered pnrnar;/yconftdell/181, mmery: Ca) President,
upon re<:OilYrendai!On of lhe CMI SeMcc Comm!.SSIOO, has declared the position
to be pnmanly confidential, and tb) 10 ttl9 abscnoe of such a declatallon, when
from lila nature of the functiOI'\S of lhe offiCe. lhcre exists close tntfll".<'lcy between
the and authority WhiCh 1nsures freedom of 1r11oo::outse
w.thout embamlssment Of freadom from mcsgMngs Of betrayals on confidential
matt.Prs or State. When RA- 2260 was enaded on June 19, 1959. Sec. 5 thereo1
provided Chat ,he non-<:ompe1rbve or undassifiCd seMCe shaU be composed of
posltJOI'IS decWed by l3w to be 10 the noo-competrtrve or unclaSSified sefl/1ce, or
those wllich are policy-determning, primanly coorlderltal Of highly
. Thus, at least SJnc:e the. enadmerll ofltle Civil Setvice Ad of 1959,1t is the
nature of the position which detemunes whether a posltton IS pnmanly oonflderl!ial,
polocy dJtcrmrtlog or fltghly tech nat In PinPro" Hechanova. 18 SCRA 417, i
declared nat executrve prooouncemen:s. SlJCh as PO. 1869. can be no more
than rmtl:ll determlnaloos thai are not oondusJVe io case of con!lict ottelv.1se.
rt would lie W!lhln lhe dt5eretle>n of the Chief Exewtive lo deny to any olf!Cer, by
executive f.at,lhe ooostrtultooal protedloo of secun,y of tenure. This rule prevails
even W1th the advent of the 1987 Constitution and the Adr.'tullstrat.iVO Code of 1987,
rule enunoat.ed m De bs santos v. Manare, supra. tS st1l1 au!hootatrve. 1 e., !hal
the occupaot of a parocutar positJon oould be conSidered a ooofldeotJal emplo)'ee
If the pmdomnant reason wtw tm W"tlS chosen by the appomtng authonCy was
latter's beler that he can sh:ve a dose lnlJm.jte :-etattonsh'P With the occupanl
v<'hldl ensures lreedom of diSO.ISSIOO Without fear of ti!mbarrassment orrrisgivings
be:rayats or personal trust and confidential matters or Stale Where
t'le po51t100 .oc:xJUpted IS remote fro.'TI that of tho authority, the 8emlrlt
of 11\JSt between lhem is no lOnger preOominant. and therefore. would not be
prlnlCriyconfideotial Thus, in PAGCOR v Riilcxaza, ltwas held that the po51ticnd
Casino Operaltons Manager (COM) IS not a pomanly confidential posdlon. wtW
lhe COM IS required 10 exen::ise recommeodala)' and c:lisqllinary
powe4'S with -Mde latitude of authority, and ho IS a tier above the onilnary f'CI'IIc
and-file employee, nonetheless, lacUlg IS that amplitUde of confidence ft!PClSOO
1n him nulhonty For one thtng, he repons directly to the Brand
Manager, not to the appoont.ng authority. It becomes unmistakable that the stmJrn
separating the COM from drectly to the higher echelons renders remote
tr-.e propOSition of proxHnny t:oetween the respondent and the all.honty
ib) In AfontecJf/o v. CIVil Service Commission, supra ,
tne Supreme Court recoqnized the express ao1honty of the Civil SeMce
Commission, under Administrative Code of 1987. to dedare poSitions lt'l
the Ctvtl Service as PfliTh .. lnly ooofldental ACCOitttng!y, the enumara!ion of
pnmanly confidential employees tn the Ctvtl SefVioo decree is not exclusive:
the Commt!\sion m:Jy supplement tne same, os 1t did When il ssued Meroo
Cucular No 22, s 1991
Ill) H"}hly techmcal, which reqUires possessiOn ol technical sklll
or tratntng 1n a supreme o supenor degree. In Besa v Ph'''PPIOO NatiOnBI
Bank. supra., the OOSiliOO of legal counsel or the PNB was declared to be bolt"!
pnmanly confidential and hiQhlytedlnical, W1th the lormer aspect predommahng.
In CI.K11ente v SsntC's, 142 SCRA 280. ltle posrtlon of C1ty Legal OffiCer IS
pnmarily requmng the utmost degree of on the part
of the May<)'. In Pacote v Chatrman Comm.ssion on Aud1t, 'P85 SCRA 1,
the postOon ol Ctty Altomey was held to be both and techmcal
m nature. In Bones v Court ot 153 SCRA 120. tl was held thai the
poSIIIOI'\S ot Secunty OffiCer and Se<:unty Guards ol the City Mayor arn
pnmanly confdenll:l posttiOI'l"
D. Othf!r Personnel Acttons
1. Promollon .s a movement from one po5111on to another With .r.uease
tn duttes and responstbibhes as authOriZed by taw and ur.ually accomoan
an in pav
a) ,Next-tn=raok. The perso,, 1'leXI n ronk shall be gtven
preference "" promo11Qn when ltle fl05110n above ll:.s is vacated
But the appointmg authonty sh!l exeases dtseteiJon and tS not ,bOund hy thiS
rule, aiii'IOUgh he is requ to spec.fy the special reason or for not
appo1n11ng the otfteef next-m-rnnl<. This rrw:ans lhat the one whc IS next-m
rank Is given only preferential consideratiOn for vromotlon: but I docs not
neoessanty follOw that he atone and no one else can be appointed (Pems ,,
Civrl SeMce Comm1$$10f1, G R No. 102948, FebnRJry 2. 1994)
b) Au\oma1lc Reversion rule. Sec. 13 ol the Ommbus Rules
lmptementnQ Book V, E 0 292. states All appointments involved in a
chatn of promotJoos must be submlled Simultaneously for approva by the
CommtSSIOO Too of the apposntmoot ol a perscn lo a
nigher t>OStJon tnvah(fates the promotion of those tn ttte lower posttions and
au omabcally restores them to lhe!l former postbOnS. However, lhe affected
oersons are to payment nf sa\anes for serw:es actually rendered at a
rate fixed 10 thetr ptOI"!"''honal appomtments . For thiS ru
e tl') apr>ly, ttle folloY.ms
must COOClft (1) there must be a senes ot promotiOns; (11) al promohona
ttppotntments are Simultaneously submrtted to the Commcss10n for apProval,
and (111) the drsapprovP.s the of a person to a -h,gl'ler
posthon [DMnsgracia v Sto Tomas, G R No. 1 t0954, May 31, 1995} In
this case. the Supreme Court held that the movement of pnvate respondent
Nacano from the Budget Office to the MPOO was not A promotion. but a lateral
2. Appolnlm':Jnf If/rough CettrtiCBtron is rssued to a who has
been selected from a ltst of qoahfiOO persons certified by the Crvil Service
CommlSSlOI'I lrom an appropnate rcgcster of eltgbles. and who meets all the
qualtf!Cahons prescnbed for the pos;:100
3 T1ansfer s a movement from POSition to allothcr Which rs of
eqUivalent rank, level or salary without break rn servrce Under rurrent Civrl
Service rules and regulations, transfer may be imposed as en admirustraiMJ
a) An unconscnted transfer '.Hllatcs sec-Jmly of IP.niiM {Palma
Fernanao: v de l<t Paz. llSO SCRA 751.' A transfer that results'" J)fomotion
or demot100. advancement or reductiOn, or a transfer that atms to Jure the
away from hiS permanent pos1l100, cannot be done Without the
employee'!= c:onsent. for 1hat would CXJnst.tute removal from office Indeed, no
pennanent transfer can take place unless the officer or employee IS first
from tho pos11100 held, and then appomted to another poSll1on v.
Sto Tomas. suora) But appomtment o! the private respondent Yap beng
thcJt of Dstritt Supervisor at targc, she could be assigned to any statiOn, as
she s not cnl!Voo to stay pcmmr;cntly al any sncofK: statiOfl {OuJSUmbmg v
Judge Gumban, t 93 SCRA 520)
b) However. In Chato v NatNidad. GR. No. 113843, June 2. 1995,
the Supreme Coun sul>tatned the legaltly ol the reasstgnment of Bias from
Pampanga to Cagayan. afte( BIR CommtssiOner Chato had ISsued Revenue
AdmintStratJve Order No 5-93 rcdefinmg the rt.msd,ctton and re-numbering the
regional diStnct offiCeS of the BIR The Cour11ouod that the pnvate respondent
faied to show patent tllegalrty ., the act100 of the BIR CommtSSnV, saying
that to sustam pnvate respondent's contention hts transfer was a demotion
simply bcc.'luse the new assegnment is not to his hklflQ would be to SUbordinate
government PfOJects, along Wtth Ute weal resources and efforts they entarl,
to mdrvtdual and opJrnOOS of cilltl service employees: and ths
would ne{late the ptiOciple that public offtee 15 a public trust Moreover. the
employee should have the or h;s transfer by appeal to the
C1vt1 Service Commts&IOn. Tho lo.er court should dismtst:ed the action
lor failure of pnvate respoodentlo cxaacst admtntslrahve remed1es In an)'
event, the movement was held to be a reassignment. made tn the extgeocy of
the seMce- and then: was no demo! ron
OUlUio!o I PE\Iit'tiEHI'l FOUTICAl
4r...S I r.w u( f'11bltl' fJtfl
1) In TeotiCO v Agda, 197 SCRA 675, at was held that the holder
of a temporaty appojntmenl cannot claim a vested nghtto the slalaon to which
nor to secun1y of tonur Thus. he may be rerJSSI{Ined to any
place or stalton
i l) UkewiSe. Career ExecutiVe Servtee personnel can toe Shifted
trom one office til anomer WithOut vaolatmg the1t nght to securrty of tenure,
because !hell' t;tatu:; and satanes are based on thea ranks and not on the
poslK>ns to wnieh they are (Cuevas v, Bacsl G R No 139382,
December 06. 2000: GenertJt v Roco, G R Nos 143366 & 143524. January
29, 20C>1]
4. Any person 'Ntlo has beer. permanenUv appointed
to a pos1hon In the carPer serv.ce and W'hO has, through no dflllnquency or
misconduct. been separated therefrom. may be remstated to a po"'tiOn 10 the
s.1me level for he IS qualified
a) In Glona v Judge do Guzman. supra . lhe Court sad that pnvate
respondents subsequent acqu1s hon of the appropnate avd &l!QIDttiry IS
no reason to compe petitioners to reiippoinl pnvate resoondent A<.;qus1taon
or CMI servoe f'IIQ1b1ltty tS no1 the sofe lactor for reappomtment Sull to be
collSidered are petfomlance, degree of educatron, wot"X eiCper.tence, tratnillQ.
seniorit{, aod more mportantly, whether 0t not the apphcanl enjoys ltle
confidence and trus1 of the appotntmg power c:onsldenJl9 that the posttlon ot
Board Secretary II ffi pnmanly confdenhal Reappomtment to such posit.on is
an act whtetl is discretionary on the part of lhe appotnllng powe , 1t cannot be
the subject of an application for a writ of mandamus
b) RemstatemPnlts ler..hnicalty the of a new appontmenl.
'Which tS essentially dlscrehonary such exerCISE> of the dtscrehonary power
cannot be cootroUed even by the Courts, as long as 11 is properl,' exerased by
the aPJ'i)!ntmg authooty Thus, the order of the lowereouf1 rorthe reinstatement
of the pnvate respondent amounts to an undue intefference bv the court in
ltle exerose of a do:saet10nary oower vested tn the PSCA Boaro cl Trustees
{G/ona v. Judge c1e Guzman supra )
c) One who. because or conv1cboo of a come. has lorfete<t her nght
to lhe publiC offoe bu1 was i'!>'tenrled a plf'fl3fV p;1rdo:1 by ,he cannot
by reason of the pardon demand renstatement as a maMr o! right {Monsanto
v. Fectoran 170 SCRA 190] But In SaboUO v Deparlrlenl of EducatiOn,
Cunure & Sports. 180 SCRA 623 lhe Supreme Coun he'd that a pardoned
elementary school pnnopa1. on cooslderataoos of JUStiGe and eQully. sl'loold
be retr.stated to the same positron and to the posat10n or classroom
OIJllNE J PE\I'E.\\IC:R r-()li'I'IC.\l l,\W
teacher, thore be ng no orc.urnstanoes wruch would justify tne reductiOn 111
d) In Garoa v. Ctrsrman, CommtSSiOn on Aclf.flt. G.R No. L75025.
Septemb4!r 14 1993, It was held that when a J)(lrson IS g1ven a pardon because
he did not truty comm.l the offense. the pardon releves htm from all puntli\IO
ot h1S criminal ad, thereby restoring h1m to his clean name,
good reputation and unstamed charatter pnor to tlts finding of gutft. The
bestowal of execufive clemency In oftec! completely obliterated tho adverse
effects ol the admfrustrabve deosion Y<hidl found him guilty of dishonesty
and ordered hts separat1011 from the servtce This can be 1nferred from the
exeaJtive clemency 1tself exculpating po!!titiOner from the administrative charge
and thereby dlrecllng hcs retnstatement. whtdl IS rendered automatic by the
r,ranr 01 the pardon Thts signifies lhat pelllloner need no longer apply for
re,nc;latement he rs restOf'ed to hs office Ipso facto upon lhe issuance of lhe
demency, and as entitled to back wages.
5 Detail IS the movemcnl of an omployee from one agency to another
w1:ho1.1t the issuance of an appotntment. shall be allowed only for a lam1ted
petiod rn the case of employees occupying professional, techncal and scientific
poslt.ons II s temporary m nature {Republic v. Court of Appeals, r82 SCRA
6 ReasSJgnment. 1 An employee may tc rcassgned from one
organizational uM to another an the $ame provided thai such
reassignment shall not 1nvolve a reduction in :ank, status or salary.
Reassignment IS recognized as a management prerogative vesl ed in the
Crvil Servce CommiSsion and. for that matter. in any department or agency
embraced 1n the Crvil Sennce 11 dce!i not consttute removal Without c:ause
a) In Fernandez v S!o, Tomas, supra . canstdering that lhe
etained thelt posst10ns as O.rect01 IV and Ill . and they conllnued lo enjoy
tne same rank, and salary at their newly as,s,gnect stalloos which they
cn,oyed a1 the Crvii Sen.ice Commission Head Offrce, there was no VIOiatJon
of the constttuhonal guarantee or secunty of tenure rhe appoinlments to the
staff of lhe CSC Head Otf10e are not appointments to spectfted publiC
bot rather apporntments to pantcular positiOns or ranks
b) But like detalf, the should have a dcf1mte date or
durataon In Pado/ms v. Fernandez. GR No t335rt. October 10, 20(){), the
reass.-gnment of the respondent wc.s deemed a vio(a1ion of secunty of tenurtt.
The lack ol specfic dura boo of I he roass\Qnmenl was tantamount lO a noaung
lhus a dtminuuon n status or rank. The respondent was also
t..uwtrt l'11bll Ujllll'll
depnved of emoluments, hke RAlA and other alloWances, tl'lus the movement
was deemed a '" compensation Finally. the reasSignment also
removed respondent s power of sup<?Ntslon ove1 41 nmployees tnus deemed
a damnuuon an sl Ius Smatarty, 10 PeSlor v C1ty of PaSJg. G R No. :46873,
May 09 2002. the Supreme Court found that lhO pe11t1000r's ro<lssignment to
m the oty gO\'emnmnt was !ndefi Tllte pelltiOn"'r wa.; on vartual
noatang assignments amounting to reductiOn '" mnk, hence tmpermrssablc
under me
c) In Canno v. Daoas. GR No 144493, Apnl 09, 2002. the Supreme
Court ruled that the reassgnment of pebtionef was unlawfu and, as ear1er
found by the Civl Service Corrvnisslon. 1t was tantamount to transfu
consent On the quesiJon wflethef or not petitioner shOuld nave, 10 the
meanwtule, complied With the order, and slle c.an be
consfdered AWOL for her re usat to repon to her new assignment dunng the
:>endency of rcspondenfs appeal , the Supreme Court noted tt was not
the pebhoner, but the responocnt wtlO appedlcd to the esc trom _the
Regronat ftnding tna: :lle pehttOner"s reasstgnment ....as not '" Older
CSC Rag100al Orf.ce s ftnd1ng must be accordUi tile presumptiOn of
regulamy Pethoner cannel be considefed on AWOl as she contmued to
report to her ongmal staltOn
7 Reemployment NnmPs ot persons .,..'ho have been
permanently to pt>SiltOns in the cafCt:!r suva and who have bP.en c;eparated
as a result of reducton m force and/or shall t.e entered'" a hs!
from which selectiOn for reemptoymeru shan be made.
1) See Sec t6. Art XVIII. whiCh provides that C8
eer CtVI
employees separated from the semce not lor cause but as a result of the
reorganaabon pursuant to ProclamatiOn No. 3 dated Marcil 25. 1986. and
the reorgamzation foAowang the rallfteahon of the Const tuiiOfl, be
enlrtled to appropnate separatiOn pay, and to retJrement and otner benefits
accrwng to them undef the taws of genef31 :orce at tha bme of
lhetf separallon In lieu of sepmatiCX1 oa'{. at the .>pitOn of the
tney may be conSidered lor emP'c>Yment '" the 01 lfl any at 1t!:
subdvls10ns, etc.. Thts prolltsiQn shall also apply to care<>r o lteers wt10se
resignatiOn, tenderPd m hnc Wtth ltlc exJstng poiiC'f, had tec'l ar1:epled See
Ortez v Comelec '62 SCRA 81?
OOl l ... I PfVIf'iwt:P 1-:J P0\.11 leAL \).W
A. Authority of Public Officers.
1 Tho authomy of publiC offiCers consists o' those powers which are (a)
Epressfy coofcrred upon h m by tho act appoinhng him; (b) Eprossly annexed
to the otrtee by law; and (c) Ahached to the office by common law as tnddents
to it Under the doctnne of necessary implication, all powers ne<:e$sa:y for thl!
elfectrve of the express powers are deemed impliedly granted.
2. The euttronty can be exerased only dunng lhe lenn when the public
off.cer is, by law IOY8sted with th'l nghts and duties of lhe office In Jandaya
v Rutz, 95 SCR.A 562, where de<:ision penned by Judge Marquez was
promulgated by Judqe Ru1z after Marquez had already retueJ the Supreme
Court held that the deos10n had no bindmg er.ect. In Lao v. To Ch'f'. 158
SCRA 243, the dcosion promulgated by the division of the Cou!'t of Appeals
was ruled to be nutl and void, oonsldcJing that 1t was promulgated aher tne
justtces had been nollned of the 11cceptance of the11 resrgnatiOn
a) In PoopJe v. Garcia, G.R No. 126252, August 3(), 1999, 11 was
held that although the effectivl:y of Judge de Guzman's disability rellrement
was made retroaCtiVe to february 16. 1996, t cannot be dented th<tt at the
time the subject decision was promulgated on February 20, 1996, he was
SitU the incumbent judge of the RTC Branch LX of Baguio Ctly, and had, in
tact continued to hold said off1c:e and act as Judge thereof until his apphcation
for telln:!ment was approved ir. June, 1996. AccordtOgly. the deasion under
reVlew was held to have been valtdly promulgated
8. Minlsterlalnd discreflonary powers.
1. Mimstemtl: one lha discharge or whrch by the officer concerned ts
lmperatrve and requires netther judgment nor dtscrction (Lamb v Phtpps,
22 Phil 456} The exemse of .-n1ntsterral powers may be compelled
[Corpus v CommBndmg General, Philippme Army) The Sherff's role
10 the execut1on of judgment es purely min1stenal, he has flO dtscreton
whether to execute a judgment or {Anstorenas v Molma, A M No
P-94 1030 Jury 4, 1995/
2 D1screwnary one 1m posed by liiw upon offiCer wherern tht:
offtcer has the rghl to decide how ar:-d when 1t1e dut) shall be performed {Lomb
v Ptupps supra J
aJ MandnmllS wUI not he to compel the potionnancc ala dascrotJonary
power fAvonue Arrastre v CofrlmiSSIOIJer of Customs. 120 SCRA 878}
t) But wnero there IS grave abuse of dlsetCttOn. m3nifestr.JuStiCO
or palpable excess of aulhontv equ :ralent to a derY.al of a settled which
the pelt !loner tS entttle<l, and I here 15 no other pla1n speedy or
remeay. the writ of mandamus WID rssue (Fust Pntfppme Holdtngs CotprJrat10n
v. Sandrganbayan. 253 SCRA 30. retcratPd '" llngcllangco v OmbUdsman,
268SCRA301andtnLopez,Jr. OfttoooftilaOmbudsmtm GR No 140529,
Soptamber 6. 2001]
In Sharp 1ntemat100al Marlletrng v Courr of Appeals. 2M
SCRA 299, the Supteme Coort said that whele mandamus will not be to control
dtsuebon, the wnt may sssue to -::ompel the exerose of dasaetJOn, bUt not the
dasctetJon ItSelf LikeWISe, 1r1 BF Homes v NatiOflRI Wster Resources Countl1,
154 SCRA 88. the Court held tt"lat mandamus W1U not l1e to cr.mpel a bodv
d1scharg1ng drsc:reuonal')i powers to act tn n particular , .. ay, 0( to approve 01
dssapptove a particuar applicatiOn. But the pet,t.oner is er.littcd to a wnt that
wootd the respondent Council 10 consider MO def.bcrate upon thP.
applicatiOnS oo'oro 11. '" that p.ocess whatc\rer cvidcncle lies
it, and to ad aocordtngly. either approwlg or disapprovang tM appllcabons, "'
acoodance wtl.tl apphcable taw aod Jllnsprudence and 10 the best mterest of
the commun1ty Involved
b) tnat In the 2"'l par. Sec 1, An VIII , o1 tl-te the
courts may rt!Vlew the eYercise of drscre110n. ' O <Jcterm,ne Whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of d1scre11on amountmg to laa. or of junsdichon
cammtted by any government agency or tnstrumcntallty
c) Judgment v Pscrol!On Judgment 1S a ttJdtaal functiOn, the
determrnatJOn of a questiOn of law Thcfe r.; only one way to be nghl Discretion
ts the faculty conferred upon a court or othP.r orr.ccr by which he may decide the
questiOn either way and still be nght /Asunoon v. de Ynar1e, 28 Pflil67} But
dtscrebOn. as exettised. is limited to the evident purpose of the ad, 1 e souod
and legal discretion, not art:jtrary, ca!YIMOUS or opprc..<;SJVe procee<lngs
C. Duties of Publ1c Offteers.
General (ConstttuiJOflal} dutl'9s 01 publiC
a} To aCGOUntable ro U'le people. co serve ltlom v:tfh utmost
responstbtlify, mtegnty loyalty and effiCiency, to act pat,;otism and JUStice:
and to lesd modasllives /Sec J Art XI/
l n11. nJ l'ubltn?Jfi I' u

b) To submit 8 CJeclaratiOI'I um:Jer ooth of/us assets, ltaOilttiCs and net
'NOnh upon assumption of offtee and as often thereafter as may bo requirod lly
IBW (SCc 17, Art XI}
c) lo owe tne Stiffe and the a!Jegmnce at all t1mes (Sec.
18. An. XI/
2. SpedtiC cases
a) irhe So ICilor General's duty to reprosent the government, its offtees
and and 1ts offlctals and agents - exceptio cnm,nal cases or
CIVIl cases fof damages arising from felony - IS maf\datory Althoogh he has
d'screbon n choosing whether or not to prosecute a case or even W1thdraiN
therefrom, such dtSCietion must be exercised Within the parameters set by
law and W1th lhe best interest of the State as the ultimate goal fGonrales v
Cha11ez, 205 SCRA 817}
b) The government is not estopped tram questomng the acts of
Its offecJals. more so if they arc erroneous or rregular [Shnrp InternatiOnal
Marj(olmg v Courl of A(.4)6sls. 154 SCRA 88].
D. Prohibitions.
Partisan po/IIJC81 activny. "No offiCer cr Pmp!o
ee of the civil service
shaD engage. dttr:tCtly Or indtrectly, tn .1ny elect10neet1ng or par11S8n pOIIti'C81
campaign" [Sec. 2(4), Art. IX-8]. The CMI ServiCe Law prohibits engaging
or '" any partisan politiCal ad1v1ty or taking part m any election
P.:.ccept to vote. or use offiCial authority or 1nfluence to coerce the pohtlcal activity
of dny person or body.
a) Armed Forces. "The atmed lr>rces shafl bo msutatedlmm part1san
pohtics. No mtJmber of the mtltrary shall engagl! djrecfty or indirectly m any
psrt,san poltt/C818di'llty, except to vote"fSec. 5(3}, Art XVI).
I) But only active members. not those in the reserve rorcc. are
coverPd by the proMii110rt {Caitlr.>s l Bontfaao, 1 :!4 SCRA 1/
b) Tl tt ptoh billon does not prevent el!presslon of VIews on current
pol:tteal problems 01 Issues. or mentiOn or the names o! candidates for public
offtec whom public off cer suopons
C) E)cmpl rrom this prohibitiOn aro !hose holdrng poliiJC.al OffiCeS, but
rl st.all be unl:wlful r01 them to soliCit contnbt.teons trom thetr subordinates or
them to any of the acts 1nvofwlg subordanates proh1bited rn the Elect100
Code Member!. of the Cabinet are. ttl us. exempt from thiS prohibitiOn
v Ysrco, 106 Phil 745}
d) Thts protnbrhon shoU'd be dtSUngutsr cd from the provrstan of Sec
79, BP 681 which ma!tes 11 un&a .... 1ul lOr any person or any pof;tleal party to
engago In election camp;;ugn or poh!J<=al ac!tVI!y elCoept dunng the
campaign per100 Undt;>.f Sec. 79. BP 881, electiOn campatgn or partisan
polt.cal actvrty refers to an act des.gned to promote the elccttOO or oefeat of
a partJCUiet candidate or canoidates to offl08 1: done for the pUfPOse of
enhaoong the chances of asp.rants for nom10aliOI'l for candidacy to a publtc
off-ce by a polthcal party, etc 11 shall not be ct..nsidered as electten campatgn
Of partiSan po41ttcal adJvtty
4!. Add1110ral or double ccunpensat10n. No electrve or pub/tc
offteer or employee shstl recewe BddJtonal. double. or mdtrect componsation,
unless speclftcally avthonzed lly Jaw nor accept Wllf:c;,<Jt the con!'f!nf of the
Congress. any present. emolument, office or lttle of any kmd trom ar.y
povcmmonr [Soc B. Arr tX-BJ
n) But note thnl pQnStOns or gratUitrcs shaU not be consadcrcd os
add1t1onal, tk>Uble or rndiTecl compensation In San:os v Court of Appeals
GR. No 139792. Novembet 22. 2000, tne Supreme Coun said that this
provsiOn srm;>ly means that retJree can conttnue to raoerve !.ucl't pension
or gratuty even aner he acc:epts another govemrnent position to whtd, another
compensahon is allached Sui he cannot credrt his year:; of service L"' u .e
Jud1ciary (for Whch he now reccrves ttiS pensioo or gratuity under RA !:110)
rn lhe computation of the separatiOn pay to WhiCh he may be enllued under
RA 7924 for the termrnabon of h.s last errptoyment . To all':>w lhrs would be to
countenance dOuble c:omoensation 104' exactly the same serv,ces.
3 l){}BinSIIoans "'No loan. gUBranty, or othttr foon of flnanoal
IK:COIT'ttnOdatiOil for any purpoSI8 may te gmnted, atf8Ctfy or indired/y.
by any govemment-owned or c:>ntroled bani< or f1Mnc::i81 msriturtOn to rhe
President, the VICe PreSident, tt>e Members of the ':;alltnet me Congress. t!Je
Supreme Coun, the ConstlltJfiOfiBI Comm,ssJOns, ana Ombudsman. 01 toJ
any firm or enttty m wfiiCh tney have COI'Ittollmg mteresl. dunng thctr tenure
/Sec 16, An XIJ
4 L1mttat10n on l aborr>n; Sha I not be ass.gned to per10ml cJertGal
5 Detail f)f teaSSIC}nment No delatt or r-:ass.gnmen1 shall madP.
wlhtn throe months t>elore an, election w-otnout the approval of he Comele<..
6 Nepottsm All appo:ntments made rn favor of a relatiVe ot the
appointr.lg or fecommending authority, Of of the chief or the bureau or office, or
ol the persons exeros.ng lmmedtale SUperVISIOn over hrm, are prohrbi:ed The
protubtlJOO OJVOtS art appomtments, including destgnauons. in lhe national,
cty and munlopal govemmen:s or 10 any branch or mstrumentality thereof,
1ndudtng government-owned or controlled corpornttOns with origmal charters
See Laurel v Civil SeiVico 2C3 SCRA 195
a) Uncler the OmnibUS Rules tmplementrng E 0 . 292, the 011Q1031
appointment - and all per.;onnel actions, such as promotiOn,
transfer, reinstatement, etc .. must oonfoml wtth the rule aganst nepotism;
otherwise, the prohlbihon would be rendered "meamngJess and toothless
{Debulgsdo If. CiVIl Commission, G R No 111471, Sep/ember 26,
b) ls to t>e understood to mean those relaled withrn the
third cavil degee by oonsangUJnrty or affllltty. Exempl are persons employed
in a oonflderJial capacity; physiCians: and members of the Anned
Forces or the Ph1 ppines, provioed that 1n eac.'l particular rnstance full report
of such appontment shall be made to the Commission.
C) In Ctwl SeMce Commtssion v G.R. No. ,35805. April
29, 1999, the respondent Vocahonal School AdmtniStrator or Bahcuatro College
o! Arts and Trades was found gui:ty of nepobsm, because although he did not
Of recommend h1s two sons to the pas!Uons of driller and utility W'Of'ker
of the school, "the unseen but obvious hand of the respondent was behtnd the
A. Genf!ral Rule on Liability. A public off!Oef ts not hable 101 tnJuncs
susta1ned by a.10ther as a consequence of of tdal acts done w1th1n the scope
of hts offic.al authonty except as provided by law
1 A publiC offtcer shall not be crvtlly liable for acts dooe ll'llhe perlonTlance
ot h1s offioal dubes, unless there IS a clear showing of btld fa,th, maliCe Of
(Sec. 38(1), Chapter9. Boolc I, AdministflltMJ Code of 19d7J, See
8Jaquttf8 v Alalia, GR. No 109406, September 11. 1998
2. No offteer or employee sha be CIVilly ll.lhle fof aclS done
by hti'T' 1n gcx.od faith in the pefformance c.f hJs cMtes However, be
llable for Wilful or negligent acts done by h1m which an. OCttrary to taw, morals
public polcy and good customs even if he acted und(}f orders or tnstruct.Jons
of hts supenors /Sec 39. 9, Book I, AdminiStratiVe Code]
3 But under Sec. 24, Local Covemment Code. 1t Is exphoUy provided
that local government& and their otftdas are not exempt from "aoiUy for death
or ir.jury to persons or damage to propertv
B. Statutory Llabillry.
1 Art 27, Cml Any person sutfermg mom! or matenat loss
because a publrc off<:E!f refuses or neglects, wtlhout just cause. to perform his
offiCial duty. may rile an fcx r1amage"' and otfler rcliflf ;Jgatnst the public
officer IS Without preju<J1oe to adm1msuatt11e d!Sciphnary action ag'l1nst
the otf.cer
2 Art. 32, Civil Code lJabillty of pubhc olf,cer for vt018tioo <:>f r.:onstrtutional
nghts of mdividual-s. See Aberoa v. Ver, 160 SCRA 601.
3. An 34, Civil Code. Laabihty of who fa1i to ri!SP()nd or
gtve assstance to persons rn danger of n1u to h1o or property. l""ote The
mun10pal corporal :on s subsidarily J
4 Sec 38(2), Chapter 9, Book I, AdmmlstrntNe Code Any public otfroer
who. W1th'JU1 JUSt cause, negr!!Cts to perform a duty wrt!'ltn a penoo fixed by l:lw
or regulation, or wrthm a reasonable period if none !s f"'ed, shall be liable for
damages to the Pftvate party concerned \'itlhout preJudiCe to sUGil other liabtuy
as may be prescnbed by law
C. Ueblltty on Concntcts. The publiC orrlcer sl'lart be personaUy liable on
controcts he emers into tf he oded witllOot f)( t>x.::eeded htS, authonty
D. Liabtlity for ron. The publiC offteer shall be personally l able r he goes
beyond the scoPC of hts authonty, or exceeds tho po\\<ers conferrod upan him
by law.
In Chavez 'I S8ndiganbayan, t93 SCRA 282, the Supreme said
that public offiCials can bo held porsonCllly accountable fOf" acts claimed to be
perfonned '" connect100 With off,ciaJ duties wt ere lher aclioos aro uttnJ vites or
where there 1s a snowmg of bad farth. The tmmunrty granted to PCGG offiCialS
under Execuwe Order No 1 is not an absolute 1mmunlty; rt merely refers to
lfTlrnun.ty from hab,lfty for damages'" the offiCial diScharge of lhelt task. muctt
10 the .same manner that judges are tmmune from surlan the offiCial diSCharge
of the funchons or the1r offtee tn Shauf v Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 713, 11
was held thai unaulhOrrzed acts of government offrdals are not acts d State.
and so the public officer may be hekJ personally hable it'l damages for sUCh
unauthoriZed acts. Where a public offtaal acted ln ultm vires, or where lhere
is a show1ng of !lad faith, the offiCer can be held pcrsonany accountable for
acts claimed 10 have been performed'" connection With offiCial du1teS {Wytte
v. Ranmg, 209 SCRA 357). lr. RetnlJ v Court of Appeals, 148 SCRA 496,
provincial offoals of Cebu were held ltable In ther personal capacity fOf
rllegally and tn bad fa,ln d1smssrng employees m the Provinoat Engineer's
In lhts case, n was shOwn that toe dtsmtssat was effected fcx partiSan
political reasons In Pt1ar v. StmgguniiJng Bayan of Dasol, Pangasman, 128
SCRA 113, ne Mayor was held personally I table for vetotng, Without JUSt catl5e,
the Saogguntan ordmance appropnahng the needed amount for the salary of
the peiJtioner. In Correa v CFI of B.ulacan. 92 SCRA 312. the Who
tflegally employees was held personaQy liable, even if at the time or
execution of Judgment, he was no longer the Mayor.
2 Hov.v..or. tn All(lsugsy v. Court of APpears. 148 SCRA 521, a was hcki
that in the absence of malice, provinCial board members whO diS8PPfO\"'d tho
appotntments or laborers are not personally hable: In Ynot v lntermocf"sate
Appellate Court, suora the poltee stat100
petrhoner'f carabaos was held not persona.!> liable m damages for entoron!)
Executrve Oroor No because the order was presumotiVely
va'id and 11 was h:s dUly to P.nforce r1
E. Presidential immumty from suit. This pnvtll'\ge tS enJO)'Cd only dunng
the tenure or the
1 Attar hiS tenure, the Chief cannot mvoke lmmunny from su t
ror CNil damages ansmg out ol acts done by h1m while t1 was Prt:::;ldent wtuch
wero not performed m the exerase of offical duties [Estrada v DesiCrlo. G R
No. 146710.15, March 2 2001]
2 In Solthln v W7 SCRA 393. tho Suj:fem Coun oadaOd
that white the Presidcn11s 1mmune from she may not be prevented from
tnsiltutlng swt In Forbes v Chuoco Ttaco. 16 Ph11 53-l, II vm .. held that the
President is iiT'mune from ""'' habihty
F. Threefold LJbiltty Rule. The ... 'rOngful acts or OMJSS&<inS cl a publiC
officer may g e nse to CNil, crmna and ltablltty
1 An actaon for t".ad'l can nror.eed tndependently or tile of hers Dsmrssal
or the cnm1na achon does not forer.Jose the nstJtuhon of an adr.unstraiNe
actiOn [Offa of rhe Court Admm,strator v Enriquez, 218 SCRA 1}
2 Rel'ef from crim nat bat>thty not carry wt:tl 1 relief from
admm.stratl\le ltabllty /Police Comm1SSJon v Looo, 96 SCRA 8i9] In Ocampo
v OffiCe of the Ombudsman, G R. No. 114683, January t 8. 2000, th1S pnncap e
was re1terated The Sopreme Court said thai the d1Smtssal of the cri:runal
case WIU not f;)reclose actiOn or g.ve the accused a clean bt'l
of health 1n a respeas After"all, tnere IS a difference tn me quantum of
evidence requ ret! tn crim1nal cases. convtCtioo requ res proot of gwll beyond
reasonable doubt wh le 1n admtniStralllle cases, what IS reQu red ls merr.fy
substantial ovidence The same rule was applied tn Mollnnoda v Uma<:Ob.
G R No June 6. 2001
G. Liabiltty of Mlntstemll Officers.
1. Nonf;N.sance: Neglect or refusal to perform an act which IS the offcer 's
legal obligatiOn to perform.
2. Farlure to use that degree of care. skill and d1hgencE
reQUired in the perfonnanc;e of offiCial duty
3. Maifeasance. The domg. through tgnorance. c.r malice, o1
an which he had no le<fal noht to oorfonn
H. Command Respons;bil/ty. A he<Jd or a or a supano. off1cer
shall not be cN,IIy habte for the wrongful acts, Omt!;SIOOS of duty. n.?gl,gence or
mtsfeasance ol h1s suboroinates. unlec;s hP. has actually authon7ed by wnnen
order tne speofre act or mrscoodutt of {Sec. 38(3). 9
Bwlt 1. Adrwllstrative Code}.
;1 Right to Office. The JUst and legal datm 10 exercise the powers and the
rt:sponslbllrt;es of the publrc office.
t. T erm v Tenure. Term is tne periOd dunng which the offiCer may
dlllm to hold the off100 as ol nght; whrlc tcnuro is the period dunng which the
or.teer actually holds offJCO. In v Avena. 57 SCRA 726. rt was held
that lhe of the tenore ol etcctNe local offiaals beyond their tonn is
predcatod co havtng been duly elected m the November 8, 1971 electiOns
B. Right to Salary.
1. Salaty rs tne per.;onal oompensatron to be paid to the public offteer for
htS services, and It s gcncrolfv n fr)ed annual or period teal payment dOPCndcng
on tne lime and not on the amount of lh.l servtces he may render. It is
dsltngutslled from waqes, in that salary 1s given to offioers of higher degree
of employment than those to whom giVen; salaly rs regarded
as compensation per annum. whtle wages are pad day by day or week by
2 Basis The legal tttle to the offu and the fact that the L"lw attaches
compensatm to the off1ce
a) In Dimaandal v. CommiSSIOn on Aud,l. 291 SCRA 322. U,e
petthooer, a Supply OffiCer II who was by the Provmcaat
as .A5sistant Provindal Treasurer for Adm,nrstrajon, was declared not enbtled
to claim the difference between the salary and representat.ioo allowance or
AssiStant Provrnoal Treasurm and Supply Officer II, beca4.Jse the Provincial
Govemot was without authority to designate petitioner, the power bemg vestt!d
1n the Sec:ratary of F10300e under the Local Government Code. Because
pehtJoner's designaton "'as Without color of authooty, the nght to salary to
an allowance due rrom the said offtc:e never exJSled
b) Right of a de facto officer to salary; Whare there is no de 1ure
off1cer, a de !acto oH1cP.r who in good fatlh has possession or the office and
ha::: d1scharged the duttes thereof. IS to salary. See Mt>nzon v Pefllln,
supra ; c;..,il Liberties Un1on v. E:tecutrve Secretary. supro.: Rodriguez v Tan,
suoro , Monroy v CoU!t ol Appoals. supra
c) Salar-, cannot be The salary of a pobtte offteer cannot.
Dy garnsnment at:acnment, or cr e-ecutiOfl be serzed before being pard
to hrm and appropnated to too paymeot of his debts PubliC poltcy also
pron1 s the ass.gnment of unearned safatios or fees Agreements anectrng
are void as 10 pubfrc pohcy
d) V\lnero on account of reorgarnzaliOn. the postbon IS nboiiShod, m;d
U e ocumbent thereof requests rei ntton ana even accepts pn appointment to a
lower she cannot demand :hat she be paid t e satal'J <.'QUIValenl to that
of her former posrtron, because st,e IS naw barred by estoppgl from da1ming the
oesno rebef Gloria, G R No 106692, 1, 1994}.
e) But compensa11on. allowances and other beoofrts reccrved by
government off.crals <Jnd employees Without the teQLNSi1e approval or authonty
or lhe Depanment or Budget and Management cOBM) a.e unauthonzed and
1rregutar II is N'ltln tfle turf of tile DBM Secretary to <1sallow the upgrading,
recfaSSifallon and creatron of aoatuonal planlillil posbons ,, the
on Human Rghts, based on 1ls findng thai such 5CMerne lacks legal justdiC3tJon.
The Commisseon on Human Rtghts 1s not a consttw:ional oommrssion; 1t
does not enjoy fiscal autonomy [Commission on HJman Rlflnts Employees
AssociatiOn v Comm,ssron on Human Rights, G R No 155336. November
25. 20CUJ
f) The Cummss10n on Audtl has the authorrty to otder the Wlthholdlf'IQ
or an off10ers salary and other emoluments up to the amount of hts allegeo
shortage, but not to the w!htmld amount to the al'egC<l shortage for
which habality rs Stlll beng htigated (S:mtJago v CommtSSIOfl on Aucflt, G R
No t 46824, November 21, 20071
3. Some constitutiOnal provtSIOns affedtng salanes
a) No IOCtease 10 the salanes of members of Congress shall take
effect ul"'td after the expiration of the ru11 tenn ot the of the Senate
and Hoose of Representatives who approved tile increase {Sec 10. Art. VIJ
See Ugot v Msthay, supta
b) Salaries of the ClOd VJGe PreSident sha'l be fiJCed by
law and shall not be decreased dunrlQ theu lenore No JOCrC3se shall ta"e
effect unhl aftet the exptrallon of the term of the rncumbent du11ng whiCh such
ancre3se was approved [Sec 6, Ar: VII]
c) The sa!ary of members ol the Judoary shaJ not bP
duong their conttnuaoce tn off.ce {St.>c 10, Art. VIII} See Mtatan \' Tan, 152
SCRA 284, which as au1hottv for the rule that the mposttJOn o! mcome tal!es on
salanes of judges aoes not constl!u!" unconslitut10nal d:m nullon of salanes
d) AdditiOnal, double or nc:hrect compensatiOn are prot\tbit.ed, unless
speofalty 3Jthorlzcd by law {Sec. B. Art IX -8/
e) Standardaaoon ol compensation /Sec 5, Art. 1><-B] R A
(Salary Standardizallon Law) was passed tn compliance wrth thP const tulional
1\ In lntta v: CommisSIOn on Audit, GR. No. 131529. Apri/30,
1999, 11 was held that the dascretion of the Phihpl)lne Postal Ccxporalion
Board ot Orec:tors on the matter of personnel compensatiOn IS not absolute,
as the same must st11ctly conform wth RA. 6758 n relatiOn to the General
Appropnalton$ Act
In Central Bank Employees Assoetation v. Bengko Sentrel
ng P11tpmas. G.R No. 148208, Decembet 15, 2004. the Supreme Court saio
that wh re the pohcy determination argument may support thP. nequahty of
treatment of the rank-and-frle employees and the offiCers of BSP, 11 cannot
jushfy the anequality of treatment be!ween BSP rank-and-file employees and
the employees of other Government F'n:mcing tnslttutlons (wtto are exempted
from the Salary StandardizatiOn Act by tnerr respec1rve charters).
li) In De Jesus v CommtSSIOit on Audit, G.R. No 127515, May
10, 2005, the Supreme Coun upheld the enfltlement of LWUA offJCJals ar.d
err.ployees to the nee subsidy, since rt was shown that the benefrt has been
cxsting pnor to the cf"ec1iVJty of RA 6758, that 11 Ms not boon included 1n the
stanc'ardaoo salary rates, and that the grant thereof 1s limited to 1ncumbentc;
as of July 1, 1989 (in order not to upset the policy of non-dmnutiOfl of pay).
In thts case, 11 was also reiterated that OBM Corporate Compensation Crcolar
No 10, 1ssued October 2. 1989, was menective. because rt was not published
eithef in the Offiaal Gazette or .n a newspapei of general circulatJon m tho
f) Separation pay to be given to cateer Civil SeMce employees who
are separated from the service not for cause by reason of reorganizatiOn
(Sec. t 6, Aft XVIII}
4 suspenSIOn and the nght to salary In Gloria v. Court of
Appeals, GR. No. 131012. Apnl 21, 1999, the Supreroo Court '='ar.fled that
'here are two kinds of pre\lenhve :;uspension of civil service employees who are
charged wTth offenses pun1shabie by removal or suspension, vtz. (a) preventrve
suspensiOn pendang nves11gatioo under Sec 51, Book V, Tille I, Sut>ht!c A
of the AdminiStrative Code of 1987. and (b) prcventave suspension pendrng
appeal 1f the penalty unposed by the authonty IS suspension or
OUTI.I"'E I RE\11\VER t'41>0UTCI.I. VW
dtSmrssal and, after revieW, the respondent is exonerated und r Sec 117 ol the
same Code. II was then held that the employee has no nght lo compensation
curing preventrve suspens100 pcn<ltng even cf he IS c..l(oncrated,
because en oroer to be entitled to payment or ba . s.'llanes, 11 IS noa enough lhat
an employee oe exonerated ottoo ch&rges agarnst h1m II' Addtllon, II must be
shown that hrs susp<Jnslon IS unJUSiified. The preventrve suspens on of Civil
employees charged With CSIShonesty. oppresson, grav2 mtsconduct or
neglect of duty, ts aothonzed by Ute CIVIl ServJCC law It cannot, t"teref01e be
unjtJstifiC<f",cven cf later thE' charges are dtsm1ssed It 1s one or the
sacrifces Which holdtng a publiC ofhc:.e requ1res for the publiC good
a) However, 1f the penalty rmposed by the authority 15
or d.smssal and, alter relflew, IM re!iC)Ondent s exonerated. the
CMI scrvte:e offteer ex employee as entitled not only to reinstatement but else to
back salanes for the penod of preventive suspensiOn pendcng appeai[Gioritf
v Court of APIIliS. SUpnt J
Right to baclr salanes of Illegal d1smrssed employee i ho r:ourt hns,
hme and again, held that an Illegally dtsmtssed government emptoyoo who 1s
tater oroered rernstat&.:l ts mhlled 10 bad< wages and other monetary bene',:s
front the lime of hiS llegat d!smrssal up to hts reonstatement The P'hcy of no
worll.. no pay cannot be npphed, Jar such state ol attws vas not of
her own maktng To Withhold her bad< salanes and dunng Illegal
drsmss.at would put to naught the constJtutiooal guara,tee ol secunty or tenure
lor thm.e In the ovtl SCMce {ConstFmtlllO-Dsvid v. PangandRmen-Gama. G R
No Augusr 2003]
a) Thos, In Civil SPrYJCC Camm1SSIO() 'I Gentallan, GR. No. 152833,
May 9, 2005, (and Mumopaflty of MisafTlls Onenta/ v Gen'alliJn, G R
No 154901, May?, 2005). the Supreme 'Aurt, tn agre'mlent With tt.e Court
of ApPeals that the resPOndent was qualifted and eiK'ble for the rXlStboo 01
local ow regiscrar. and flndong that there was no faaual or klgal !:)aSfS for
her removal from the postioo, ruled that as an illegally dsm:ssed govemment
emp4oyee who tS later ordered re'!Slated. the respondent IS ent.tlet4 to bade
wages and monetarv bcf'eftiS from the lime of her tlle9al doSrTHssal up to
her remstatemcnl.
b) However. 10 Ba"'aosan v. DECS. G R No 13823SJ
Septembt:r 2, 2003, t "'-BS he'<! that whE-re the r&nstatement was not the resull
or exoneratiOn !Jut an act of hberalrty of the Courl of Appeals the daim fer
back wages for the period dunng wtudt the emplo;-ee not allowed to W()t};
must be dented In ths case, the Court noted lhaltt'e rehhOt'lP.r oartiCrpated
m lt-e mass adK>n whoch rPSUitetl tn II'IC r11tng of charges hm and his
subsequent diSmissal from tM servtoe. He wns oroered renstate<J by tho
Court of Appeals only as an act of hberaltty The gcncrol rule. then as that
a publrc off1clal tS not entitled to compensa'ton ,,, he has not rendered any
c:) L k!!Wise, 1n Brugada v Secretary of EducatiOn, G.R No 142332-
13, January 31, 2005. the Supreme Court held that the no
nght to back wages bealusc they were neither e:.onemted nor unjust1rtably
6 Righi ro additiOnal allowances ana txJnefils Under the Loc;l
GovetnmentCode(RA 7160).1ocatgovemmentumtsmayprovideforaddctl0flal
allowances and other benefits to national government off.aals stationed or
&ss.gned to merr municipality or oty. This authOI'rty, however, 1s not without
hmrtauoos. Where. as 1n thiS case. 11 runs countor 10 R.A 6758, men tne grant
of ftnancial assistance given by Marilfina Ctty to 1ts Audcllng Offtce 1s in excess
Of 1ts pov.ers The equal protechon ctause ts-not trenched, because COA
offiCJais may be treated. dtfferently from other natiOnal government offiCials
F()( one, they should be .nsulatod for unwarranted Influences so they can act
wrth 1ndepenoeoce and 1ntegntt Thcrf: has been no repeal by R.A 7160 or
R A 6758 They c:Dn be hmmonrzod and applied together.
C. Right to Preference in Promotion. See Mcram v Edralm, 154 SCRA
238. But does not prevatl.lver the dscrellon of the appomting authonty
{Luego \o CIVI Service CommissiOn. supn. I
D. Right to vacauon and SICk leave.
1. In MaleriJza v. CommiSSIOn on Au<N. 179 SCRA 408, II was held that
offictals. e.g., muncopal mayOt', are not eniJtled to accrued vacation
and siCl< leave etedts. because they nave no offictal hours of work. Note:
ThiS ruling may now be deemed abandoned rn v1ew of the specaftc provtSIOO cf
Sec. 81. R A. 7160 (Local Government Code) that elective local offiCials shall
be entrtled to lhC! same leave pnvileges as those enjoyed by appoin!Ne local
OffiCials, ulcludcr:g tte cumulat on And commutation thereof
2. In Request of CTA Ptesldt!?g Judge Alex Reyes, 216 SCRA 728. 11
that \Jnder OffiCe of the Presi<lent Memorandum Circular No. 54,
dilled March 24, 1968. government oTfteers or employees are now enlltlel:t to
oommutatiorl of allloave cred1ts wthout hm1tutton t:!nd '89ardless of the perood
wtlen the credts were earned. provided the was tn tho service as of
January 9, 1986
l.11U uf Pub!t VJ!u:'ll
3. In Perda v 212SCRA425,lt.eSupntln!'
Court rult:d that gov mment employees, whether Of not 'hey aocumUiated
eave credrts. are not required by la-.v to v.'Ot1t on Salu.tdays, Su'ldays and
holidays, and hus cannot be dedared ab:;ent on such noowor ,ng days
Aocordtngly. they canno and should not t':e deprived of thetr satary COfresfi()Odrng
to said non--WO();Jng days JUst oecause t ey were absen! without pay on the
day poor to, or after said noowondng doys A l'\lle mu'd
deprrvauon of prorertv \\iUlOUI due Pfl'l(:l'!SS of law
E.. Right to Maternity Leavo.
F. Right to l:tirement Pay
1 Rehrement laws 3fe hbefaUy construed n faVOI ot the rehree [Profeta
v Drilon. 216 SCRA 777} Thus, m GSIS v Ctv1l SeMce Comfnlssion, 245
SCRA 179, the period when respondent was oald on a per basas was
held credatable purposes of retlfement. 11 dear that the per dtem
received was paJd fOf performance of serv.ces ar.d not an ana.\ance for
expenses tn<..urred while the was away home bclsc. See
atso Come v. CommtSSJ9n on Audll, 264 SCRA 19. wnere ''was held that
the peta110ners should bo allowed to avail of rohrement bencftls under R.A
1616, after tne Comm1SS100 on Audtt d1sallowed thelt dam fo:- entrtlement to
add1honal benefJt:o granted by SSS Resolution No 56-71 (whch was adopted
m order to tnduce empJoyces o under R.A 660)
2. The we'l-settled ruled IS that the monoy value of the terTTllnal eave
of a rehnng govemment offoal shall b,.. computed at tho retwee's highest
monthly salary In BeltCena v Secretary of Anence GR. No. 143190, Octobef
17, 2001. 11 was held that pebhoner's highest monlhi:J &alary, fOf purposes
of computJOg hts. leave pay, should bP lhal COITespondrng to tile
salary 01 the Sr.cretary ol Finance which he as Actlllg Secretary or
Ftnanoe. When the President the pettttOOcr as Acting 3ecretary
of Fin&noo on May 22, 1997. he dtd so under a wefkx>nsioered op.mon that
the absence of Secretary <>camr.o was of suct'l an extent that the latter would
be unable to perlonTI his dulles and, by reason of such OPinion, the
extended a temporary desegnauon to the petrt10ner cons1stent 'Nlth 17.
Adminiwattve Code of 1987. CommiSSIOn on Audrt has opaned that
a OCJVAmment officaat appotnted Of 1n an actng capaoty pursuant
to the AdmintStralJva Code IS to sa1ary d!ferent al. and that hs highest
monthly SAlary for purpose<;. of computJng hts !oavo pay shall include
such salary d t'lereotta'
3 In Gena v Ctvtl SeMce Comm<SSIOfl. 2 J r SCRA 119 rl was held tMt
CSC Memorandum Ctrcutar NG 27, allow;ng exlenson ol OnJ!f lor one
year (mstead of what rs needeo to complete the 15-year servtee requirement
f()( retnmeft), cannot prevat over Sec. 11 (b), PO which allows
m OSer to compete he 15-year serviCe requtrement ThiS ruting
was re-examir.ed and mod .fred In Rabor v CNi/ Servrce ComtnJSSJOn. G. R. No
111812.. Msy 31, 1995. where too Supreme Coun sard that when it enuncsateoj
lhC Ccna rul1ng t took the narrow vteW on w1lat subOrdt.natc rulcmaktng by an
admtmstratrvc agency Is permi$Stblt and valid. and t ltkeW!SC kJid heavy stress
on lh rntcros: of retlroes by allOWing e)1enSIOn ol SIJI\IICeS wthotlt coosidenng
the s1gmfteance ol the geneml pnnople of compui'SOf'Y rcbremont at the age
of 65 Henceforth. esc MC No. 27. series or 1990, 1s deemed valid and
and Soc. 11, P. O. 1 46, IS to be read logelhef With CSC MC 27.
However, the nead or the agency s vested wrth aothonty to at
or d1sallow eX1ensron of seNICe of an official or empk>yee who has rea<:hed 65
Without compleltng 15 yP.ars ol government servtee, although d;scretton is
to be exemsed conformably With esc MC 27
4 tn the JL.dletat)', however, the Court allows such extensiOn if satisfied
that the aveer of the retiree v.as marked by competence, ntegrity and
dedaca1100 lo publiC servtce (In Re: Gregono Ptneda, r 87 SCRA 469] See
atso Cruz v Tantwco t66 SCRA 670
5 Pursuant toE 0 . 79-86, a reserved officer who sahsfactonly rendered
a total of ten years continuous adrve comn-uss10ned mrhtary servtee shaD
not be reverted lo lnactl\le status except for cause or upon hiS oY-TI request
Accordingly, they are covered by compulsory membershp m the GSIS /GS/S
v ComfTIISSIO(; on Avd1l. G R No 125982. JanUS!}' 22, 1999}
6. IJberalty interpreting the prov1sions of R.A. 910, along the lines of
Pro,"eta v Dfilen. supra . the Supreme Court approved the recommeodation
that tho rellrement benerrts of Justce Jorge lmpenal shaU be computed on the
baSis of the highest salary. emoeumcnts and allowances ho received as Acting
Prt>.sidang JustiCe of the Court or Appeals [Request ol C/erl( nf Court L
Fot Payment of Retrre.ment Benefits of CA Associate Justice Jorge
s lmpenal, A.U No. 97-n-RET. August 26, '9991
7 Bot tn Gamogamo v PNOC Shipping & Trsnsport Corp., G.R.
No 1<1707 Uay 07. 2002. the Supreme Cour. reJected the petitioner's
conter.llon thai for the purpose of computmg his retarement pay, his 14 years
o! wlh the Oepanment of Health should tad<ed tn and added to
Ul.:! credstabte service later rendered m two government-owned and conlloUed
corporaiiOf\s wthout an orrgmal charter. Totalizat on of service credrts 1s only
rPsorted to when lhe rettree ooes not aualirv for benefits 1n etther or both of
trae Sys:ems
G. Others.
1. R.ghtto retmburscmentlor expenses tncurred 10 the due performnnoe
or hts duty But a publiC offiCer who uses a government vehicle tS not enttlled
to. nm can he charge, a transportatiOn a
1owance [Dommgo v Comm1ss1on on
AucJit, GR. No 11237t. October 7, 1998}
2. Rtght to be tndemnafled agamst any h:.bility which they may tncur tn the
bona fi(Je dtscnarge of !herr dut!CS
3 R1ght to tongevtty pay
A. Modes of terminating official relationship:
1 ExpiratiOn of term or tenure
2 Reaching tne age ltmti
3 Resignahon
4. Recall
5. Removal,
6. Abanconment
7 AcceJXanee of an Incompatible offiCe
8 AbolitiOn of
9 Prescription of the nght to office
10 Impeachment
,, Death
.. 87
12. Fanure to assume electiVe Wl'hln Sllf months from proclamation
13 ConVICtiOn of a cnme.
14. Fil1ng of a cerbfteale ol candodacy
B. Expiration of term 01' tenure.
1. Disl.tndion between term end tenure: Term 15 the perod of lime dunng
wtuch a offiCer has the right to hold the public offtee. tenure 's the period
of hme dunng \1\'hich the publiC officer actually held efface
a) When a publiC officer holds offiCe at the pleasure of the appomting
authonty, hs betng replaced regarded as lermlnabon through exprat10n
of tenn, not See Asrraqutllo v Mangla,aus, J 90 SCRA 280.
b) Whe1e tho Conshtuuon prOVIdes that the term of otftce of locnl
etediveofficials is three (3)ycars. Congresscannol a for delayed
P.tections, elfectrvely reduce the term [Osmcna v Comerec, 199 SCRA 750}.
c) Upon the change ol brought aboot by the EOSA
Rovotubon. lhe acceptance by the of the "courtesy reSignations"
of conshtutollal Ctfficers w1 h fixed term!; or offrce resulted ,in the exorraton or
term (o; tenure1. entttling the o!fn:ers to retirement benefits (Ortiz v Comelec,
162 SCRA CJf2 In Re Relilemem ol Justx:e Bntamco t73 SCRA 4?1]
d) In Gkma v Juage do Guzman, supra . 11 was held that th!lre was no
h:mtlln<thon llllhe sense lh.,t tcrmtnation presuJ:,poses an oven ac: commt:ted
1..<11< ([} Pablu VJ/1. "J

by a supenor officer. What happened was that the pnvate respondents'
appomtments or employment stmply explted, by lht!lt ')'Wfl terms. or
oecause they may not e,cceed one year. but most tmPNt<Jntlv becnusu PAFCA
was do;solved and reptac:ed by PSCA
2 Commencemenl of lhfl term of ott ..ce
a) Where the statute fi)es a pencd wtlh n whtch a chosen offtcu may
arr .. nge hrs aftatrs and for t'le afflc.e tn a pmscnbed m<mnor, hts tenn
begtns upon ouaNtcatJOn
b) Where no time ls filcetl by law for ltle or n1s
'crm. tt beg1ns from the date of appomtment.n cases ol an appotntNe 01
from the dale ol election, 1n case ot nn eler:uve olflC8.
c) Wttere the ldw r'"''J9 :he term or a public off1cc ,., amtltguuus the
one that fiKes the term al ttm shortest penod should be f(J IOw"l:l
d) Where both the duratoon of tile term of offiCe and the ltmt> ol
tis commencement or termrnabon are fixed by cons'ttutJOnal or stawtory
proVIs\ons. a person elected or appotfl!od to fnlllhe vacancy JO such olftce Shall
hold the same only for tne unexotred port1on of the term.
e) Where only the duration of the term fxeo. but no time rs
estabUstleCI fcx the beginning or end ollhe term, the person !>t:tected to ftll the
vaCClncy 1n such off.ce may serve the full term and not merely the une).ctfed
balaoce of the prior incumbenl's term
f) Where an IS created, Of an officer 11s appomted. for ltle
purpose of _,erfofming a SII'IQie act or the acoomplrshment of a grven result, !he
offiCe terminates and the officer's euthority ceases Wllh the accomolishment of
the P''"PQSeS which called rt inlo being
3 The Pnnr.tple of Hold-Over. In the absence or any expr<:!s;; or tmplted
constrtubooal or statut.:>ry provtSIOfl 10 the contrary, lhe pob!tc off&cer rs entttled
to hold h1s off10e unlit h1s successor shall h;we duly chosen and
have quahited The purpose of ltle prirople 1s 10 prevent a h:atus 1n
publiC set\< tee. The wa"> retterated '" !.ecaroz v G R
No. 130872. Msrc/1 25, 1999, where the SLpreme Court sai1 thc;l
B P S 1 doe5 nol aulholl2e a 5anggunang Kabataan Charman who sts as a
Sanggunaung Sayan cMIIrlue to OCCt;py hts post a Her the er.prra!IOn
or his term rn t.ase h1s succeSSOJ fa!ls to auatify. 1t dOeS not -also Sf\ that he 1s
D(oc;cnbed from Ooldmg over The legrstaltve rntent or not a!lowmg lloldovcr
must be clear.y exPfessed or a1 leaSt amplied n the fegtslative enactment,
otherwtse, it reasonable to assume that the law-makmg I.Jody favors Ole
a} 81.1 see An. 237, Revised Penal Code, which penaliZes any public
otrtcer v.ho stall continue to exerose the dulles and oowers or hts offlOe
oovond the neood rrovided by law.
b) Ot nng lhts penocl or hold-over. the OffiCer tS n de jure
C) Wflen the law f\lt'eS 0 specifiC dClle for lhe end Of lhe term, there 1:
an tmPhed prohtMiOO aga nst
C. Reaching Age Limit.
1. Compvlsory rettrement age Seventy (iO) years of age lor members
of the Judi08f) , socty-five (65) lor other government off1cers and empfoyees
See tha new GSIS Charter
a) Sp-cial retirement taws. e.g., R.A 1616, whiCh allows opttonal
rellrement afte an has rendered a minmum number of years of
government se-vce. when availedofbylhe publ cofficer, w1ll result In termination
of offiCial relationshp through reaching the age 1tm11 (or ret,rement)
2. Retlfttment Benefits. Rettrement laws are lrberatly construed and
admntSiea<! favor of the persons intended to be benefited, and au doubts
Clle m favor of the retJiee to achteve thetr humanitanan purpose {In
Re: Amount of Monthly Pension of Judges, 190 SCRA 315; Profota v. Drilon,
216 SCRA 1281. See GS/S v Civil SeMce CommiSSIO(), 245 SCRA 119, and
Conte v. Commrssoo on 264 SCRA 19. But tn Gamogamo v PNOC
Shipptng & Trcnsport Corp, supr.J the Supreme Coon denied the taddng 10
or 14 years of s&Mce with me Department or Health and adding the same
to the servtce rendered to two government-owned and <Xlntrofled
comorattons wrnout original chaners.
a) In Cena " Ctvtl Servico CommtsSJon. 211 SCRA 179, 11 was
CSC Memorandum Circular No 27, al!owng extension of service
oni'J fo! one year (instead what 1s needed to complete the 15-year
reowrement for re!trement). cannot prevail over Sec. 11 (b), PO 1146. whtch
allows e:xtensi01 tn order to comp'ete the 15year ser\lrce reQwremenL This
n11tno was re-e<amined and modified Ill Rabor v Civil Service CommiSSI()(I,
GR MJ 1' 1817 .\.1av 31, 1995. wherf the Supreme Court saio that when 11
enonctated the Cena rulng. It took the narrow view on v.hat SUbOrdinate ntle-
malmlg by adminrstraltve agency IS pemliSSible and valid and et h ev.ise
laid hea'IY stress on the mtcrest or retrrees bv allowing extetlSIOO of serviCeS
w11hout conSidcr.ng tM S'9"ltfrcanc:e of the general pnnople of compulsory
reuremenl at age of 65 Henceforth. esc MC No '21, scnes of 1990. Is
doomed valid a110 effedt\1", and Sec. lt, PD. 114'5, S lObe reat.l t09ether "Mill
esc MC 27 However. the neao of the agency as vested with diScrellOnafY
auth<mty to allow or drsalloW extenston ol seMcc of an olf.cal or omptoyee who
has. reached 65 Without complotHlg 15 years ot govemmentSONicc, althOugh
thiS dl50'efl0n IS to be e7erosed conformably YJtth esc MC 27
b) tn the jud!Clary, lf)e Collr1 allcws such exlenscn af
that the career of the ret1ree was mart<ed by compelence, 1ntegnty
end ded.cation to public service {In Re Gmgono Ptfw.da, 187 SCRA 469] See
also Cf1Jl v TantLHCC, 166 SCRA 670
c) When the retiree t\as satisf.ed the teQutremcnts for fet1rement
under more than one subsectiOn o Sec. 1?, C A 108, as amtnded, he IS
entitled to ChOOse the subsectiOn under v.hieh he wants to retire (Lopez v
Court of Appeals G R No. 104158 Novembet 6, 1992/. See also Cont11 v
ComrroSSK)() on Audit supra
D. Resignation. The act of g.vrng up Of the oct of a pobl.c offiCer by wttich he
ded1nes his offiCe aod renounces the furtl'le' right to use t It ts an expressaon
or ttiC ncumbel'lt tn some rorm, express Of mplied. of the mlenoon to surreodet,
renounce and rehnqUtsh the offtee and the acceptance> thereof bV oompetent
and lawfu aulhonty (OrltT v 162 SCRA 812}
1. VoluntsnMss as an element or restgnallon Resignabon must be
voluntary on the part of the publiC off!Cef. When procored by fraud or by
duress. the resjgnat100 may be repudrated A "courtesy reStgnatrootacks the
element or voluntanness and 1$, therefore. not a valid reSJgnatiOI'I Orta v.
Comolec. 162 SCRA 212.
a) In JOsePh E}erato Esuooa v Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, G R No
146 738. Marr.n 2, 2001. lhe Supreme Coun sao that the res.gnatl()rl of
Estrada could not be doubte<l as c.onflfmod hv h1s teaVtng Malae1nang In the
release contaln.ng hs fanal statement, (i) he oath-
takng of tl'le respondent as li) emphaSIZed he was lea\llng
the palace for the sake o1 peace and m orcer Ia begn the process
(he dd not say that he was lea111ng du"' to ar' ktnd '>f orsabilny and he was
gorng to reassume the Presidency as SO<.oO as the Otsappears). (ae1]
he eltf)f'Cssed h s grattlutJu to the for IJle oppcrtun :y to serve trlEm as
President (without doubt referring to the past opportunlty, (iv) he assured that
he wtll not sh rt from any future challenge that may come In lhe same service
ot the country, and (II] he C3Ded on h1 supPOrters to }om him m the PfOmotiOn
or a constructr.;e national spJnt of reconciliation and soldant>'
b) In Colfantes v Court of Appeals, G.R No 169604, March 6. 2()()7,
tho SuJJcme Court said thai a courtesy resignahon rs JUSt as f!lfectual a, any
o!OOr There can be no amp Kld prom1se of another position just
because the restgoat10n was mad6 out of courtesy Any express pronuse of
another poslion. on the other hand, would be void, because there can be no
derogc;tiOn ot the dscretJon of tho apporntmg power and because rts object i s
OlJ1slde the commerce of man. Even aSSllmang thai liUch promsc was true.
as a rcinklng member of the bureaucracy, ooghlto havo known that
such promise ol'fers no assurance lfl law that tho snmc would bo complolld
with The t1me-honored rule lS that public OffiCe s n publiC trust and cannot be
mede ubJe<:t of prolnlses Of by pmmte Pt!rwns
2 Neo(J for acceptance Resignation must be aa:epted by oompe1ent
clthe!' expressly or unpliecl:y (as tn the appontment of a successor)
a) Mere leode' of WithOut acceptance by competent
a thonty does not create a vacancy en public office. resignation is not complete
Uillil accepted by proper authofity (Joson v. Nario, 187 SCRA 453/ See alsO
S<mggunlang 88yan of San Andres. CatanduJnes v Court of Appeals, G R
No 118883. January 16. 1998
b) In tne Philippines, aoceptance of restgnahon IS necessary, because
Art. 238 of the Revrsed Penal Code penafaes any publi<: offiCer who. before
lhe acceptance of his res.gnation. abandons his offtee co th6 detnment of the
publiC service.
c) If the orr o;er is mandated by taw to ho!d over. the
even tf occep.ed, wiD not be erfediYC until after the appointment or election of
his successor
3 T11o Accept1ng Authority. Acceptance c.r the re!':.gnat10n shall be made
by competent a.;lhority, as pmvided law
a) Undfr Sec 82 R A 1160, the folloWIIlg are the offteero autholized
resignatiOns of local clect11e OffiCials PresiCent, in case of governors,
and mayors and vtcc-mayors or haghty urtmnrzed oties and
independent crt1es, Govemcv, 1n the case of monidpol mayors and
vl(;e.mayors. Clli and vteem.,yors of component C1t1es, s:mgguntan
conoemed, m case of sangguman members: City ex muniCipal mayot, in !he
case of barangay offioal:; (Note: The re51gnaMn sh:tll be deemed aocepted II
not acted upon by the aulhoftty concemed Within 15 v.-or1<tng days fr'.lm rer.e p
ttlereof Irrevocable restgnauons by sangguman members sl'laH be doomed
accepted upon ptesentattOn before an open or the safl99U01an
concerned dn<l duly entered 1n tts records. excepl where the :;.anggun1an
members are subject to recall e!edlons o. to cases whQre existtog laws
the manner or acting upon such resignations I
b) If the law rs Stlom on who shall accept the tho folloWing
niles shall apply
> If tne pubtk:. officet res.gnlng IS apponhve offtC'!r then the
lender sttall be made wtlh, And accepted bv. lt'e .1ppom1tng authcnty
11) II an elective offtcer, then lerlder be with, and
acceptec1 by, the offcerls authonzed by law to ca I an electton '" ordor to 110 the
c) The President al'ld V ce President lendc! ther rcstgnaholS witn
Congress. memDers or Congress, Wilt\ I heir respectiVe Houses
4 Effective date of reSJgnai/Ofl ' The date soeofted in IM lender; and tf
no date is then res1gnat10n shall tJe when the r,Jublic
officer rece1ves no11ce of me acceptance of has res9natron, not the dare of :he
letter or notice of acceptance (Gamboa v. Court of Appeals (1981)/
E. Recll. The lermrnatJon or relahonshap of 8"1 eledrve offiCial fOt
loss of confidence pnor to tne exp1rat100 of hrs tenn through the will of tho
1 By whom By the voters of a local government
unrt to whiCh the local elective ofticiat subject to such recalf belongs [Sec 69,
R.A 7160]
2 lntt18tl0n of the f9catJ proce.r:;s [Sec. 70, R.A 7160] By the regastered
voters oflhe kx:al govemmf'nl umt.
a) By vrrtuP. A 9244, Sees 70 and 71 of tt.e Local Government
Code were amendc<l ano the Preparat:Jry Reca!l Assembly has been
ettmrnated as a mode of tnt!lallng recall of eledrve local government oHaoals.
3 Procedure for m/ttating recall Recall of a provnlCf.IJI Cll\1 munaopal
or barangay offiaal shall be mlltaled upon pet1t100 bv at least L5% of the total
number or regstered voters en the unit concem<."d dumg the!
elect.on in wlliCn the local offiCial sough! to be recaned was elected
a) Awntte-'1 pe!Jlion for recall duly s onf1d before lhe election reci!Sttar
or his rnprese:1lativo, Md 1n presence of a representattve of the petilloner
and representative of the offioal sougnt to oc recalled, and m i' publ1c place n
tho proVInce, City, murucipahty or bar3ngay as tho caso may be. shall be filed
wrth 'he Comelec through rts office in the local govemment untl concemed
The Comelec or 11s duty authorized representative shall cause the pobhcation
or ltle pelltfOn n a public and consp1ruous place for a pet"iod of not less than 10
days flO( more than 20 days, tor the purpose of venfying the authenhcrty and
genuineness Gf the petition and lhe requ1 ed percentage of voters. .
I) In Angobung v. Comelec, G.R No 126571, March 5, 1997.
the Supreme Court underscored the need for a petlllon signed by at leas!
25% of the to:at number of reg!>lt!red votfn; ,,., the constftuenC) '" on:ler to
validly 101tia1e a recall elechon. Thus. where the pot1110n is s1gned only by the
petitioner and does not even bear lhe names of the Citizens who have allegedly
lost confidence in the pubhc off.dal . then the petttion should be dLSmls.sed.
b) Upon the lapse of the a1oresaa period the Comelec or ItS dufy
aullionzed representatiVe shall announce the acceptance of candidates to the
posrbon and ltereafter prepare ltle fiSt Of C<lndtdateS Which shall IOdude the
name of the ofl10al sought to be recalleo.
4 Eleeho'1 on Recell Upon the ra,ng of a valid petthon tor recan wr.h tne
appt"opriate loc.1f offiCe of Che Comelec, the Commisston or rts duly authon.zed
representatJ11e shaft set ltle date for the elee' on on recaU, whidl shan not be
later than 30 days aftef the filing of rhe resoluhon or pebtloo in the case of ltle
barangay. aty crmunidpal officials, ond 45 days in the case of pnwincial otrOals.
The o1f1Cial or sought to be recalled shall automabcslly be coosidered as
duly registered candidate or candidates to ll'\e pertlnent positrons and, like other
candidates, entitled t., be voted upon {Sec. 71, R.A. 7160}.
5 of Recall The recall o' an eled1ve local official shall be
effecttve only upon the electiOn ana proclarnalton of a successcx 10 the person
of the candidate receivtng the number of votes cast during ltle election
0.1 recall Shoud the off.aal sought to be recalled rccerve the hgllesl number
of V:lles confidence 10 htm rs rherebv affrrmed. and shall continue in off ICC
!Se<. 72, R A. flo. 7160}
G ProhtbiiiOfl from roSJgnatiOil ThfJ clectvc local offiCial sougru 1o ba
reca"ed sha'l not tle a'ICNo"Cd ro restgn whtle the recall process IS 1n progress
/Sec. 73 R A. 7160}
l.ttto of Pliblto Offit'rv.
7 LHnttlttiOns on Recall (Sec. 74 R A 7160}.
a) ,. ny elect ve local onroat may be the S\.ltlieet 01 n recall electiOn
on y once d:mr,g t\15 term of Of11Ce for loss or confidence
b) No recall shall tal(e place wrthtn one year from tl'le date o1 the
otfoal's assumptiOn to offece or one year 1mmedate1y precodtng a regular
local election I, Paras v Comelec, G.R No 1;3169, November 4, 19!16,
11 was held that the Sanggunumg Kabataan (SK) electiOn IS not a regulw
election Withirl lhe oontemotabon of the Local Government Code as would bar
the hold.ng of reca1 electiOfl Nerthef Will the recall efectoo of the Mayor
be barred by tne elediO"lS In AngoiJung v Comelec, supra , It "185
held that the lOCal electiOil" rofen'ed to in Sec 714 , Local Government
Code. means that the approaching local election rn:JSI be one where the
poSitiOn of !he offiCIBI lo be recalled IS actually contested and to be filled by the
1 ConstltutiOnRI guarantee of securrty of tenure No otfioer or employee
of the '='v!l serv1ce be removed N suspended except lor cause provided
by law {Sec. 2(3), An IX B Const.tut1011).
2. Grounds lor removal or cJtsCiplmary \lCliOfl ReM Sec 36(b) ol
tne CMI Servtee Law whiCh enurnefates the 'rounds for the suspension or
drsmissal of offiCerS and employees In the Civil Serw::e. Re&d also RA 6713
(Code of ConduCt lind Eth/CIJI StBndards of Public Officials}, parttcularty See
5, on dulles. and Sec. 7. on proMM!ed acts and transactions
a) Thus, career seMCe officers and employees woo entov security of
teoute may be removed only for any ot the causes ., the law. and
in IIOCIOfdanc:e wrth the prooedun! prescribed theretn
1) Removal nol fOt a jUSt cause, or non<ampltance with the
pte5albed proceeure constrtu1es a rever51ble error, and enbtles tt1e officer
01' employee to remstatement w1th back salanes and without loss of senionty
rights Thus en Del CIVIl SeMCe CommisSIOn, G R No 112513.
1997. it was held that when an offiCICII or emplotee IS Illegally
diSmissed and hts rel"'statement 1S later ordered by the Coon. tor all tega1
intents and purposes tie 1s considered as not hawlg left his onrce. and ttle
Silence of ltle deciSIOO notwtthstandiOQ he tS enlrtted to p:iyrnf'nt of back
In Tan v. Office ollhe Preslljent. G P. No 110g36. f etrvary 4. 1994,
the Suprei'TK'! Cour1 r&.tern!ed whal tl said In Cnstobat v Melr.hor 10 t SCRA
857. that when a government omr.ial or emplOyee In the classified dvil servtee
haS been illegafty dismissed and his reinstatement is ordered, for all legal
purposes he considered as not having left his offiCe, so that he is entitled
to all the Oghls and pnvrteges lha! acctue to him by virtUe of lhe off.ce that IS
held lndeed, lfl Constant1n0-DavicJ v. Pan.gandamanGama. G.R No 156039.
August 14, 2003. the Supreme Court sard that an employee
who ts later crdered retnstateu 1S entitled to back wages and other monetary
beoefits from the tJme of htS iMegal d&Gmssal up to hts retnStatement.
11) DemotJon 1s tantamount to unlawful removal if no cause 1S
shown lor it, or 1f It ts not part of any diSciplinary act10n (Fiofezs v. Ongpm, f 82
SCRA 692, cried tn De Guzman v. Civil SeMce Commission, G.R No. 101105,
Maret> 1, t994} The same condUSIOO was reached 10 Genera/ Manager, PPA
v. Monserate, GR. No. 139616, Apri/17, '2002, when respondent was demoted
from Drvts.on Manager II to .Admmtstrahve
n1) Unconsented transfer resulttr\Q 11n demotion'" rank or salary IS
tantamount 10 removaf wtthout JUSt cause {Pslma-Femandez v. de Ia Paz. 160
SCRA 115} A transfer that results rn promotion or demotiOn, advancement
or reductoo, or a transfer that atms to lure till! employee away lrom hts
PNTTUJnent position, cannot be done without the employee's consent. 01' ttlat
wou1C constitute removal from office lndaed, no pennanent transter can
take place ur:less the otrJCer or employee 1s ftrSt removed from the pOSitiOn
held and then appointed lo another po$11100 [DtVtnagracia v Sto. Tomas.
supra J But an elementary GradeS Teacher in Maoila may be asstgned to
ar.y efementay schooll"' Manita and reass.gned from Gfade VI to Grade IV
\iltnout violatng secunty of tenure: the chotee of (trade, subject areas, primary
or level. school and dstnct IS pure policy and, n lhe absence
or art>itranness, best left to the admmistrators ooooemed {Ordno v. Civil
Service Commtssion (1990)} Thus, when ooe IS appointed Secondary School
Prlnclpalll WithOut refetenoe to any partiCUlar school, she may be reas&gned
to any station or school as the ex.genaes of the demand {Depal1menl
ol Educalion, Cultute & Sports Court ol AppNis, 183 SCRA 555]: 01' whefe
the appocntment ot lhe pnvate respondent.. Yap, was that d Oislrid Supervisor
at large, she ooukS be aSSigned to Clny station as she is not entitled to stay
permanently "at any specifiC stat10n; thus, there 1s no violation of security of
tenure (Oulstmbiog v. Judge Gumban, 193 SCRA 520].
ilia) But rn Chato v. NarMclad, G.R No 113843, June 2, 1995,
the Supreme Court sustained the legal1ty of the reassqwnent of Bias from
Pampanga to Cagayan, after BIR CommiSsiOner Chato had issued Revenue
AdmnstratJVe Order No S-93 redefining the JUnsdiC1ion and ng the
reg,onal d.stnct offices of !he BIR The Court fouf'ld that the pnvate responoent
OUTU!.:l:IR\'If.',.,'f.P t:. POl '!TICAL LAW
laded to show patent illegality an the action of the SIR Comm ssJCr.er, sayu'1'9
that to sustain pnvate respondenl's contention that h1s transfer was a demotion
Simply because the new not to h:o flk1:lQ woold be to subordtnato
government pro1ects, along w1lh the great resources and efforts they ental,
to 1nd111idual preferences and opm10ns of servce e.nployees, and this
would negate the prrnopJe that publiC otftee IS a public trust Mmeover, the
employee should have tho valtdlty of tls transfer b'/ to the
CMt Servte& Commtssion. The lower court should have drsmsseo tne acuon
for fa'Jure of prtvate respondent to exhaust admmrstratllle reme1tes. In any
eveoL the movement was held to be a reassignment. made m the of
the servj(;S - and there was no demotiOn
w) Some cases orJ grounds for OtsopiJnsry CICI'OII
tva) DIShonesty IS the concealment or distortion of truth 1n
a matter of fact relevant to one's or cor. 1eded Wllh ltv!
of IllS duty 11 s a senous of'enSt: which reflects m the person's cl'laracter
and elq)OSeS the moral decey wt\tch vrtually deS1roys h1s honor, value and
rnteg1.ty Under the Civil Servtce law. I he use of fake or spunous r:rnl Servce
ehgibiltty s regarded as dishonesty and misconduct. ountsh&ble by
dasmrssal from the scrv.cc [C1V11 Serwce CommissiOn v CayobU, G R No.
145737, Set>lember 3 2003]
ivb) Conduct preJud era! to tt.e l>est interests olthe SNVlce ts
daSSffled as a grave offense and the pPnalty for a second s d1Sm1ssal
from the servtce [Gabano v. Monreal, 21 EJ SCRA 558},
we) Mtsconduct. by uniform legal detinttton, is a tr.msgression
of some established and dehn1le rule or ad10n. n.ore particutat1y, unlav.ful
behav;oot as well as gross negltgence by the publiC uffocer. The wore!
misconduct implies a wrongful intentiOn, and not a mere eiTOC' of Judgment.
ltme and again. we have emphasaed that the Personal Oatc Sl'leer IS an
offlci:ll document requnKf of a government employee aod offiCial by the CM
Serw;;e Commrs:oon. II is the repositcxy of au information about any government
employee and oftioal regardng his personal background, quahfteation, and
ehgtbtlf,y Coocealment or any rnformation in the POS therefore, warrants a
oenatty for the emog offiaar {Advtncufa v Dicen. G.R. No 162403. May 16,
2005/ Indeed,'" Bautista v Navarro. G R No. June 29 1982, the
Supreme Cour1 hi!ld that thP conccarment (from the Personal Oat.a Sheet of
rtn OffiCial Of employee) of a prevous charge. albert constttu!es a
menta dshonesty amounhng to mtsconduct
rvd) Under the Mmtorsttaltve Code ot ,987 a goYernment
ofi1Gef Of employee may be mmoveo from the seNICe on rwo grounds
unsatiSfactory cooduel, and want of capaoly While the COde does not oefino
or dehneale the concepts of these two grounds, the Civil Servtc:e Law provides
speafiC grouoos for dtsmtss ng a government olficer or employee from the
servace Among these grounds are metrteency and ncompetence n the
petformance o1 offioal dutcs In th s case, the respondents were dtsmissod
on the ground of poor performance. PO()( perlormance falls wiUM the concept
of lneffteteocy and il) the performance of offiCial duties. But
inefficiency Of inr.ompetence can only be determined after the passage of
sufficient ume. hence,the probationary penod of stK months for lhe respoodents.
lndeod. 10 be able to gauge whether a subotdtnate Is meffioent or ncompetenl
requ1res enough ume on the part of the tmmed1ate superior wi!hn which to
observe his pertormance. Tttis cond.hon was not observed m thrs case As
aptly '>tated by the Civ11 Servtee CommtSSI()fl, it is QUite improbable ;that Mayor
Jose Mtranda couJd finally determme the pertonnance of the respondents for
only the first three months of the probauonary penod [Mirando v. Carreon, G.R.
No. H3540 Apnl t1, 2003/
v) The tenure of pohlicar or non-career members ot the
Foretgn Ser.ttoe 1s coterminous With that of tho appomhng autnonty or subje<:t
to his pleasure, the:r termtnatlon 1s not deoondent on proof of some lega'ly
recogniZed cause and alter due nobce and hearing. bUt hes enlirely wtthin the
wtlt of the PreSident 1n the exercise of her drseteuon [Astraqutflo v Manglspus,
190 SCRA 280}
b) Ol'rtCJals and employees hold.ng prmanty confidential postlions
continue In off1ce for as tong as confidence rn then' endures; the termiMtion o
their offiOCll relation can be iustlftod on the ground of loss of confidence. bUt'"
that case. thi!tr cessation from off tee 1nvoh1es no removal but expcrahon of term
of office [Pacefo Chairman. CommfSSIOn on Audtl. r85 SCRA 1].
1) In Tanjay Water Dtstnct v Outnfl. G.R. No 160502 Apn/27.
2007. even as lhe C.OUrt acknowledged that nu offtCCr or employee tn the eNd
Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause proveded by law. the
Court said that the phrase cause proVIded by Jaw"l:dudes Joss of ronfideooo.
It as an estabhshed rule that the tenure of UtOse hotdJlQ pnmarlly cotlftdenbal
JlOS1110nS ends upon loss of coofldenoo. because their tenn of omoe lasts only
as long as m them endures Thc1r cessation from offtce 1nvotves
no removal but Pllptrallon ot the !N:-n of office
c) Olftcers and employees holdmg temporary or achng appomtments
may be at any t1me, WllhotA necesstly of JUSt cause Of a valid
I ilh if l'ufolll 0 f 1 1
3 Procedure in disclplmary cases Read Sec 38 PO 807 and Sec. 48,
Chapter 3. V, Admrntstra11vo Code of 1987.
a} All administrative case agalflSl a pUbiC o1fJC.er Shan despite
the wtttOawal by the complamant [Bsrov v PcrfJJta, 287 SeRA 1 DagsJr8n v.
Cooag, 290 SCRA 12/. D sopl.nary ac:tJOns .,ganst pOOle dO notln\/Oive
purely pnvate they are Impressed With pt.A)(i'c l'lterest wtue of the
publiC Character ol the pobbc offroe 1he affidaVIt ot desistance of 1hc compla1nant
should, thetefcre be dasreg;;rded [Sandova.' v ManaAJ. 260 SCR4 61 1)
b) is the rule that substanbal proof. and not dear
and convmoog evidence or proof beyond reasonabte do.Jbt, s uff10ent basts
f()(' the 1mpostti0n or any disopbnary act10n upon an employee The standard
of substanbal evtdenoe IS sabsfied when the 8fnC)Io)'tit has reasonable
ground to beltevf! that the employee s resPQf1Slble fOf the misconduct and hs
partJcipai iM themn renders him unworthy of trust and confldenc.e demanded
by hts pos11t0n {Casurwo v TancJog, G R No t46J37, June 8, 2005)
4 Ju'lscitCIIOn m d1SC1pJmary ca es
c.) Heads of ilgenocsand instru:nentahtJes, pro:t nc
and mi.miopahltes ha1e JUriSdrctiOO to investigate and deode matters nvolv,ng
diSCiplinary actiOn agatnst officers and l!mployees under lheu tunSdiCtion
Their deas10n snal be final 1n case the penalty 1mposed is suspens on of not
.more than 30 days Of r.ne tn a:-t amoun: not exceeding 30 days ::.ctlary In other
cases, the decrson shall be mrt.ally aopealea to the departrntmt head and
finally to the Civil Service Comm1ssron pend.ng appeal, :the same shall be
executory except wnen the penalty LS removal, rn wttich case the same snau be
ex8QJtory oniy arter conflllTlatton by the departnwmt head /Sec 37. P.D. 8U7).
11 However, Sec 9, R /A 4670 (Magna Carta 101 Public School
Teachers) ptovides that the commlllee to hear admtnlStratN Charges
against poblic SChool teachers most indude a ol the teachers
organization. The appo.nunent by the OF.CS Secretary of teache'rs to the
oomiT'tttoe does not comply with thrs raqutrement. rl is the reachers'
organrzattOn v. hiCfl possesses the nghl to rndrcate lis cOOice or represenlalve
1n the commtnee, and the DECS Secretary cannot usurp such nghl The
rndoSKJn of a represeotat1ve of roc orqantzahon 1n the commUee ts
rndrspeosable to ensure an 1mpart1a tnbunaiJFRooRa v Court of Api'J(Jals, G P.
No 110379 28 1997/
b) The Crilll SerVIce CommtSSIOO has appellatE> Jurrsatc,on, but
a (X)mfllajnt may be filed w1th the CommiSSIOn. and tno l;ttlf'r ma
heat and d cr1e the case, or deputiZe a department or agency to conduct lt'.Q
t) In Cruz v Civil Servrce Commission. G.R No. 144464.
November 2 7, 200 1. t e S uf)l'eroo Court upheld the a ulhonty of the Civil Service
CommtSSIOn to hear and decide a complaint lilod by the CSC rtself agamst
pel t1oners In thiS case. the acts compla nc<i of Mose I rom chca1tng allegedly
comm1tted by the pettrOnP.rs '"the civl servtee exrunmal'on, The exnmmatJOn
was under the dlfect control and superviSIOn of the Commission The cu!pnts
were (JO'Ietnment employees ovef w!'IOm the CommiSSIOn undeniably has
JU nsotetiOn
5. Prevetlrive SuspenSIOIJ. In Gloria v Courl of Appeals, G.R No.
1:11012, Apri/21, 1999, the Supreme Coon danfl6d that there are two kinds of
preventive suspens10n of ovil seMCe employees who are charged with offenses
b removal or !iUSf)P.nsion (a) provcnhve suspension pcndlnn
11westtgauon. under Sec. 51, Boo!- V. Title I, SubttUe A of the Admintstrativo
Code of 1987, and (bJ preventive suspens100 pendng appeal if the penalty
mr-osed by the dsctpllnlng Bttlhonty ll> suspensiOn or dtsmissal and, alter
rev!Cw the respondentts exoneratP.d under Sec 47 of the same Code.
a) The proper dlSCiplnmg authOnty may pre11enth1ely suspend any
o!f.c:er or employee under hts authonly pendrng an anvesttgatiorl tf
lht! charg'! aga nst such orr.cer or employee dshonesty, oppreSSIOn
'X grave mtscondutt, or neglect tn the of duty, Of rt there are
re:.lSOfls to belove that the respondent is gulf1y of charoes which would warrant
hts removal from the 5eMOO. This s not a p(jnalty It IS a measure intended lo
the d1sophmng authontv to investtgate charges against respondent
by lhe latter from tnbmldatlng or In any way innuenong wrtnesses
a,Jamst htm If the lnvestrgatlon is not fln1shed and a decision tS noc rendered
wrthm a pcnod of 90 the suspenSIOn w111 be lrfted and the respondent
Will automatically be re1nstatod If, after respondent IS found
annocent or the charges and is exonerated, he should be reinstated.
t) In Alonzo\.' Capulong G.R. No. 110590. May JO, 1995. the
Supreme Collt re1:erated the rule that the prevcntave suspensiOn of a ovD
serviCE! offiCer or employee can be ordered even wttnoUt a heaong, because
such suspenson as not a penalty but onlv a preli.nrnary step to admfnistratJve
rnvest.g<liiOn Its purpose tS to prevent the respondent from us1ng hts poSitiOn
or offtee to .riluonoo prospectrve Witnesses. or 10 tamper w; h toe recorck
which may be v1ta 10 the prosecutiOn of the case aga1nst h1m
11) In Ptaza v. Court (J( Appeals. G R No 138464, JanutJry
18 2008, II e Coull Govemor Democnto Plaz.as orcer of
suspension Issued d9Cl nst appotn!tve local otf.crals fadng admlnstrabve
charges The law provides f01 1ne preventive suspension of appotnbvc
offiCials and employeE-s pend ng mvesttgn!Jon of the charges aga1nst them
ThiS ts one or thP sacnflces \O.THCh holdmg a public off1ce requ1res for t:1c pubhc
bt The authority lo preveni!Vflly f!xerr.lsed concurrently by
lho OmbUdsman, nursuafll 10 R A 6770, lhe 5Clme law aulhonzcs a prcventr.-e
suspeos100ofs.x montns(Hagadv GozcHJodoltt, G.R. N" 108072, Ofx;emb!fr
12, 1995)
I) Although Sec ,3, R A 3019, does nor speofteally aulhonze
the Court of FtrSt Instance to Pfevenltvely suspend a public offteer faong
auntnal charges, the Coon may vahdly order the preventNe :W"P8ftslon of
such off1c:et, Stna" removal rrom off.ce is wrthm lhe power of the CtlUrt-
perpetual dsqual,ficahon from or.ICC be1fY.l one or lhe penalles wh:h may t,e
1t11posed for vio/..1110n ot R A 3029 - no amounl of legordcmatn would depnve
the Court or the POWer lo suspend, suspension being necessanrv inCluded '"
the greater power Clf removai[SO(;fales v Sandiganb.JyDn, G R No 116259-
60 February 20 1995)
c) In Gloria v. Court of Appests. supro . the Supreme Court held that
the employee has no nght to cumpensation dtJI'Ing preventtve
penotng e .. en 11 l'le s ewne1ated. lnvolting Mechem Lt>wof Public
OffiCers the Court said that In orcer to be entJtled to payment of back sa lanes,
H ts not enough that an employee be exonerated of I.M charges aransl him.
In addttlon. tt must be s:10wn that hiS suspenSIOn IS unjushficd T. e p:evenllve
suspensaon of CMI emplOyees chargeci With dtshonestv. oppress.on or
grave misconduct. or negleCI of dLty, s authooled by lhe Ctvil SP!'Vice Law
It cannot. therefore. be considered even if later the dlargf:s are
dcsmts.sed It IS one of those sacnfioes whiCh ho4diog a pubhc offtee rrqwes
for the pubiJC good For this reason. IllS bmrted to 90 days.
d) In the same case, rt was held 1hat the employee IS eniiUed to
payment of badt satanes fof the periOd of prevenbve suspension pendong
eppealtf f!ventually they are found tnnoa:nt This IS so b9cal.lse pt'e11entive
suspensaon pend1ng appeal s actuaQy punitive althoUGh it subSequently
con3idered Illegal tf res:xmden eoner-ttoo and the adm nlstratlllfl deCISion
f1ncllng him IS reverSP.d Hence. he should be re.nstated Wllh full pay for
the per.!Od of the .suspens:on Sec 47 (.:)slates !hal the respondent -shall
be cons:dered as under preventnre SUSJ>E:OSIOO dum.g the penoency of me
appeal1n the event M w.ns II w-culo be unJuSt to OP.pnve hliTI of his pav as a
resull of the lmme<Jtate exP.CUIIOO ot l tle agamst htm and conMue !o
do so even mter It rs shown that hO 1s annocent or lhe charges ror Which he was
suspended. Under eYJStiog Jurisprudence. such award should not exceed lhe
eQUivalent of rrve (5) ye&rS pay at lhe rate last re<;eNed before tho suspension
was unposed. On the other hc:1nd, af his convlctiOI'liS affirmed, lhe penod oii\IS
suspenSion becomes part of Ute final penalty of suspenscon or dtSmassal
0 But back. are not warranted whoo the 1mmediato
execution or the order of dismtssal is JUSt 1iod [CJc In Cruz v. Court of Appoals.
G.R. No. March 25, 1999) In ths case, tho esc round the petitioners
hable only for conduct ptetudoal to the best interest of the service. not for
grave msconduct, gross naglect of duty. gfOss violahon of CS law, rules and
regutabons (as charged by Secretary Canno) Havtng been found answerable
tor a !esse otfeose. petmoners could not be considered as befog fully Innocent
of the charges agamst lhem. Not having been exonerated, petrtloners are no:
ent1tled to back salanes.
6 Appesl When allowed, shall be made w;thin 15 days from receipt of
the deosion, a pebbon for as seasonabfy filed, wh ch
pet.t10n shall be decided Wi1h1n 15 days.
a) Pehtcn for reconsideratiOn shall be based only on tho following
grounds: C) new evidence has been drxovered which matenaiJy affects the
dectsiOO ren<:ered, (11) the deciSIOn IS not supported by the evidence on re<:OJd;
or (tit) errors of law or lrregufanues have been commtned which are prejud-.cial
to the mtercst of the respondent
b) Pursuant to SuJ)(emc Court Revised Circular No. 1-91, as amendEd
by ReviSed Admcnstraflve Ctrcular No .. 1-95 wh1ch took effect on June 1,
1995, fonal resoluhons or the Civil Service Commission shall be appealable by
certiOrari under Ru:e 43 10 lhe Court of Appeals Wllhtn 15 days from rocetpt !lf
a copy thereof. From the decision of the coon Appeals. the party adversely
atlected thereby shall fillt a peb\100 for review on cettioran wrth the Supreme
Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
c) In CMf Setvice CommiS.C)IOIJ v Daooycoy, G.R. No 13580..";, April
29. 1999, re1terated in crd Serwce CommiSSIOn v Jocelyn S Gents/fan, G.R.
No 152833. May 9, 2005. the Supreme Court expressly abandoned and
overruled the ru'e that "the phrase 'party adiiP.rsely afftJded by the deCISIOn'
refers to the government employee aga1ost wllom the ndmtmstratrve case
is filed for the porpose of d.sciplinary ad100 which may take the form of
SUSPEtf'SIOn, aemot.on In rank or salary. transfer. removal or dsmtssal from
office and not 1nduded are cases where the penalty tmposed rS suspension
for not more than 30 days !lt fine in an amount not exceed1ng 30 days
l.nu r>l J'oNu r)ffl<rn
satarv or -when the respondent IS ot lhe charges there as no
occaS.OO fOf appeal 11'1 this case, the Su(Xeme Coort sustaaned the rigl't of
the Ctvil Servtoo CommtsSion to nppeal to the SJPmmo Court the
of the Court ot Appeafs e11oncrntng the respondent and rt!versmg the Ct'll tl
Sef'lltce s deCISIOn whiC.h loond Dacoycoy gUtlly of nepotiSm and
ordered his dtsrrussa11rcm the sef'll ce. Tt11s dectStOn overrutes pnor deCISIOns
holdtng that the Clvtl Service Law doos not contemplate a reVte\\' of deciSIOnS
exonf'rat,ng offiCerS or employees from t.idmlmstrativc charges enuooated tn
PaffKIPs v esc. Mender v. esc. v esc, Navarro v esc. and more
recently, Del Castillo v CIVil Servrce Commrss1011 24 T SCRA 317
1) I" Past01 v Ctty ol PBSJg. G R. No f 46813, May 9, 2002, ths
ruhng was applied when the Ctty o1 appealed (to the Cour1 of Appeals)
the deasiOn of the Civil SeMce CoiTVTliSSIOrl. The C.ty of m thrs case,
was a "party adversely affecte<J by CSC deciSIOO
7 Summary DtsmtSSill NMe Sec 40 of tne Cava Se:vtee Lnw sull
provides f01 case-; of summary removal (when tha charge IS 'enoos and
evidence of guilt is strong: when respondent ts a reCidtvtSI or has been
repeatedly c:har(;ed. and there ts reasonable grouoo to bel:ove that he IS gutlly
of tt1e present ct.arge; and when respondent rs notonoosty undeSirable). and
these same prOVISIOns arc reprodi !Ced m toto tn the Admtrustrative Code of
1987 (Executive Order No. 292), whic:h effect in 1989. nonelheless. thesP
proviSIOns on summary dtSmssal have already been tJy Republtc
No 6654, approved on May 20, 1968 and published .n the OfficJal Gazette on
May 30, t988 See Abalos v Cvil SeMCe Commt:;s.on 196 SCRA 81; Rosete
v Couft of APPQels. G.R No 10780 November 14 1S96
8 Removaf of Admmtstrat,..,o PenaltKJs or DrS8btlltK1S. In mcntonous
cases and upon rtKOmmendattOn of lhe CMI SeMCe CommtssJOO, tne
President may commute or remove adllltniStrablle penalties or dtsabthbes
imposeO upon of'ficers or employees 10 rliscipW\afy cases, subjeCt to such
tenns and as he may impose in the interest of the servtee.
a) In Garaa ,,. ChaJITTIBn, CommiSSJ()('I on Audtt GR. No
L- 75025, September 14, 1993. tt was held that when a person rs granted a
pardon because he did not tt\Jiy commat thn offense. the pardon rehevcs htm
from ail pun1t1ve consequences of h1s act. thereby restonng htm to
hts dean name, good reputahon and cnaracter pnor to h.s f.ndL'l9
of gu It bestowal of execotJVe clt!tnency ,., effect oblitarntoo
the ad11erse of the admlnrstratrve deos10n which found h m gurlty of
dishonesty and ordered h1s separatiOn from the seM<.e. This be tnferreo
from the executrve clemency Itself p11tmooer from tne adm.rustratJVe
charge and lhe-eby dtrechng h1S reinstatement. wnich is rendered automatiC by
ll'le grant of the pat"don This signrfies that the pelltaoner need no longer apply
for r lnstalemf!nt he IS restorc<1 to hts offtce tpso ftJClO upon the issuance ot
the clemency and he os enhtlod ro bact\ wages
G. Abandonment. lhe voluntary relinQuashment of an offiCe by the hOlder,
wrth the intention of termmattng hi& possession and control thereof.
1 Abandonment of otfrce is a spedes or resignation; whale resignation 1n
generaliS a formal relrnquishmenl, abandoomentts a voluntary relinquishment
Uvough 11(\0-user refers to a neglect to use a povdege or a nght ex to
exerctse an easement or an offtee [Municipality of San Andres, Catancluanes
v. Coort of Appeals. G.R. No. 118883 January 16, 1998}.
2. A person holding a publiC offace may abandon such offrce by nco-
user or by 81:QUtescence However, non performance of the dlrtiOS of an
otftee does not constt1ute abandonment where such non-performance resuits
from temporary dtsabllrty or from Involuntary failure to perform. Abandonment
may also resull from a.::qutescence by the offrcer In his wrongful removal or
dischago Where, whle d4r.inng and intendtng to hold the off'rce. and with no
wtllful des are Ot ntenhon to abandOn 1l, the pub he officer vacates it In deference
to thQ reqwements of a statute wh1ch IS afterwards dedared unoonstltubonal ,
such a scrrender will not be deemed abandonment [Canonizado v. Agwrre,
GR No 133132. February 15. 2001}
a) Mee delay m qualtfytng for tne office ts not abandonment Bot
undnr Sec. 11. BP 881, failure to assume elec1JVe offiCe within SIX months from
pro<.1amat10n, Without just or valid cause, shall h;we the effect of vacating the
b) When, after llberiation, a prewar Jushce of the Peaoc refused to
retum tc has offiCe when requited by the proper authorities. because the salary
of a iustioe of peaoe is not sufficient to sustain his family, he was deemed
to have abandont:<S his otrace {Fioresca v Ouetu/10. 82 Phil 128]_
3 Under CIVIl Rules, an officer or emplovee shall be
seJ am ted from the sef'IIICtl tf he Ia Is lo return to the sef'IIICe after the expiratioo
of one-year leave of absence wtlhollt pay In Oue!ZC'n v Borromeo. 149 SCRA
'20!i, I was held that !hero ts nothtng that the govPrnment can do to oompel
.J'\ UllWIQng emoloyeo to retuw lo government service Notice havmg been
g<ven to has last nown address, the dropp,ng from the rolls does not constrtute
dental of due process. Mer tttl, an opportuntty l" 9"'*"" to the employee to
contest the egallty of hs be ng dropped from the rolls But see UnN'ef'511-s-
o1 the Philtppmes lind AJfredo de Torres v CMI Servfce CommtS$10(1, supra
where tl was the Civil Comm sseon may not. on 1\s own,
termmate employment or drop an employee I rom the rolls. where too emo>yer
self has optP.d to retatn and l!ven !l romote the em>}foyee
A In Re Absence WiihocJf OffiCJal Leave of Darlene A J.-.coba. A.M. No.
988 246-RTC, February 15. 1999 the Supreme Court uph ld the 'laltd ty ol
Sec 35. Rule XVI of the Omntbos Rules of the Clv1l Servcc. Y.htch pro\lldes
that otf!Cef5 and ef1'1)1oyees WhO arc absent for at least 30 days
,approved leave are considered on Ablenoe Wtthoot Leave ,AWOL) and shal
be dropped from lhe servce aher due nottce.
a) Whtle lht,; granting or approval of leil'ies of absence depends up;xl
the needs of the and s therefore upoo the head o(
the department or agency, ttlts dscrollon must be exerosed ptopeny ln
Ahlippme Ccconur Authonty v GIJrrido, GR. Nc 135003 January 21. 2007.
the Supreme Court notec that reSPOndent's appl.icaMn for a leave of absence
was disapproved only on September 15, 1993, a most two months from lhe
t1me he filed the same Thc; unexola1ned nactJon gave the re!"pondent tl'le
tmpress1on that tne:e was no tmpedment to hs leave appiJcatiOfl Rcsf)Ondent
cannot, therefore. be on AWOL for more than 31)
5 In AdtOng v. CC>urr of Appeals, G R No 136480. DeceMber 4 2001.
the Supreme Court satd that the fa ure to make a couttesy call to one s supenor
Is not an offense, much less a gound to termmate a persons emoloyment
The fa lure of the respondent Nusl<e to submtt her appointment papers 1S nol
a cause for tier outnght ds.nissal And s>gn1fteant that informed
Mayor AdK>Og that she did not restgn and that th'l termination of her sei'V!CII!S
was against Crti Service Rules She requested that she be rem!:tated to tlef
lawful position and her bad< salanes paid ThiS e)(plalns why, desptte her
being physically absent from the offa premJSeS, sha cannot be deemed 10
have ab3ndoned her offiCe because al the v.mile. She had tne \toteotion 10
return to 'N'Of'k [HoweV8f, note that to JUflSP'Udence. a ovil 5eMce
employee irom the se'V!Ce IS enlllled to bae!< salanes
hmited only to a max mum of f;ve years salary. not ro ftJII bao. from
her IDegal tenn nat10n up to remstatemP.nt J
H Acc .. of an Incompatible Offlc>.
1. Test of lncompettbi!.ty By the nature and relation of tM two off.ees to
each other, they oogN not to be fleld by one person frorr the oontranety ano
antagontsm whiCh would result tn the at:empt by one to Carthfully and
mpart&atly dtscharge ltle duti(!S of one t ard thP tnOJmbcnt ol tho oth!lf
a) OistnguiSh tncompaHble from forblck1e:t oHICe See; Sec 12, An.
2 AGGcptanco of ncompallllle office ipso faCio 'facates lhe other. There
no necesSI1y 'or any proceedmg to declare or complete the vacation of the
frstl')tfoe See Adaza v. Pacana, 135 SCRA 431 However, 10 Canomzsdo
v Agwrre, supm nocmpatJtlthiY of duties rule never had a chance to como
mto play, be<:aJse the petdiOner never occupted the two posltions. that or
N.\POLCOM CommissiOner and that of Inspector General of the lAS. even as
pebtloner a<X:e9ted lhe laner but contmued to pursue legal remedteS
to recover the first from which he had been unlawfully ousted by the law 1tself
(Sec 8. RA. 8551) wtlid'l was later declared unconstitutional.
a) Excephon Where the publiC offJOer Is authorized by law to accept
lhe other offtce e g , the Secretary of Justice wno Is, by express provision of
Constttutoo, a member of the JudiCial and Bar Council. See also CiVIl
Uborttos UflJOn v. &ecutJVe 194 SCRA 317. where the Supreme
Coort dedared Executive Order 28-4 unconstttutiOMI.
I. Abolition of Office
1. Power of l. ogrststuro to abolish an office Except when restranod by
the Cc.nshtutJOr, Congress has thP nght to aboliSh an offtce, even dunog the
term for which an incumbent may have been elected.
a) Consl.l:ottOnal otrtees cannot be abolished by Congress.
b) No law shaU be passed reorgamzmg the Judoary when
It u:ldermtnes lhe secunty of tenure of its members (Sec. 2, At1. Vfll,
c) Vafid abolrt10n of offJOe does not oonstrtute ,.gmoval of the
d) It 15 Wllhm the legal conmetern:e of the city c:oundl to crea!e,
consolidate and reorganazo aty offiCes and pasrtJOfl.i wholly supported by l ocal
!unds [Mama, Jr v Court of Appettls 196 SCRA 489}. ln Javier v. Court of
Appe81s, G R IJo L-49065 (1994). the Supreme Court upheld tha authoritv
of tile Provmoal Board of AntiQue m abolishlllg the Off1ce of !he Provmaal
E:ngineer, unde'i' R.A 5185 (Local Autonomy Law). provincial
are empowered to aeate, among other poSJUons, the offtee of the provmoal
and IM'lle me law did not exoressly vest the POWer to abolish. 11 can
be deemed emtraced by from the pcrNer to create rl.
2. AbolttiOil of omoe. ntqUisiles. The abolition must be maoe In good
wrtn the dear ntent to do away with the noc for personal or
reasons. And cannot be Implemented n a manner oontr&r)i to law
See Mendozo v OVIsumbmg, 186 SCRA 108, De 18 Llana v Alba 17 2 SCRA
294: Cruz v Pnrruc:tas, 23 SCRA 998
a) tn Gmson v MumcipD/ItJI of Murcia. 158 SCRA 1. the ahO!lhon of
the pos1hon or Muniopal Den st on grounds of and economy \\as
held .nvatid. because after the abolition, new otlice5 were create<l and sa.acy
IOCt'eHeS granted to muropat officers and employees. In Rams v Court of
Appeals. 148 SCRA 496. the abolition of the various items of empk>yees in ll'e
Prov1ncaat Engtneer 's OffiCE! of the cebu was held to be pohllc.aHy-mohvated.
and, thus. nvalid
3 ReorganrzstiOfl of Government Offices.
a) CoO;itii\JI!OOal recogmtion or authOfllv to reorganrze. See 5&.
16, Art XVIII. Dflhppioe Constltut100 There IS ro diS;>ute that pursuant to ll'e
ProvtsiOOal (Freedom) Conshtuuon and the variOUs eKeC\Jtlve ordars Issued
by the Pres:dent when she was the sole law-making uthonty. the differenl
departments or government were suthof'ized to carry on reorgamzatJOn
programs {Olfno v "son 176 SCRA 84/ But the nature and eden! of tne
power to reorgant!e were circumscnbed by the source of the power 1tsetf It
was 1ntended that depanment and agency heads would be vested wtlh
ontrammelled and automabc authonty to d1smiss the million:. of govemment
on the stroke of a pen and with the same sweeping power detemttne
under thelf sole dscrehon who would be or reappOrlted to the vacant
positiOns Tl'le promobon of simphcdy, economy and efficiency as the usual
standard whiCh enabtes a delegation of powers 1n statutes to
pass lhe te<;t of validity Because the heads of departments and agenaes
ooncemed have chosen to rely on thetr own coooepts of unftmted d1scre1Jon
and progressive ideas on rec:xoanazbon anstead of !Mt lileY
fatthfuiY cornplted wittl the clear letter and spirit of the two ConstMIOOs and the
statutes govemtng re<xgamzatoo. the reorganizatiOnS (in these consolidated
peltiiOf'IS) are hereby set asode {Mendoza v. Quisumbmg, swra 1
b) There tS no violat1on or due process even i1 no heanng was
conducted rn the matter or reorganrzatJOO of the OBP, as long as the employee
was giVen a chance to present evidence {Domingo v Develot>melll Bank of
ttHt Phtlppmf!!t. 207 SCRA 766} The Coort of Appeals and the lntermedrate
Appellate Court extsttag pnor to EO 33 were phased out as part of lhe legal
system abohshed by the revolutiOn The Court of Appeals established under
EO 33 s an enhrely new ooun, hence reference to J)(t>ferenoe in conta1ned
n BP 129 refers to prospect1ve Sltual!Oils, not retroactive ones As head of
lht! revofutiOnary government, President AQutnO can dsregard any seniority
ranking 10 the Court of Appeals (Letto"Of Assoanto Puno 210 SCRA
589) In SISOI' Civil Service CommtSSIOrl, 208 SCRA ssg, the removal or
pehtiooer from hrs posdon and his subsequent c1emo:JOn from Municpal Food
and Agricultural Officer to Product1on Technoan IIIOlated secunty of tenure.
The of the Ocponmen: or Agncut:ure under EO 116 W8S set
awe for failure to obServe the gutaehnes m EO 33 ros removal or employees.
namely: a) of a case for summary dtsmissal pursuant to Sec <tO.
Ctvil SeMoe Law, b) probable cause fof viotalton of R A 3019. c) gross
incompetence or inefficiency 1n the d1scharpe or funct1011s: d) misuse of public
offiCe for part1sao politfr.al &ehvtties, &od e) analogous grounds showll".g lhat
the incumbertt IS unfrt to rema n 1n the sei'V!Ce The same ruling was applied
10 Ab8ya v Civil Serv.ce Comm1s..>n G R No 98027. October 4 1994 See
also Pari-an v Civil Serva Commission, 202 SCRA n2.
c) In Lopez v Civil Servu;e Comm1ssion. 194 SCRA 269. the
Court said that S13'C 6 or R. A 6656 on government reorgamzation merely
provides lhar tte se!ectlon Of placement should be done through the creat1on
of a Placement CommiHee the membtu's of Which are the representahves of
the head of the agency as well as reprcsentatrves or the employees The
commttees wOiil is recommendatory and does not fl)c a stnngent formula
regard1ng the mode of choosmg from among the candidatP.S
d) Reorganization in a bureau or off1ce performing constituent
functions Oike \tie Bureau of Customs). or 1n a government-owned or -cootrolled
CQrJ:oration (hke the PNB). must meet a common test, the test of good faith
[Romuafdez. v. Civil Service CommtsSJOn, G R No. 104226. August 12,
1993/ Good farth, as a component or reorgamzahon under a constitutional
regime, ts judged from lhe facts of each cao;e [Dano v. MISOn, 176 SCRA 841
e) In Buldod ng Kswarnng EIIB v ExecutNe Secretary. G R Nos.
July 10. 2001, the Supreme Couft held thai PO 1772. which
an-ended PO 1.t16, gmnts the PreSidl?nl the con!Jnt ting authority to reorganae
the nat100al government, whiCh andudes !he power to groop. consolidate
burt:aus and agenoes, to abolish to tmnsfer functons, to create and
dassify functiOnS, serviCeS and actiVilies and to standardize salaries and
matPOalS The d;!actJvalion of EIIB .'lnd the acattOn of Tasl< Focce Aduana
were well with10 th1s authonty TnP. executive Ofdert were issued 10 good fa1th
fit<>t. there ts no employment ol new personnel to man the Task Force, secono,
the It-rust of the EO 1s to encourage the ullllahoo of personnel. faollt1es and
of aheady eJosting departments, agenoes, bure."1us. etc.. third. ,,
that lhl!' creation of the Tasf. Force was rntended to lessen EIIB'.s
J Prescription of the right to office.
1' The Rules or Court provide tMI & pellhOn f()( rell'lstatement (after Illegal
ouster or dlsmtssal), or the reco\'el)' of the pobUc offece, must be
'Mihtn one (1) year from the date the petitioner IS unlawfully ousted from hrs
a} B.easoo for the rule. Trlle to public offiCe should not be subjected
to continued uncertawtty. and the mterest requ1res that nght
should be as speedily as poss1ble (Tumulak v cgey, 82 PnR 828].
b) F1lng dan actiOn rOf adminlstrauve remedy does not suspend tt.e
penod lot f1hng the appropriate judiCial prorocdmg (quo warranto) {Gal&no v
Roxss, 67 SCRA 8) The one vear period runs even during the pendency of a
motion for reoonsideratJOn (Morales v Patnarcs, 13 SCRA 766)
c) Unless lllere are strong. compellrng and specia' orcumstances to
lharrant a d1t'ferent COU"Se. courts w111 not (lntertatn a petition lor re:nstatement
filed beyond the one-year peOOd But 10 Cristobal v. Mert;/lOr, 78 SCRA 17 5
I he Supreme Court allowed the su1t filod in 1971, nine years after the pehtiOner
was from ol'lice, on grounds of equ1ty
K. Impeachment See Chactcr on ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS, Constitubonallaw. supra.
L Deth. lt-.e death ot tne mcutnbenl or an offce necessanlv renders the
otftee vacant
M. Filu,. to usutM offlce. Sec 11, BP 881 provtdes "'The office '1f any
offiCial elected who faits or refuses to take his nath of otftoe wttlnn Sll': months
from has ptt.damation shalf be considered vacant. said fa1lure is for a
cause x causes beyond h1s control"
N of crime.
1. When the penalty mposed, upon convtC1Jon. .:arnes \Jrih It the
accessory penalty at disqualification. conv1ctaon bV final judgment aulomahcally
offiCial relatklf1sh,p
a) Wh le a plenary pardon e11ngu1snes the accessory penaltr ol
dtsquahficalion t will not restore the public offa to the of teer coovteled He
must be gNen a ne-w appointment to rhe postJoo [Monsanto v Fa,.tornn. 170
SCRA 1PO} Bultn Sabella v of EI"Jucar.on Cutrmo ;met Spo.1S
OUlLlN I P1:VIEWR l'<l V.t.l
f80 SCRA 623. for reasons of cqutty, the Supremo Court held that the fOI"'Tlef
elctoontilry school should not be re--appotn!ed to a IOYICr position
than ttmt whiCh he formerly occupied
0. Filing of certificate of candidacy.
1 Soc. 66. 8 P.881 providos "A.ny person h<*illlQ a publte appoanti11e
otfK.e or poSitiOn, mcludlnQ acllve members of the Aimed Forces of the
Ph!ltppJncs, and off"10ers and employees '" govemment-owned or oontroled
C1'C)rahons. shall be considered Ipso fnclo resigMd from his otftee upon lhe
filtng or hiS oertflcate of candidacy:
a) In PNOC Enorgy Development CorporatiOn v. NLRC G R No
100947, May 3:. 1993, It was held that this soa10n even to employees
of govemtnen1...1J\omed Of <.on trolled corporations wtlhout an ongmal chaner.
General PnllCiples
II Comm<ss10n on Elections
II VoterS Oualflcauon and RlSI.raltOO
IV Pol,tJCal Parties
V Candtdates: Cemficares of Candidacy
VI. Camp3Jgn; Eled:lon Propaganda,
Cor>tnbubc:ms and E.x-pmses
vu. Board of Ele<:l.onlnspec1ofs-. Watchers
VIII casting 01 Votes
11< Counting of Vole$
X Canvass and Proclamahoo
>'I P.e-Proclamat10n Controversy
XII Ellecllon Contests
>.Ill Eled.10n f f c n s ~ s
A. Defmltions.
1. Suffflge. the nght to vote tn the eledton of officers chosen by the
people and 10 tile determination of questions subm tted to I he people. lndudcs
wthtn 1ts 'scop&. elocllon, plebisote, in tiati've and referendum.
2. Eloctt:m: the means by wl11ch the choose their offiCials for
a definite ane fixed period and to whom they for the lime boing the
ot the powers of novemment Kmc!s
a) Regular; one provided by law for the olect100 of offiCers etther
Mhon-wide or In cenain subdivtSJOns thereof, alter the exptralion of the hill
term of the former offteers
b) on ld to fill a vacancy n o!!rcc bc'ore of
the fullterm fer which the tncumbent was elec:ed.
B. Theorie$ on Suffrage.
1. NatuntJ nght theory Suffrage ts a natural and inherent nght of ever1
ota:er. who IS not dtSQualifred by reason of his reprehensib!e conduct or
2. SOCia' expediency Suffrage tS a pubhc off1ce or ruocton conferred
upon the citazen f01 reasons of social expedtency; conferred upon thoSe wno
are frt and ca.pable of dscharging rt.
3 Tnbal theory: llts a necessary attnbute of membership n the State.
4. Feudal tneOty lt rs an adjunct of a particular status, generally tenurial
tn character, i e .. a vested prlvilegg usually aooompany1ng ownership or land
5 Ethical theory It is a necessary and essential means for the
development of societv
C. lbeory Pfevaillng 1n the Phff/ppines. Suffrage rs both a privilege and an

D. System of adopted in the Phillppmes: Stnce 1901, the
Australian sy5tem. !trst by Franc1s S Dutton, a member of the
legislature of 5outn Austrnha HlP. d1shngu1shtng of tho systl'm 1s strict
secrecy 1n bal ollng
E. Constirut"onal mandate on Congress [Sec 2. Art V. ConslltutiOil].
1 To a system for securmg the and of the ballot.
ano lor voting by oual:fted FiliPJnos abroad
a) Sec. 12, R. A 7166 provdes b 11otmg, but Is a;>Pbcable only
to the elea100s for the Pres1dent, President and Senators, and to
members of the Armed Forces ollh Ph ann the Phti!;!P!OC NatJOnal
Pollee aoo other g<,vemment officers and emplo ccs who ac du1y regiStered
voters and who, on elechon cay, muv tempor-rlly be asstgood 111 conne.:t'oo
-A ll'lthe performance of to places Nhete they are not regstared
bl f\ A 9189 {The Overseas Voting Act or 2003} au:lessed
the need for overseas Fthpmos to be able to vote in Phtltppme See
more detailed dtscusstOn
2 To Ce3'S}n a procedure for the diS<lbJed and tho illiterate o vot<> \\ tthout
It e ass:stance of other persons
F. Election period. Unless othei'Wlse fllfed by the Comelec 1n speoal
the election perlod shall commence 90 days befcre the day of the elechon end
shall end 30 days thereafter {SJC 9 Art.IXC, ConslllufiO'l}
A. Qualifications for suffrage: suffrage may te eKercised by 8/t c:mzens
or Pnillpptnes not othetw1so d,squat,rted by lav. , am at kJast etghteen
years of ago, and wflo shatJ have restaed in the PMppmes for at least one
ye:.w and 1n the wherem they proposo to vote for at feast SIX months
lnlmtKiistoly procedmg the electiOn No lllaracy, propeny. or othor substantive
roqulfl1mont stall be Imposed on the exeiClsu of suffrage /Sec 1, Art
1 Any person who transfers residence to another oty, muntCip.>hty or
country solely 1:y reason of hts occupatiOn, professton or employment In
or pUDIIC service educatlOfl, etc., shall not be deemeij to have lost h1s ongmal
restdence [Sec 117, B.P. 881}
2. In Makalintal v Cemo!oc, G R No 157013. July 3, 2003.
as unconstitutional was Sec. S(d) or R.A 9189 (The Overseas AbSentee
Voting Act of 2003). which provdos that among those d.squalified to vote ts an
mmgrant or a permanent restdcnl (of another country) who IS recog01zed as
such In the host country, unless he/she executes an affldavrt declaring the he/
she shall resume aclua/, physico/, permanenl residence , the not
later than three .-ears from approval of hts/hcr reg1stration under the said Act,
and that he/she had not app/IIKJ for ciltzenshp m another cxwntry . On thlS
challenge, the Supreme Court said that masmuch as the essence of R A. 9_189
is to enfranchise overseas qualified Fafq>:nos. the Court should take a holtstte
view of the perjnent provisions of both the Constitution and R A 9189.
law was enacted 1n ooe.san.:.e to tho mandate of the flt'St paragraph of Sec. 2,
Alt. V of the Constitution. that Congress prollide a system for vobng by
quaufed Filip nos abroact It must be stressed that Sec. 2 does not provide
ror the of tne exerose of legislative authority'" enactcng sad law
Hance, 1n the absence of restnctions Congress as presumed to have duly
exercised 1ts fuoct10n as defined mArt VI of tne Cons!Jtution
a) In thiS case, the Supreme Court contmued by sa)'lng that contrary to
the clai!ll of pe!1Loner, the exeClll.on Gf the afftdavtf tself s not thf!
or act The afftdavJt required s not only proof of the intention
of tmmtgrar.t 01' permanefl( :o go bnck and resume residency 10
tht! but more sognlf!Cantly, 11 servos as an PxpliCII expression that
OUl UME I R81l('WER l POlO IC.'1. L)dl
he had not n fad abandoned hiS dOOliOle o' ong.n 11 must be emphasized
that Sec 5(d) does not only reQUire an arfldav1t Of a promise to resume actual
physteal permantnt restdence In the Ph11pp nes 111ll Ia I"!! than three years
from the approvaJ of h!Siher regstrattOn", th F11tp100 abroad must also declare
that they have not applied ror atizensh p m another country Tlus they musl
return lo the Ph11ippmes 1he r failure to :etum snal' be cause lor the
removal of tl'leir names rom the NatiOnal Regrstry of aosentee voters and
t11s/hef petmanent dtSQuallflcattOn to vote 111 ebsenba'
B. DisquliflcatJons (Sec. B P 881)
1. Anv person sentenced by ftnat Judgment to sutfer 1mpnsonrMnl for not
less than one year (unless granted a plenary pardon or an amnesty). but nght
[s reacquired upon th'! of 5 vears after sef\ltee ol sentence.
2. A.ny person <tdJudged by finaltUdgmenl of rntvitlg commlttod any cnmo
mvolvu1Q :o the go11emme111 or any cnme agatnsl natonal secu:y
(unless restored to fu11 CIVIl and pohllcal nghts In aocordance wt!tl law), but nght
s upon he exp.rahon of 5 after ser Y"ic.e of senrence
3. Insane or neompetent persons as declared b( oompct nt authOnty.
C. of voters. It shall be duty c.r allen to rcgtsfer
and cast his voto /Sec. 4, 8 P 881} In oroer that a quallfiCd e ector may
vote In any ,.,edlon, plebiSCite or referendum, he must bt; rttgafltcred 10 the
Pennanent List of Voters for the dty or munopa tly in whach ho resides [Sec.
115. BP 881]
1 Registrahon dOes not con1er the nght lo it 1s but a cond11.J0n
preetldent to the of the right Regstrabon ts a mgulahon, not a
quahftealton [Yra v Abano 52 Phil 380}
2 General RegiStratiOn of \IOtets lmmcdlatety attor the t.arangay
eJections 1n 1997, u-.e oorllfted list or voters snail n!ase to be etfective
and operative. For purposes of the May 1998 eiP.ctions and all electJons.
plebisotes, re erenda. inttta!Jves and recalls subsequef.t thereto the ComeiPc
shall undenake a general regasllatlon of voters [Soc l , R A 8189 (The VoteiS
Regstrat10n Act o/1996)}
3 System of ContmUtng RegistratiOn. The personal fil1ng of applicatiOn
of r<!gtsuahoo of voers shall be cooouc1eo dary tn the offtee of the Elet.tJOn
OffiCer dunng regu
ar offce hours No rcgastr at10n shall, ho\ve11er, be condt.rt:ted
auriog the penod starttng 120 1Hys tx?lort- a regutar elochon and 9') dtiJ's
befoul a .. lect1on {Sec 8 R A 81BOJ
Dfft .m/.-ru'J Sl7
a) ln Alctlayan YocJfh v Comelee, GR. No. 147066, MarUI 26. 2001. tne
Supreme Cout upheld tho adion of the Comelec denying petit100ers' request
for two (2) adcitiOOal registratron days m order to enfranctuse more than 4 million
yo:.tth between the ages 18-21 Who fared lo regster on or before December
27, 2000 The JaN was slmpty followed by the Corneloc. and 11 is an accepted
doctnne m admtnrstrawe law thrllthe detenninal'On of adminisuatrve agenoes
as to the operatiOn, mplomentittlon and of a IJw as accorded great
WC!qhl. coosidenng ti'lat these speaalrzed govemmcn bodtes are, by th r
ntture and funCtiOnS, .n tne best poslt100to know ...,hat they can poss1bly do or
not do under prevailing circumstances
4 DsquafrficatiOn. same grounds as the dtSQuahf:cattOns for
5. tllltarsle or drsabled 110ters. Any tll:terate person may regrster w1lh the
assrstance of the EJectton Officer or any member of an accredited otiZen s
ams. The appllcalton lcr regiStration of a d1sabled person may
be prepared t:y any relative within the fourth etvil degree of c:oosanguinrty or
afftOity or by the ElecttOn Offteer or any member{'! an accred1ted atiZen s arm
'JSng the data supplied by tile applicant (Sec. 14, R A 8189)
6 Ef;)CtJOn Reg1strat.'011 BoarrJ {Sec 15, R.A 8189] There sha be in
each etty and rnunaapat1ty as many ElectiOn Boards as there arc
t:lechon officers therezn The Board shaU be .;omposed of the ElectiOn Off10er
8l> chai(ftlan, and as members. the publzc school offiCial most SC..f\fOI' in rank
and tho local :::ivil reg sttar. or 10 his absence, City or municipal treasure1.
No member of the Board shall be related to each other or to any 1ncumbent oty
or muniCip::tl elective offiaat withtn the fourth 01111 degree of coosangu11llly or
affimty. Evert registered party and such organ1za110ns as may be authoriZed
by the CommiSSion shaD be entrtled to a watcher In every regislmhon board
7. Chsllcnges to npht to tfX}Ister (Sec 18, R.A 8189/. Any voter,
candidate or representatiVe of a registered polztical party may challenge 1n
wnung any applcahon for reg1strabon, statrng the grounds therefor. The
chaneoge !>hall be under oath and attached to lhe applicatJon, together wtth
the proof of nGttce of hearlllQ to the chaUengcr and &he appfteanl. Oppositions
to contest regiStrant's apphcat100 :or inclusiOn 10 the voters' list most. 11'1 all
case3, be filed 1tot later than the Monday or the month in which lhe
same as SCheduled to oo heard or processed by the ElediOfl Reg1strat10n
Board The heanng on the challenge sha'l be heard on the third Monday of
Lhe month anc the deoSIOil snail be renderea before the end or the month
8 Dcact.-s!10n of R1...>grstratron (Sec 27 R.A 8189/ The Board shnll
deactwate the regostralion arl(l Jemove the reg1strat10n records of the follo\o\1ny
persons from the oorrespondtng preooct bOolc of voters and place the same,
proper1y martted and dated m mdehble ink. In the inacuve file atte entenng tr.e
cause or causes o! deacbvahon: [a]A;1y oerson who has been sentence by ftnal
1udgmen1 to suffer trT4>flsonment for nol less Ulan one year, such dtsabthty not
been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty. ProVIded howeva., that
any person dtsQuallfted to vote (because or lhts) shall automa11cat1y rec;CQwre
the nQht to vole upon ol ftve vears after SP.rvtce cf sentette as
coruf1cd by the cterks or courts (b) anv person whc. has been d.:ljudged by
final Judgment by a competent coun or tnoonal of havtng causedl commtted
any cnme tnvofvtr'lg dtsloyally to the duly coo .. llMed government, wch es
rcbttlhon, seu lion, violat"on :lf the ilOliSUb\:erSIOO and firet:rms laWS, Of pny
cnme against nahonal 5eQJnty. restored 1o full crvil and polihcal
nghts n accordance with raw. Frovided that he shall regalll nghl lo vote
automabe&lly upon expirauon of five years from servtce or sentence; any
person dedared by competent authonty to be tnsane or tncompotent unless
such dtSOuatftcallon has been subseQuently removed by a dedaraltOO or a
proper auUIOftly that such person ts no longer tnsane or :ncompetent. (d! any
puson who did not vote n the two successiVe J)fecedtng regular ele.::tl0r1s as
shown by thetr 10tmg recoros (for lhts purpose, regular electtOOS do nolndude
lt1e Sangguniang Kabataan elections) (e) any person whose reg.stratioll has
be .n ordered excluded by the court, <md (f] any person whO lias lost hts Flftptno
9. Reactivat1on of Regtsfration (Sec 28 R.A 8189) Any voter whose
has been deactivated may filt: Wtlh UW: ElectiOn Officer a
applicatiOn for reactJvanon of his regtSirabon n lhe fonn of an affidaVIt stahng
that lhe grounds fOt the Cfeactrvijtroo no lOnger extst any bul not later
than 1 ::>o days before a regular electton end 90 days befe<e a special electiOn.
The ElectiOn Offteer shall s:Jbmrt sucn apphcalton to the Electton Reaistrnuon
Board f()( appropriate ac:Uon
10 PreparatJcn Mel Post1fl9 of the Certtfted Usl of Voters {Sec 30 R.A.
8189/ The Bo:trd sha!J prepare and post a cenifted lis\ of voters 90 days
before a regutar alecdon and 60 aoys bef()(e a speoa1 etectiOn and fumtsh
OOC)IeS thereof to the provmcial, regaonal and nabooal central hies Copies of
the certlfted ltSt along wrth a hst of deadavated 1101ers categorizfld by preonct
per barangay shall also be posted in the office otthe Elect !On Officer and In the
bullqtin board ot each otylmuniopc;l hall
D. Inclusion and Exclusion proceedmgs
Commor mles govemmg Judctal proceedmgs m the ma:tcr of mcluSJOrl,
exCJUSIOfl and corredion of names of
OOlllNE I 1 tiOUTIC.Al V. ,,
a) PetJtJon ror mclusloo, exctus10n cr oorrechon or names of voters
filed during office hours
b) Notice of the place, date and time or the heanng of the petttiOn
shall be served uPOn the meml>ers of the Board and the challenged voter upon
(;ltng of Ole pet tJon.
c) A pelltioo refer ontv to one ptecmct and Shi:tll 1mplead tne
Board as re:;pcndents.
d) No costs shall be assessed agatnsl any party tn these procetldmgs.
However. f the court finds that thO appl.cahoo has been filed solely ro harass
the adverse pwty and cause h m to Incur elepenses. at shall order the culpable
patty to pay the costs and expenses
e) Any voter, candidate or pol1hcal party affected by thP. procee<!tngs
may mtervene and present his evidence
f) The shaH be based on the evidence presented and '" no
case rendered upon e sbpulelion of facts lithe question is whether or not the
voter IS real 01' f1Ctat10us. his non-appearance oo thn day set for heanng shall
be prima faCtO eVIdence that the challenged voter s fidallous.
g) The pehtton shall ba heard and WJthm 10 days from the
date or 1ts fil,ng Cases appealed to the RTC shall be decided w1than 10 days
from recetpl oflhe appeal . In all cases, tile r.oort shall decide these petitioos
not later than 15 days before the eledaon ano the doosion become final
and executofy
2 JunsdictiOn m lfJcluSIOn and exclusiOfl cases (Se<;. 33, R.A. 8189}.
The Munlopal and Metropolitan Tnal shall have ongnal and e)(dusivo
junsdld1on over all c-1ses or Inclusion and exdusion of voters 1n the1r respecttve
Clites and DeciS'Ons of the Municipal or Matroll()htan Tnal
Couns may be appealed by the pany to the RegiOnal Trial Court
Wtth'" fiVe days from receipt of nollce thereof. Otherwase. said d6CIS!On shall
and executory. The RTC shall decide lhe appeal withm 10 days
from the 1 me 11 tS received and the deosioo shan immedl3tely become final
and executory No mooon for reQ>nsideration shall be entertatned.
3 Petition lor lndUSIOfl {Sec 34, R.A 8189). Any person v.hose
apphcat1011 for registration has been disapproved by the Board or whose name
has been strid<en out from the llsl may file wtth the court a petition 10 1nctude
hts mune m the permanent hst of voters 1n hts precinct at any time except 1 OS
pn()( to a regular elechon or 75 days pnor to a spocial efectlon II sh<JI., be
sup'lOfted by a cenificate of disapproval or hs appl.caoon al'ld proof of
or notice or his peltlion upon ttle Board The petition shall be decided Wllhtn
IS days after filng
4 Felltlor. for EJCcJUSIOn (Sec 35 R.A 8189}. Any registered voter.
represcntatNe of a pohtical party or the Etectaon Offcer. may file w1th the court
- - --- ---
a SWt.m pet1oon fOf the cxdusion ot a voter from the pem13nent hst of voters
giving the name, address and the precmct of the challenged voter at any lin c
except 100 d:Jys pnor to a rcgul3r electiOn or 65 days poor to a speoat elediort
Too pellhon shall be accompal'lecJ by proof of notiCe to the Board and 10 the
cnal'enged votm and be decided Wlthan tO davs trom Is r.ltng
E. Annulment of Booll of Voters fScc 39. R.A 8t89J. Hm CommiSSIOn
shall. upon venf1ed peiii!Cifl of ar f or electiOf'l off;ccr or ouly feglstered
poi11Jeal party, and after notace and heanng, annul any book of thai iS
not prepared 111 accordance wfth lhe prov.soos of law, or was prepared
through fraud, bouery, f()(gery .mpersonatoo. tntimidation, fc.roe or any sam tar
irTegulanty, or which oontaJns data thai are st.atlsbcalty improbable. No order.
ruhng or oeos.on annul ng a book of voters st:.all be exeruted w1th111 90 days
before an election.
1 However the annulment of ti'IC hst of voters Shall not CC'f\Shtcte a
grouoo fo- a Dte-oroclamation contest (Ututalum v Comeloc, 181 SCRA 335]
A. Party System A free and ooen party system shan be allowed to
according to the free cnotce or the people [Sec. 2(5), Art IX C. Const.tution/
1 No v.>tes cast tn fa \/Of' of a political party, orgarnzation or coaf!l'()('l shall
be valid, except for those registered under too party-list system as provided in
the Consl.ltuton [Sec. 7, Art. IXC}
a) Party-Lrs\ Svstem The party-lsl system Is a mechanism of
proportional representation in the elect10n of representatives to tho House of
from national. regtOnal and sectoral parties or organiZations
or ooalttioos llefeof registered wllh the Commtssion on Elections {RA 794 t I
'2 Political partes regtstered under the partyusl system sha!t be entitled
to 3ppomt po.f Hatchers in accordance with law [Sec. 8. Art. IXC}
3 Party-list representahves shall conshtute 7.0% or the total number of
representatives tn the House or RepresentatiVes (Sec. 5(2). Art VI)
8 Political Party
Defmtion! [See R A 794 t {The PortyUSl System Act)}
a) A party means etther a political pan,. or a sectoral partv m B
caaJ.Ieon of
b) Apolttical party refers to an organr.:ed group of ouzens advocnt1ng
an Ideology c.r platform, pnnop:cs and policies fOI' the general conduct
of govemmen anc:J which. as the most tmmedtate means of secunng their
adopbon, reguarty nomsnates certain or ts teaders and members as candidates
ror public otra. It is a national oartv when Its oor.stJtuency is spread ovet the
geographical tem10fy of at least a maJOOtY ot the regions It is a rewooal party
wht>n its oonslluency is spread over the geographiCal territory of at least a
maJority of the and prOVInces com:Yismg the region
c) A 58Ctoral party refers to an organ1zed group of Citizens belonging
to any of the folbWtng sectors labor, peasant fishertolk. urban poor, indigenous
CIJiturat commll'l hcs, elderly. t:antlicapped, women. youth, veterans, overseas
workers and profesSIOnals. whose pnnopal advocacy pert::t1ns to the speoal
tnterest and concerns of their sector
d) A sedoral orgamzation reters to a group of otizcns or a coallhon
of ol cit.zens who share s1m1lar physac:al attnbutes or Characteristtcs,
employment. m.erests Of conr.erns
e) A coalition refers 10 an aggnJpattOn of duly regiStered national,
regeonal, parttes or o;-gan1Zahon5 f<>r pohtical and/or election
2 Reg1stmt101l In order to acqutre Jundcal personality as a polthcal
party, to entitle tl to the and pov1leges granted under the Constitution
and the laws, and '" order to pa:1tcipate in the partylists sys.em. the group
must regtster With the on ElecttOOS by fihng Wttt'l the t;ometec
not later than 90 days before the election a verified petatton staling 1ts
to patbapatc 1n the patty-41St system as a national. rE"giooal. sectt"f'al party 01
organlzatton Of a coalitiOn of such par11es cwgana.abons
a) Groyos wbjch cannol 'be as ochltcal oaOJes () AJiigtOUS
deOOMinations Of sects; (ii) those wtlO seek 10 achieve thesr goals tnrough
V)Oien.c.e ex unlawful means, [mj those who re' Jse to uphold and aohere :o the
Constrtuhon, and [iv) by ICtt.:Jgn governments {Sec Arl
b). Grounds for cancetiJllkm o' reg.strat!On Acceptrng finandal
cootnbutiOOs from foc'eign govemmeots or lhetr agendas (Sec L-(5}. Art IX-C/
Under. R A. 7941, the Comelec may motu proplo or upon a vet red complamt
of any mterested party. refuse 01 cancel , after doe notiCe and hearing, the
regiStration of any natiOnal, regionJ! or sectoral party, organaat10n or coalition
on any of the following grounds [1) It IS a rehgous sect or denomrnatton,
organizatlOfl or assooatlon organ zed ror purposes, fttltt aovoca:es
violence or unlawful means to seek tts goal, (if) it ts a foretgn party or
\>fganrzaton (rv]1t IS recemng suppcrt from any foretg, QO'J mment, foretgn '
poii11C81 pany, foundation, organa.aoon, whetht:r or through any o: Its
offiCers or members. or Indirectly through thtrd parties. for parttsan electtOO
purposes; (v] rt v!OOltes at fails to comply with laws. rules or regulations rela1sn{j
to elections; [VIl It dedares untruthful statements 1n ts petrtron. (vn) 11 has
oused o eXiSt for at least one year. and [VIitl iC faits to parttOpate tn the last
two praceding electio4as, or faits to obtam at least 2'% of the votes cast under
the party-list system in the two precedtng elections for the con-;17tuency lf'l
whiCil Jt was registered,
3 Nom111at10n of party./1st representatiVes. etc .. Read R A 79( 1 See
4 Aurhonty of tne CommiSSIOII on flowtllQ from 1ts
constitutional powet to enforce and admrnister all laws regtAattons relat;ve
to the conduct of the election and 1ts power to mgtSier and regulate polrttcal
pafttes, the CommtSSIOn on Electrons mav resolve rratters tovolv1ng the
ascertarnment af the identJty or the political pany and Its legitimate omcers
fl-Bban ng Pfltpino v Comoloc. G" No. 161265, February 24,
A. Oullficrions
1 Ouahfcattons prescribed by l:lw are contmumg requ rement! and
must be possessed fOf the durobon of the oft'teer s delrve tenure Once any
of the required QualificatiOns 15 lost , h s title to he offtOe may be seasonabiy
chalenged. See Fnvslc1o...: Comelec, '174 SCR.4 245, LabO 'I Ccmelec 176
SCRA 1). I
2. WOOt1 should the qualifiCationls be po$$0SSed. The Loca Government
not specify any date '*"en 'he candidme mtJSI possess
Fihpno Philppne otazenshtp is required to ensure that no alien shal
govern OIJr pe"pJe Ao offlCial beg ns lo govern 01'\ty upon hiS proclamatiOn and
on tne day that has term beg1ns Smce Fnvaldo took hs oath of aflcganoe on
JUJ'M! 1995, when hts application for repatriahon W3S granted by the Speoal
Comm1ttee on Naturnhzatoon crea!ed under PD 875, he was, therefore. qualtfied
lobe prodamP.d and to assume office. Sec. 39 of the Local Government Code
speakS of qualiflcatiOfls of etectJva nNiCials. not of candidates. Furtl'lermOle,
repatnation retroads to the date of the or hiS apphcauon (!or repatnat
onAugust17. 1994{Fnvsfd0 v. ComeJec. 257 SCRA 721/
B. Drsqullflcattons
Under the Omnibus ElecttOtr Code {R P. 881/
a) Oedared as tnrompe:em or msane by competP.I'\1 authonty
b) Sentenoed by final Judgment tor subven10n, 1nsurred10n, rebelhon Of
any offense lot which he has been sentet'lelkl to a penalty of mt>Je than 18
months inlprrsonmen,
c) Sen,enced b)' rmal Judgment Of a c:nmc mvol..r.oq moral turprtudc
r) In VNiaber v. ComeJcc, G R No 148326. November 15, 2001. 11
was held that VIOiaboo of Balas No 22 tS a cnmc nvolvtng moral
turprtude, because the accused knows at the lime of the I!:Suance of tne ched<
that he does not have funds n, or cred1t w1th, the drawee bank fOf
the payment of the mecJt, tn full upon presentment A conviction thereof shows
thai the accused IS gutlty o1 deceit. and certainty relates to and affects thP. good
mornl of the person
--- ----------------
iii Violaton of tnc Anti -Feoong Law 1nvotvcs moral turpttU<Je,
and the onl y legal effect of probnhon i s to suspend the ImplementatiOn of the
.sentence. Tl1l.ls, ltle diSQualtficabon still subststs {De Ia TomJ v Comeloc, 258
SCRA 483] Thts ts modified by Morono v Comalec. mrra.
d) Ally person who ts a permanent resident or Of' an tmmtgrnnt to a
IOfotgn country (unless he has waved his st.-1tus as such) (Sec 68. B P. 881).
See Csssi v Comeioe, 191 SCRA 229. wnerc tho Supreme Court said that a
green card" G ample proo( that the holder thereof ts a penMocnt resident of.
or an to the Uncted States
2. Under the Local Government Codo [Sec. 40, R.A. 7700/ Applicable to
C<)Odldates fey local electJve offiCe ooly
a) Tnose sentenced by finaftudQment far an offense oun.shab!c bt
0011 yeac Q( more O[ witbtO lWO years aftpr gn!P.nce
i} Even ' the candida!e as under probahon, the disquahf.cation
stn subsasts, because the effect of the probat1on is only co suspend the
or the senteooo {De Ia To"e v Cometec. supra}. Thrs 1s
modified by Moreno v Co,roorcc, GR. No. 168550, August 10, 2006, whero tho
S tpreme Cocn. ot ng Badayon \1 Ml1tia. said that probation is not a sentence
betas rather. ll'i effect, a suspenS1oo of the 1mposltion of the sentence The grant
of pmbaton co petitioner suspended the 1mpos1tbn of the ponctpal penalty of
at. well as the ac.Gessory penalties or uspenslon from pubtc
off.ce ano fr0r.1 the nght to follow a profesSIOn or calhng, and that of perpctu.11
Sp.JCt<'ll dasquaJ,ficaliOn frOfn the nght of Thus, during the period of
probation. the probationer IS not disquat1fied from running for a pubiJc offiCe
Mcause the accessory penalty or disqualrfteahou from publiC office Is put oo
hold for the dcratron of the probatlon. Futthermore, tn the case of Moreno. the
In& court had already I$SU8d an order finally dtschargtng htm, and under Sec
16 of the Probation final diSCharge of the probationer sha!l operate to
restore to him all c:ivtl rights los1 or suspended as a result or his convidion, and
to fully his liability tor any fine lfllPOSetJ as to the offense tor whct'l
the probation Nas granted
b) ThoSE removed from office as a resull of an admlo!StrntJYe caw.
l) In Grego v Comoloc, G.R. No. 1259!>5, June 19, 1997. it
held that an eective local offalll who was removed from office as a result cf
an adfTllnistraive case pool' to January 1, 1992 (the date of effectivity of the
Local Government Code). is not dtsquahfied from ruoorng for an elective local
public off tee, because S4lC 40 of :he Local Government Code cannot be gtven
retroact1vt: er.ect.
i) In Reyes 11 Comelee. 254 SCRA 5t4, the Supreme Court ruled that
the petrtioner. a Municipal Mayor who had been ordered removt.'<l from offiCe
by the Sanggunlan Panlalawigan. was disqualified, even es h alleged that
:nc deCISIOn was not f nal because he had not yot received a copy ot tho
decisron, i rasmoch as II was .shown thai he merely to
of the copy of the dcCISIO:l.
c) Those coomted by rmal !ucJgrnem 101 V!Ointillsl the oa!D or alleg!i!xe
10 !he Reoubflc of !he Phllroprnes.
d) Those With dual C!hzensh1o
i) In Mercado v Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, rerteratoo 1n Valles v
Cornelec, G.R. No 131000, August 09. 2000. the Supreme Coort danfied
roc dual citizenship dsquatrfication and reoonoleti the saroo wrth Sec. 5,
Al1 tV of the Constittrtlon oo dual snu:utOns rn
Which a F'rliptno may, Without perfomung any act c;,no as an involuntary
conseQuence of the conOctrng laws or different cour tnes. be nlso ;. CitiZen of
another State. the Court that dual crtrzenshtp as a dlsquahflcation
must refer to otzens With "dual allegtance" C ; nseq1.1enlly, pef'SOnS with mere
dual citrzensh1p do not fall Linder tho diSQua ific:atron
n) Furthermore. lor candieates wtlh dual cillzenstup, 111s 'lnough that
tlicy e ecc Phthpp1ne CII1Zensh1p Upcl n the fihng of the" certtlica:e o: to
their status as pet5ons wttn dual Clt!Zenshtp. The fihng of st r.ertiftOAte
of candidacy to renounce foretgn otzenshtp, efrecttYely removing
an> d&SQualtrlCatiOo as dual Cit zen. ThiS is oo, because tn the cerMcate of
candidacy, one declares that he 1! a Fihplt'.o otJzen. ao.:l 11\at he support
and defend lite ConstitutiOn and wilf true farUl and allegaance to the
same Sudl dedatalion under oath as an effective renuncwtion of
foreign citizenship (MercadO v Manzano. SlJPf8 J
. 111) However, '" thu case of a fomtel F, ltptno who lost
dt&Zenship and thefeafter reacqwes It by laUlg the Odlto of allegance as
reqwred n R.A 9225. he must PflfSOOBiy swear to an oath renouoong all
foregn at the t1me of tho filtog of the t:ertlfiC3te of candidacy.
The mere fihng of the certfrcate of candidacy as not sufficrent. because Sec
5 (2) of R.A. 9225 categoncally requ.res the 1ndrvtdua1 to state rn dear and
unequi'IOCat terms that he 1s renounong all foreign curzenshtp, fa.bng which
he IS rfiSQuahfted from runnong ror an eledrve office {Lopez Comelec. GR.
No 182701, JUit 23. 2008, tn Jacot v Del and Come/ec, G R. No
179848. November 27, 2008)
e) fuoj1M:S from lusttce 10 cnmrnal an<! non:(]Qf!l!Cal case here and
A uglllvto from justtee", as cefmed by the Supreme Court In Marquoz
v Comelec. ?43 SCRA 538, "'inctuoes not orly tho..c:e WhO nee after
to avoi punishment. but ILke-Mse Who, after being charged, flee :o avoid
prosecurron Rodnguezcannot be considered a "fugitive from JUSI!ce
hrs arrival tn the Philpprnes from the U S. preceded the fihng of the felon)'
n the Los Angeles Court and the 1ssuance of the arrest warrant b)'
the same court. by almost five months {ROdriguez v Come!ec. GR.
No. 120099, July 24, 1996}.
f) permanent cesJdeQts to a forel<lo countrv or those have
aoaujred the ooht to resjde abroad and contmue to avail of the same naht after
lbe..etfectjyrty or the Local Government Cocfe.
i) In Cassiv Comelec, 191 SCRA 229. the Supreme C<lurt
that possessron of a "green card"1s ample ev1denc.e to 5hoW that the person IS
mm1grant to, or a permanent reSident of, the United States of AmerlCa.
g) roose Who are msanc or lqeblemtnded
3 AadttiontJI grounds lor dtsquaiJ'icntiOn (Sec. 68 BP 881} After
having filed a certifiCate of candidacy. lhe fOllowing shall be
continuing as C<lOdldate, or 1 he has been clecled. from holdmg the off.ce.
a) One who has grven or other material considemlion ro
Influence. tnduce or corrupt the voters or publ c offioats performing electoral
b) One who oommittcd acts of terrorrsm to enhance hts candidacy.
c) One who spent in h1s eledton campaign an amount tn excess of
lht>t allowed by the Code.
d) One' who has soliCited, received or made oontnbutJoos
under Sec 69 (transportation. food and dnnks). Sec. 95 (publ1c or pnvate
rmanoal tnsttuttOilS, publiC uttltttes or eJ<plotlation of natural resources.
contractors of pUblic wens or oilier government contracts; lranctuse holders or
concessionatres; educattOOaltnshtuuons reccivtng grants lrom the govemment.
offiCials of the Ctvil Ser\ltee or the AFP, forcrgners or corporations).
Sec. 96 (fore.gn-sourced contribuhons). Sec 97 (ratSing or funds tnrough
lotler.es. cockfights. box1ng bOUts, o.ngo, teauty contests, etc ) and Sec. 104
(prohrbrtE'd co'llrtbutcons to churche<o, sdlOOlbuildtngs roads, bndgcs. medal
CllllteS e:c )
e) One who has viOlated the prov1501s or Sec 80 (campaign
penoo), Sec 83 (removal. destructon of lawful eiecttOn propaa&nda), Sec 65
(prohibled forms ot Pfopaga0<1a) Sec 66 (regula10n ol propngaoda lhrough
mass mecha} In Pangkat Loguna v Comefuc, GR. No 148075. Febru.Jry
" 2002, the Supreme Court held that the acts of Laguna Governor Lazaro to
ordenng the purcnase of troptucs, basketballs. voUe)'ba'l, c.hessboard sets
anJ the dtstnbulion of medals a:ld ptns to variOUS schools, dtd not constitute a
VIOiauon of Sec 80 on premature campatgnlng Respondent Lazaro not
1n any way dtrectly Of indirectly soflot1ng votes. she was merely porlormsng
the duti8S and tasks tmposed upon her by law. whidl She had s-worn to
l)effOfm as Governor or _aguna
f) (.ne who haS Vlolatlld the pt'OVISIOO$ of Sec 261 (CJedfOrt oll'enses)
C. of Candidacy.
1 Enect of lt/,ng certJtteate of candidRcy
a) Offtoals holding apDO!oUye offices, !l!Ciudoo acttve members
of AFP and otfteen; or govemment"i)Wfled or -controf!t:d
be considered ll&Q facto resaoed (Sec. 66, B.P 881} In PNOC Energy
De11elopment CorporatiOn v NLRC. G R No. 1()()947, May J7, 1993, it v.as
l"'cld thot this sec1100 appl1es even to employees o 90'/ernmcnl-owned 0(
controlled corporabons w.thout an ongmdl charter
2. Formal defects tn the cert1fcare ot candidacy
a) While the cer11fteate of candidacy IS reqwred to oe under ooth,
the electton ol a candidate cannot be annulled on the SOle ground or formal
defects in hs cer11f.cate, sud'! as lad< of the requll'ed oath [De Guzman v
Boerd CBnV8SS61S,. 48 Phil 211)
b) In Juril!a v Comelec, G R No 105435, June 2. d was held
lhal the omtSSlOf'\ by the candidate (fOt Couna!Of .n Quezon Crty) to 1nd1cate
1n h1s oeruftea1e of candtdacy his proonct number and the particular barangay
where l"le 1S a reg1stered voter, Is not suffiCient groond to d:sQuahfy the
candidate, because the Local GovcmfTient Code does not reQu1re these data
to be m certJfK:ate IllS enough thai Mrs a regstered voter'" the
precinct where he tOlends to vote whcn ShOuld be v.itn10 the dtstncl where he
IS runnng for 'lfttce
3. Death, d,sauaftficat1on or \'llltdrawal of CBndi(Jafe II after the last day
for the fthng ot cert.r.cates of ca!lddar.y u omoal cal"'dldate of a reqtstered
.. . ------------------___ s_1_ ,,
politiCal party d.es, withdraws or IS cftSQuabfled for any only a person
be:ongnlQ to and certf.ed by the same pohhcal party may file a cert.lftCa'e of
candidacy r01 the cthc:e not latllr than md.doy of lhe day of the clectton {Sec.
77. B P 881/
a) In Luna v. GR. No 165983, Apti124, "2007. Luna 1 ed
h<>r certificate of candidacy tor the pos1h0n or V.ce-Ma}'Of' of Lagayan, Abra,
substitute for Hans Roger who Withdrew hts COC. Private respondei'lts
challenged the va idity of the substttution. alleging that Hans Roger was ooly
20 years old and, therefore, dtSQuahfled to nm for VICe Mayor: acc:ordtngly, .no
cannot be substJMed by Luna The Supreme Court ruled ltlat tho substitution
was valid, When a candidate files hs COC. the Comclee has only a ministenaJ
duty to receive and acknowledge Its recepl pursuant to Sec. 76 of the Omntbos
EJectiOn Code SI008 Hans Withdrew h15 COC. and the Comelec foond that
Luna compfiei1 With all tne procedural reqUirements for a valid substitutiOn,
tuna could vllhdly substitute for Hans Roger
of Certiftcato of CnndldllCY The withdrawal of tne
cert1flcate of candidacy Shall effect ltle dtsquitliftcahoo of the candidate to be
elacted for the poSllion (Ycam v Cnr.eja, 81 PM n3}. The withdrawal or ttle
Withdrawal, for the purpose Of revJVIn9 tile certificate of muSt be
made wthln tne period proVIded by law for the filing of certificates of cand1dacy
(Munsale v Nioo, 83 Pht7 758/
a) There Is nottung to Sec. 73. B.P. 881. whiCh mandAtes that the
affidavit or wrthdrawal must be filed wrth the same office 'Nhefe cerl1f.eate
of candidacy to be Withdrawn was fi
ed Thus, it can be flied directly with
the maln offtee or the Comelec. offce of reg100al eleCtion d1redor
concernt::d. tt.e off.ce of the prowlCial erect'on $upervisor of lhc province to
which the mtMlicipahty belongs. or the offtee of the municipal election officer of
thP. m:sncipal.ty Accordingly, tn thiS case, t111e Supreme Court held that there
was \'tllld wtthdrawaJ by pelJtiOOef or her cert1ftcate of candidacy fOf Mayor of
Baybay, Leyte (Loreto-&> v. Comelec, G.R. No. 147741, May 10. 2001] ..
5 Ftlmg of two certificates of candodacy When a person files two
ccrtif1cates of candidacy for d1!terent offices. he uecornes tneliglble fOt e1ther
pos1t1on [Sec 73, B.P. 881). He may Withdraw one of hs certifiCates by fihng
<:1 sworn declaratiOn wrth the Commsson before the deadline for the fihng of
cert1f.cates of caodtdacy. In l oreto-Go v Comelec, supra., the pettlioner filed
two cenfiC3tes. ooe fOf Governor of Leyte, and another for Mayor of Bayoa'j.
Levie W1th the Supreme Court o.t:ng that she had vafidiy withdrawn her
c.er11ftr..atn of candidacy lor Mayor of Baybay. shf. was lhllrefore. considered a
bOna fidt: candidate fOf Governor LeylP.
6 Duty olthe Come fee Subject to 11s aulhonty over nuiSance can<Ma:es
and tls power to oeny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under
Sec 78, B P 881, the Comclec shan ooly the rrunistenal dutv 10 reoo.ve
acltnOW!edge receipt of rhc cP.rlll cates cl car7cfldacy fSPc. 76. 8 P 881/
a) As early as 10 Abcece v Jmpenal, 103 Phl/136, lht: Supreme Coun
said that the Commrssoon has rlO drscreuon to gwc or not to crve due course
to a certrf>eate or canordacy filed in due form. \Vhde the Commlssron may
rnto patent 111 the certificate, it may not go into mattOfs no1 appeannQ
on therr face
b) Accordrngty lhP. Cotnf.lec may not, by rtself, Without proper
procee.frngs, deny due oourse lo or cancel a cenmcate of candidacy hied ro
due fonn Sec, 78, B .P 881 , which treats of a petJtion to d&ny due course to Of
cancel a ceruftcatP of cand:tacy on the ground that any matcnal representatiOn
therein is false. requrres that the candrdate must be notrfied or tha pehtion
hrm. and he sholJid be gwen the opponumly to present evidence In h1s
behalf {Ctpriano v Comelcc. GR. No 158830 August 10, 2004/
7 tnstanef'!s when the Comelec may go beyond thr- lace of tt1e ;:erttficare
ot candrdacy
a) Nwsance candidates {R.A 6646]. The Comelec may motu prop10,
or upon venfled pelltiOfl of an Interested party, refuse to give du:- course to or
cancel "' certificale of candidacy rf tl IS sl'lowr that the said celliflcate 'NtiS
filed (I) To put the election P"'Ce!.S rn mockery or drsrepute. (ir) To cause
the voters by lh9 srm1lanty of the 1\C!mes of the regstered
canchjates; ot (111) By OthCf cm:umstL.nccs or acts which Clearty de'llonstrae
lhal the candidate h3S no bona fide mtentJon to run for the offJCe for wnic.h the
ceruncate has been filed. and thus prevent a f;uthlul determ1nat100 of the true
W111 of the eleCtorate
i) The Pl'OCfamal.lon of the w.nr.mg candidat' renders rmot end
academic e motion tor recons10e1a1100 fried oy a canaldate Who had been enl'lief
dedared by tf'le Come lee to be a nuesance candl(jate (Garcta v Comelec G.R
No 121139 July 12. 1996}
b) Pe11t1on to deny due CXJUISII or to canGel :1 certtflcalo of r.and1da;-y
A venfied pebtiOn 1>e ftled exclusively on the that any matenal
representation contamed n tl'le as required see 74 is
The pcblton may be tiled no! later than 25 days from the bme nf the filing of the
certrfrcato of candtdacy, .and shall be deeded, after due nottce and heannq, not
later tl"&Un 15 days before the elecl.on {Sec 78 B p 881)
1) Junsdldron over a petr1100 to cancel a certificate uf candidacy
It s ...,,,h the Comelec in dMslon, not with tho Cometec en bane (Garvida v.
Sse.s. GR. /Jo 122872, SoptPmber 10. 19f17/ To denv d1.1e course or to
cancel a certf1cate of candrdacy cntaus the exercise by the Comelec of 1ts
quaSlJudlcaal no! simply tts adm:nistratrvo, pow.1rs Hence, tho Court may
only compel tne Cometec to exercise 1ts lJisuetion and resolve the matter lx.lt1t
may not tho manner of such d.screhon (Quizon v Comelec,
'i R No. rn927, FebftJDry 15. 2008/
In W/aber v. Comelee, G.R. No. 148316, Novem06r 15, 200 r,
respondent Douglas Cagas fileo a petlt10n for the cancellation of petitioner 's
certificate of cancftdacy on the ground thai the latter made a false material
representation in his certJf.c;;ate when he sard lhat he is et.gibte for the office
sought to be etected to since he had been convicted of viOlating B.P 22. a
criiTIB morallurpitude
ur) In Loong v. ComeiBC, 216 SCRA f60. 1t was held that the
petition for the canoellat10n of the certificate of candidacy of Loong for a!leged
misrepresentation as to his age, filed by Ututalum beyond the 2!>-<Jay period
!rom the Last cay for fihng certificates of candidacy cannot be 9111en due course.
Nerhef can It be treated a QOO warranto petlbon s1nce tnere has been no
proclamation yet The ru11ng 1n Fnvaldo v Cometec cannot be invoked. because
in the IaUer case, the ground for disquahrreahon was citiZenship (As pointed
out by Jusllce Gutierrez '" h1s concumng optn10n, where the drsquahficabon
s based on age. or any or the othor grounds for inetrg1bllity, the
prescriptive penod should be applied str:ctly.J
r.) A facslmate of a pet1tron for .s not a genUine
plead1ng, 11 1s not sanctiOned by the Comelec Rules or Procedure. Thus, the
Comclec should not have acted on It, but shOukl have awarted receiPI of lhe
ongmal petit;on filed through regrstered mail {Garvida v. Safes, 271 SCRA
c) FrUng of a disquaTification C8se on any cf the grounds enumerared
m Sec 68, 8 P 881
r) The junsdJctJOn or lhe Comelec to drsquallry candidates IS
limited to those Pnumerated in Sec 68, B.P 881. All other election offenses
are beyond the ambit of the Comele.: Ttley are crtm1nal and not
adminrstrative 10 nature, and the power of the Come/ec over such cases IS
confined to the cc.nduct of pre m1nary on ltle alleged electiOO
offense for the purpose of prosecuhng the alleged offenoors before the courts
of justoce [Corlllla v Come/er:, G R. No t 50605. DeGember lO. 2004)
F.lf" ,, ... ! w..,
n) Under Section 2. Cclmelec ResolutiOn No 205tl, the Cometec
s mandated to dtsmtss a comp1a.n1 for lhe of e cand!date
who has teen charged wrlh an eJectron ol'fense but v.ho has atre.ldy been
proda1med as tte wmoor by the Mun ctp-31 Boc:rd of Canva!:Sers In thJs CAse,
the pelltioPets had already been proclamed N nners on May 18, 2001, and the
pnvale respondents riled therr complatnl for the disquahfreat:.on of pehhoners
only on Jun'! 23. 2001 The Cometec found probable cause aga1nst the
oetrtoners for the offense Charged. and d'recte<l Its Law Department :o rrl the
appropnale lnfori'TUIItaon, Clearly, then, the Cotr.elec committed grave abuse
of disereuon amounting to lack or exc:es$ of Junsdlctl0f1 wnon 11 issued the
assa11ed resolutiOn dtSquahfy1ng the pehhoners from lthl lhey were
respectively elected to {Aibana G R No 163102, July 23. 2004)
8. Efrect of dlsqua1JfiC81101l case Any candidate who has be6n oecwed
by frnal jvdgment to be dr.;qualrfred shall not ba voteo 101, and tilt! votes cast fOf
h1m st .all not be coun!ed If for any reason a is not declared by f1n;JI
Judgment before an election to be dsqual fted and he 1s voted for and receiVes
the wtnnlng n'Jmber of votos 1n such electiOn, the Cocrt or CommiSSIOn shall
continue With the tnal and heanng of the actiOn, lt'ICUII'Y or protest and. upon
motiOn of the compla.nant or any Intervenor, may dunng the pt!ndency thereof
order the suspenSion of the prodamabon of such (:C!ndidate whenever tho
evidenl.E! of hts gu l11s strong (Sec 6, R.A 6646).
' u) Note that ltlo can suspend proclamaton only when
evidence of the wmning candidate's gu11t is strong fCcdtUa v. Comelec,
b) The use of lhe word may 1ndrcates that the suspension of the
prOClamation IS nwrety permrssive If the Comelec does not find any sufficient
ground to suspend proclamation. a prodamaron may be made (Grego v
Comelec. 274 SCRA 481)
CJ the decision of the COmelec diSQualifying the candidate is
not yet final and exe<:utory on election day, the Board of EJecttOI' tn!.pectors
IBEI), tn the exercrsc of 1ts ffilncsten.ll dut), 1s under to COl.lnt and
tany the YOtes cast '" favor of the candidate /Papandayan v Comeloc. G.R
No 147909, ApnJ 16 2002)
d) ln Ortega ., Comeloc. 2H SCRA 297, companiOn case to Labo
v It t: Supreme COUrt held that 11 Is 1ncorrec1 to .rg e that s.nce
a candidate ha ... been d1squaltf1Cd, the votes tntelldea for tne d1squahfted
candl(lato should, m enect, be considered null r1d void. Thts amount
to the electorate '" whom sovere1gnty resides lt )( x The
f]t'LIH.llf Loon
"'!9 would have been different if the electorate. tully DWilfS in fact in Ia""'
of a candidate's d1squahf cahoo, so as to bnng suctt awareness within the
realm of notoriety, woo!d nonetheles' cast the1r votes in favor of the inehgl>lc
canc:lidatt. 1n suctl case, tne electorate may be said to have waived
valid1ty and e!fteacy of the r votes by noloriously n IS8pplying their franctuse
or tt'lrowmg aNay lhctf votes, 1n which case tho eltgtble candidate obtarntng
the next htghest number of YOtes may be deemed elected (Note that In lhtS
cose. the Cometec resok.lt oo dtSQualifytng Labo had not yet become fnaJ on
the day of the electiOn J This was reiterated in Aquino v, Comeloc. 248 SCRA
400. wttere the Supreme Court said that If Aquino wete d1squahfed before the
electJons. the votes tor hm. given the acr1mony wh1ch attended lhe campa gn.
would not h<l\'9 automatically gone to secc>nd-pfaoer Syjuco. same mte
was applied an NoltJsco v Comek.">C, 275 SCRA 762, Sunga v. Com6kc, 288
SCRA 76. and Cod11a v Cometec. supra .
e) In Aznar v Ccmelcc. 185 SCRA 703, 11 was held that a petition for
diSQualificatiOn cannot be treated as a petllton for QUO warranto as the fonner
is unquestiOnably p(ematOie.
r) In Maxos v ComeJec 248 SCRA 300, 11 was held that Sees. 6 and 7.
R.A. 6646, in relation 10 Sec 78, B.P. 881, shQw that the Comelec does not
lose jurisdiCtion even w1th the lapse of the period provided 1n Sec. 78, B P
881. 11 IS settled dOCtrine that a statute requtnng rend1t10n of judgment within
a pertod 1s generally construed to be merely directory
g) In Nolasco v Comei9C, 275 SCRA 762, 1t was held that by vrtue or
the 001\StttutiO'\al grant of plenary authonty to the Comelec, it has jurisdiction
ove.- proclamattOO and diSQualificatiOn cases, and tho Comelec may not be
hamslrung by rts own procedwe ln Resotuhon No. 2050. even If lhe petition
for IS f"-00 after the etectioo. These petJtlons ror disQuaflfcation
am sub;oct to summary heanng.
A Election Cllmpaign or political ctivlty Read Sec 79, BP
Eloc'!On campa'!}n o p8f11san tty refers to an at I de sag ned
to promote the election or defeat of a par11cufar candidH!e or candidates to
publiC OffiCe
a) It done for the purpoSP of enhanong the of. SPtr<mts for
oomanatJoo lor candidacy to a pUbiJC offtee by a po(ltical party, etc , it shall not
be considered as eJed.on campa19n or partisan political actvty
D) II shan De unlawful for nny person or any oarty t'l engage in election
campagn o partasan pohllc.ll actr111y e.xC'ep1 dunng the campa gn period {Sec
80, BP 881}
1) The essential elements for vaolahon of Sectton 80 are. [a) a
person engages In an election campaign or partisan pol tiCal actiVtly as defined
tn Sedaon 79 (b) the act is des.gned to promore the e!ect10r1 or defeat of a
panicularcandidate. and [c) the act 1S done outside the ;>efiod [Lanot
v Comelec, GR. flo 164858, No11cmbe.r 16, 200f)
P) In thiS case. Henry Lanot, a candidate fOt Mayor of PaSig
Cty. filed a petatiOn to d1squa'afy orponent EusebiO to engaging In
an electiOn campagn Ottslde of the des.gnated penud by ur.enng defamatory
statements againsclanot. calas1ng the pobhcatiOrl of a press release ')(ecjlchng
hs viCtory, i0$t.alhng billboards, streamers. posters and stickers rmnted with
hi5 sumarre tn Pasig C1ty, a<.dressSog a arge Qfoop of peope dunng a mediCal
mtSS.OO sponsored by the Cny government. and diSinbuting shoes to
.SChoolchildren '" Pas.g pob 1: sct1001s to mdooe I heir parents to 110to fOf
nem The Court found that Euseb>O riled his COC on DecP-mber 29 2003
and he allegedly commlltPd too acts before the stan of the campa1gn' pcnod
oommencmg on March 24, 2004 Stc 1 1 or RA moved tne dcadlne for
the filang of COCs from March 23 2004 to January 2. 2004, or 81 dar.; earl.er
Under Sec 11. the only purpose the ealy of COCs ts 10 g.ve ample
lime for the printmg or offclal ballots Congress never intended the! lhe Party
rd109 of COCs 1s to make the person a candidate tor
Otllef than the pnnttng or ballots. Ttus legtslatlve Intent prevents the tmmedlate
applicatiOn C'f Sec 80 to Ntlo f1le hear COC!'. to meet the early
He denr ntpnraon or was to ores.crve t.,e election penOd as

by extStng law pnor to RA 8436, and one whO files a COC w!thn the
deadl.ne '"Will stm not be consldere<1 as a caodklatc. Acx:crdtngly. Eusebio
tccame a candidatu only on March 23, 2004 for all P\Jrposes other than the
printing of Thus. hts acts prior to March 23, 2004, even (f conshtutJng
eldd10n campaign or pat1isan political actiVIty are not puntshab'e under Sec
80 (Lrmot v Comelec, supra.].
c) 01stillQU1Sh thss from the prohbitiOtl on members o1 the CMI
Sennce to er.gage. dtredly or ndarecUy, tn any e:ecuoneenng partiS3t\
polotlcal campaign under Sec. 2 (4 ). Art IXB. Ph :ippinc Const :utaon.
2 Public Rafty Any pol.tical pa;ty Of candidate shall fiOt.ty lhe elect1oo
reg.strar of pubhc ratry said political party or candidate intends to organize
and hold tn the City or and wltrun seven wot1tlng days thef'eattor
submrt to the election regrstrar a statement of expenses tncurred &n connectiOI'I
therewith {Sec. 88, B P. 881}
B. L11wful election propaganda. Read Sec. 82
C. Prohi bfted eloctlon propaganda. Read Sec 85
1. In BadOy v. Comeloc. 35 SCRA 285, the JXohtbilloo agasnst certa1n
forms of etecoon propaganda was uptleld as a valid exercise of the poflce
power, to prevent the perversion and prostuution of the electoral apparacus.
and of the dental of due process of low".
a) But this evil does not obtatn ln a plebiscite, because en a plebiscite
the electorate Is asked to vote for ag..'lnst cssues, not cancledates [Sanidad
v Cotoolec. 181 SCRA 529).
2 In Chavezv. ComeJec. G R No. 1627n,August 31. 2004.1hoSopreme
Court validJty of rt-o Comelec resolutiOn that a !I propaganda materials,
indudeng advertisements on pnnt, m radao or on televiSIOn .showmg the image
or tpention'ng the name of a person, who sobsequent to the placemenl or
display thereof becomes a candid.,te ror publiC office. be ammedeately removerl,
this shall be presumed as camp;ugn,ng tn violation of
Sec 80 of the Omn1bus Eledaon Code.
3. See Nar10nal Press Cluh 11. Comeloc, 207 SCRA t: Ad10ng v Comelec.
207 SCRA 712, Socta! Weather Stations v Comolec, G.R No 147571. May 5.
2001, dtSCUSsed tn Freedom of &press1on, Chaptor 6, CONSTfTUTj QNAL

D. Prohibn.d Contriburrons. Sees. 95-97
E. UmitatJons on expenses; upend;wres. Read Sec:s 100-,02
1 Sec 13, RA 7166 provides lhat lor the 1992 s.ynchmruzerl PJe<:tKms,
the aggre9ate amount that a candldae or regtS:ered polit1cal pmty may sl)end
for electiOn campatgn Shall as follows
a) FOC' caodJdates P10 for PreSident and Vtee President, and for
other candidates P3 00 for e'llery voter currentty reg1stered 111 the cons 1tuency
where he f11ed h1s certif1cate of candidaCy; Provided, that a candlda'e wi:hout
nny pohbcal party and wllhou: support from any polrhcal mey be allowed
to spend PS 00 for every uc.h vote-r, and
b) For oohtql PS 00 tor every voter current v regstered m me
constituency or constituencies where 11 has offoal candrdates
F. St tmnt of contributions and expensu [Sec 14. R A 7166} Evf'..ry
candiGate and treasurer of the pollhC.'ll pany shall, w1th1n 30 davs after the day
ot the electiOn, file 10 dupltcate Wllh the offiCeS of the COMmi!:Sion, the full, true
ond ttnmlzed statement of all contnbut10ns and expendrturcs tn conneaoo
w1th the electiOn
1. No f)E:rson elected to any ot.:bhc otfoce shaH enter upofl the dut.es of his
office until has filed the statemer.t of conbibutiOns ana expendtures t1ere1n
requlfed. The same prohibition shall apply tf the pohtJca! party that nominated
the wmnmg candidate fa1ls to file the statement requted herein
2 8ccept candlddtes foe elcQve baraogay offiCe, fadure lo file tho
statements or report& 1n c:onnect10n w1th eJedcral contnbutions and expenditures
as requited shall constJtute an odm nrstraliYe offense for whl:h the offenders
shall be liable to pay an BdmtntslratiVe fine from to PJO,OOO in
the d1scretion of the CommissJOO The fine shall be paid wTtt11o 30 days from
rooe1pt or notiCe of such failure, otherwtse, it shan be enforceable by a WfJ1 of
execution rssoed by the Commissbn against the properties of the offender.
For the comm1sstan or a second or subsequent offense tho admn1strat1Ve
foe shall range from P2.000 to PSO,OOO, Ill the d1scretion of the Cor;1mss10n
In add.tiOn, offender sha!l be subject to perpetual diSQuahfia!hon to hold
ptJbhc office
.1) In Pilar " Comejec 245 SCRA 759 the Supreme Coun said that
the requ1rement to file the statemeot covers even who Withdrew as
candidates after haVIng f1ied the1r certftCates. because Sec 14, R A 7166,
dOes not mal<e distnctlOn
A. composition of th Board of Election Inspectors (BEl): A chatrman. a
member and :t pn 1 derk, who mus: be pobltc school teachers. A member must
t>e of character and reputation, a registered voter
ot the c
ty or nuncipalty. never been convk:ted of any e!ect1on offense or any
othcf crtmo puniShable by more than 6 months lmpnSOflmcnt, to spcal:
and wnte Eng rsh of local
1 0Jsqualtficat1011 (a) Must not be related Wllhln the 41t1 ovil degree by
ty or affmty to any membrJ of the BEl or to any candidate to be
voted f()( lf'l tt.e polling pl&ee (b) Must not engage in any par1isan pohtteal
a. Powers of the BEl: Conduct the voting :and counting of votes in the
polhfl9 place. act as depuhes of tho COMELEC in supervision and control of
the polling place; ma1nlan oder w1lhm the polling place and 1ts prem:ses to
keep access ltlereto open and unobstructed and to enforce obedence to Its
lawful OC'ders, and pe:1orm such other as prcscnbed by the Code or
by the rules o' the Comelec
t Proceedmgs Shall be public and held only 10 the polling place
although the counting of votes. nnd preparatiOn of the return may be done
tn the neares: safe barangay or school butld1ng wlthin the muntcipahty by
unanunous vole of the board and concurred In by a majonty of the
prl)scn!, if thero is imminent danger of violence, torronsm. or smilar
causes The BEl shall act through its Cha1rman, and shall decide wtlhout
delay by maJority 'IIOte all queshOns whtch may ause in tne performance of 1ts
c. f:ach candidate and pohtJCal party or coalition political
duly reg1stered with the CommissiOn and field1ng can<fldates in the May
11, elecllons tncJuding thOse participating under the party-fist of
representation, may appoint two watc."lers, to serve alternately, lo every
place H')Wever. candidates lor Sar.ggoniang Pan1ataw1gan, Sanggunl3ng
Panlungsoel a,d Sanggumang Sayan,. belonglflg to e same bckPt cx sla!l!
.inan c;ollecuve!v be enl1lled to c ne watcher accredted ollzens arms
of tt\e CommiSSion shall be ent.!led lo appolnl a Ill every polling
place Other CIVIC, re g100s. protcss1oMI business, youtn and any
other organ!Zat ons, v.tln pnor authority from CommtSStOO, shall be
coHccw .. >Jy to ;tppOml one ,.atchl'!r m polling place
()Vll l' :. 1
1Htmrt /.1k'J
1. Oual!flcsttOOs.: Qualified voter o1 the aty or mumopa!ity, of good
reputation. never been convicted or any electJOn offense or any come, knows
how to read and wnte English, Pll1pino, or any of ttl Pf9Vd
ing local daleds,
and ool related Within the 4
avU degree by consangUinity or affmiy to any
member of the BEl in the poH1ng place where he seelr..s appomtmcnt as
2 Rights Bnd cJuttes. Sta)' In the space reserved for them 1ns.ae ttle
polling place, Witness aod nfonn themselves ot tile proceedmgs of the BEl;
take notes. photographs of prooeechngs; f.re protest ag nst any lrregutanty or
vJOiabor. of law, be fumtshed w1th a certifiCate or tne number or votes cast fof
eacn candldale, duty stgned and lhurnbmarttod bv the members of L.,e BEl
A. Prucedur. Read Sees 190-198. BP 881.
1. Profl8.mti(Jn of baffots for 1/Morate and disabled. An lllteratc or dSabled
votar may be essi&led In the preparntJon of his ballot by a reJ"tave withtn the 4 ..
eMf degree b) cor.sanguJn ty or affir.cy; or, If he has none, by any pei'$Oil or
Ills confidence Wf'O belongs to the same househotd, or by any member of the
BEl , Provided, that no voter shaU be aUowed to vote 8.3 an IOiterate unless so
in has registration record; and ProYided. further, that In no case shall
an aSSlstor more than three ltmes, except the members of the BEl
2. AuthorrticstJon of bal/ol tn every case. the chairman ot too boatd
shaD, in the presence or the voter, atfbc hrs SIQnature at tho back of the ballot
before ISSung it to the voter. r-lllure to euthentJcate the bollol shall be noted
1n the Man Lites of Votrng and Counttng of Votes, and shall constitute election
a} n-ere Is nothing In the law that provides that a ballot which has
not been authentiCated shan be deemed spunous The taw merely makes the
Chairman of the GEl accountab4e for such an omiMIOI'l {Ubansn v. HRET G R.
No 129783, December 22, 1997}. Thus. It was held l n Punzsfan v ComeJec,
289 SCRA 702. that the ballot is valid even if It 1s not signed at the back by 1t1e
Chaarman of the BEl
3 Challenge of J/legal voter. Any voter or watcher may chaflenge any
person offering to vote ror not being registered. for usrng the name of another,
or for from existing disQuahficc;tJon. A challenge may likewise be
made on the ground that the cnaOenged person has received or to
receiVe. paid, ofered or promised to contributed. offered Of' promised
to contnbute money or anything of value as for his vote or for
the vote of another. made 01 received a promise to inftuenoe the giving or
withholding of any such vote, or made a bet or is Interested cfrectly or indirectly
in a bet which c1epends upon the results of the election. The challenged voter
shall take a01 oatn LefOI'e the f3Et that he has not commtflcd any of the acts
alleged In the chaHenge.
a) The swom $late men: of the challenged voter may then be used as
a ;:,as1s for subsequent prose<:uhon for perJury
A. Procedure Read SPes 206210 BP 881
1 Me'lllerofcounr.ngv,:,res(Sx: 25, R A 7166] In ead ng thcindrvidua
off1C1al ballots durll'lg tho cou.11trg, h pc-11 derk and the th1rd 'l.ember
shall assume sucn posrhoos as to Jlf0\1100 the and tnc of the
pubhc as may be convcmenlly in the polling pl;tte. uotmpeded
vtew or the ballot being read by the cttarnnan, of the blect100 retur,,t and the
!ally boartj betng accomplished by the poll dcr1<: ano the lhird
member respectively, Without touching any of these erection documenls. The
table Shall be cleared of al unnea:ssary wntrng paraphernalia. Any vtala!M
of this requwement Shall constitute an eled100 offense under Sees.
263 and ;zs. of the Omnrbus ElecUon Code
E:; , Rules f or ;,ppreciat1on of ballots Read Sec 211, BP 88 i
Some rut
a) lOOm scmtns A nume or surname tOCOfrec.:ly wrttten whtch
WflE:n read, has a sound simalar to the name or surname a candidoltc when
OOfredly wntten shall be counted 10 Ius favor
b) When twoormorewords arewnltenon the same r.ne on the ballot
all of wt'l ch are the strnamcs of CWO or more candidaes, the same shall
counted for any of them. unless one IS the surname of an meum bent who has
served fOt at l.ast one yec.r 10 \vf"t,ch case 11 Shall ::>e counted in favor of the
Ia Iter
c) When on ttle ballot IS wnttan a s.ngle word Y.hch ts the fnt name
of a candidate end which IS at the same ome the of h s cpponeot the
VOle shall be counted tn favor of lhe tatter
d) When two words are wnnen on the ballot. one of WhiCh ts the first
name of lh., candidate and the otncr IS the surname of hiS opponent, the vole
Shall not be counted fOf enher
e) Ballots whiCh coolatn such as sr "Mr 'Datu Gmoo
131c shall bo valid '
f) The use of anc1 appeUahon of affectiOn and fnendshp
'' accomoaned by lne ftrst name or surname of ftlt> candid<!ta does not annui
such vote, except when tney were used as a means to identry the voter, tn
Whlct' case, the who e baftot Is nva id
g) If the c:andiClatcs 'JOled for exceed tM number of those to be
dected. the ballot IS valid, but tne votes .shaU lie counted only In ravo of :he
candtdates Wtlose nalT.es .... -ere l1rstly written by 1 voter 'M'hin U e space
provtded for saJd offiCe in tne ba lot th authoriZed number IS covered
2 Some rulmgs on appreaat10n of be/lots
a) AppreciatiOn of baUots 1s a functiOn of the BEl , not of the Boam ot
canvassers (Sanchez v. Ccmelec. 153 SCRA 67}
b) Where the name ot the candidate rs not wntten in the prope1
space rn the ballol but is precoded by the name or the office for which he
ts <' candidate the vote snail be constder"d rot such candidate In
appreoatJng a ballot, the obJeCt should be to ascertain and carry tnto cr.ect the
lntenttan of the voter tf t can bo deterrmned WJth reasonable certa1nty Thus,
the name or the cand date preceded by tM words "So. Barangay should bo
m!erpreted to rnoar. "Po. (or Punong) Barangay. and should be counted for
the candidate {Baubsts " Castro. 206 SCRA 305]. But where the name of
the candidate is wntten se11en l1mes tn the ballot, It IS dear that the sarr.e 15
tntended to 1dentify the ballot, and thus th>! \IOte should be !nval dateo (Bautista
v Castro, SUPfB 1
c) In Wlagmcia v Com11rct:, GR. No 168296, January 31, 2006.
1t was held tnal a d1S:nct1on must be made between matts that we--e
apparently caretessly or tnnooenlly made, whiCh dO not tnva!ida1e the ba!lot,
and marks purposely placed thereon by the voter with a view to possible
future ident:fteation, which nvalidates tt In th1s case, the invalidated batlots
are With the WDf'ds "Jolo.er (14 ballots). (6 ballots), 0ueen (7
bat1ots), and "Kamatis" (7 ballots), an wntten tn the runber 7 slot of the list of
Kagawad for Sangguotang Barangay, ana appeanrg only In ballots wheretn
!.tie t'unong Batangay voted tor was pet1ttoncr. Clearly, the marks irldteate no
ott.er 1ntenbon than &o identrfy the bal:ots.mdub,tably, tt:eso are mark eo
and were property invai'"rdated
d) lnBauttsta v. Comt:/ec, G.R No 133840. November 13 r998, tho
Supreme Cou1 upheld the use of separate talhes for votes considered stray
(because of the pendency of a mot tOn let reconsideratiOn filed by t e c:ancftdate
who v..a!; declared a nuLSarce c:an<ltdate) After the mobon fOf reconsidNation
wc,s dented by the Comclec, the votes In the separate tally were allO'Ned to
creo,ted as par1 of the valid votes cast m favor of tne petttoner
Oil: UN!= I P.EV1WER IN POUTICJ.l. Ll.l.'o'
C. EltJCtfon Rewm. Tr.e BEl shall J)(epare the e!edtOtl retum SJmullaneoosly
wrth the countng or the votes m the pollcng plac;c
1. In the elecbon for Pres,dent, p, esrdent, Senators. and Members
ot ttle House nf Representati\ICS, and oartes. organzattQrtS or ooa tL'Ons
par:iopat1ng under party-Its\ system. the rewms sha I be prepared tn seven
copres. and distnbuted as follows
1"'- to csty or muniapal board of canvassers,
2"" to Congress. d.reded to the of the Senate,
J>4- to the Corrvniss100 on Bect100s;
4"' - to the domrnant m&JOnty party as determrned by the
5.. - to ttl-! dominant mlnonty party as by the
&" to 'tile cttrzen s arm RH'hnri7ed the CommiSSIOn o concuct an
unoffiCial count:
r-" - depastted ins1de the compartment ol the ballot box ror vahd
2 In the electoo ot local offiCials
1" - to the oty or muncpal board or ca'rlvassers
2""' to lt1e Comm1ssion on Electtons
3-c t::l the provtncial board of canvassers
4" to the dom.nant ma
onty party as determmed by the
5"' "> the domtnanl mtnonty par1y as determmed by the
6" to lhe otn:en's ann authOriZed by the CommisSIOn to conduct an
unofficial coont
.,. to be deposited inside the oompartmenl ot the ba!Jo( box tor valid
D. Announcemenl of rhe result of rhe election. Upon the comolellon of
the election returns, the channan of the BEl shall orally and publtc!yanno1mce
the total number of \IOtes recerved rn elecuon n ttw. pollno place bj' each
and every one of tt:e candidates -
E. BEl to issue Certif1cate of Votes to Watcl-ers fiEIIo ssue
of to Watchers Thts certtftCAte tS issued upon reQUt.SI. Sec 16, R A
6646, that the Certificate of \'otes must be s.gned and lhurnbmarked
by ear.n member of the BEl wtucn rssues the same
OUl E I lN f'OUlltAL.U.W
ilt'tfkJlt I..I1M '\

1. The Certifteate of Votes IS evidence not only ot tampermg, alterntJOn,
ralsfiC8tion or 8ny other anomaly 111 the preparatton of the electon returns, bUt
also or the votes obtatned by the candidates [BlJiincJ.:mg v. Comeloc. 27 SCRA
2 Howeve,ln Comcicc, 261 SCRA 222. Ule Supreme Court held
!hal a Certftea'e or Votes can neve1 be a valid bas.s for canvass: it can only
be evidenoe to prove tampenng, ntteratson. fatslftcatiOn or any other anomal)'
in tne electiOn returns concerned, when duly authenticated. A
Certlfteate of Votes does not const,tute sufftOent eVIdence ot the true and
geru1ne results of the etedlons, only electiOfl returns are. In like manner.
neuher IS the tally board suffJOent evidence of the real results of the elect10n
I:JI"t'lltlll Lurr.
A. Canvassing by Provmcial, City, Dislrict and Mumcipal Board of
C.Jnvassers Read Sees 28-29 RA 7166
ComooSJtion of the &lard of
a Proy!OC&al l he prov,neiaJ e:echon supervtSOI or a lawyer 111 the
offce of the Comelec, as cnaifmc.,,, the l)n)VInaal ftscal as va
and the DtOVirlCial suveontenaent of schools as member In the
event of non-avalilabihty, l1b!<e11ce or incapacrty, :;ubst-tute
ll'l(;mbers are the followtng, '" the Provtnaal AuJ,:or, Regtstp_r
or Deects. Jf Cour1 nonunated by :hP E wecotrve JudgP., and any other
avarlatlle appo,nbve Pf0v1noa1 offrc1a
_ b) The City clec110n tegtstrar or a lawyer ot the Comelec, as
chatrman. the City fiSCal, as vtee c.narrman, and the Ctty supennto.!ndent of
schools, as member Sobslltute merrbers are offiCtals rn the City cotresrx>n1rng
to the substrtutes n the provmoot board ot canvassers
c) Municipal The elect1on reg1strar or a rt:presenratJve of the
Comete<;, as chairman, the mun10pal treasurer, as vtee charrman, and the
most sentor dstnct school superv sor, or m his absence. a rAnopal of tne
school or tho elementary schoo, as member Substitute members are the
Mun!Ctoal Admmtstrator. MuniCipal AssesS()(, Cler1< of llOmlnated by the
Judge. or any otner ar.tllable c>PPQinhve off oats
2 Proh1blted f'fllatiOilSIITp, Related wittM the 4., CIVIl degree by
oonsnnguinlty or affll'lity ro any ot lhe candidates Whose votes will be canvassed
by the Board, or to any member of the same Board
Prohil.itJon agains1 leallfnfJ stat100 During the period beganntng
.eJection day unbl proclamatiOn of w.nntng candidates, no nember of the Board
shall be transferred, 8SS19ned Ot outside of hts offtcial :;t.-.hon wtthout
tne pnor authority of the Comelec
B. s Ba.t'd of Canvassers for election of President and
Pnts1dent /Sec 30 R.A 716GJ
1 Congress shall dctermme the autl'leniJClly and due e)(eculiOn of :11e
certifcates of canvass fOf President and VJC/!' Prcs1den: as accomph$hcd and
transmrtted to rt by the local boards or canvassers, Ofl a shOWtng that (a)
Eadl cenfficate of was executed, Signed and thumbmarkoo by the
chawman and transmttted to Congress tyy them, (b) Each oertifteate of canvass
contans the names ol aU the for President and Vtee President
and their correspondtng votes m words and Hl f19ures, and (c) There extSts
no dr5aepancy tn ottler authentic copies cf tne certtfteates of canvass or
tn the votes of anv candidate in words and r.gures .n the sarne

2 When the certJftC&te of can...ass. duty certified by tho board of
canvassers of each pravtnce. dty or dtstrict. appears to be incomplete, the
Senate President shall requtre the board <>f canvassers concerned to 113nsmll
by personal delivery. the election returns from polhng places that were not
iocluded in the certJf.cate of canvass and supporting statements.
3 ' When 1t appears that any certJfteate of canvass or supporting statement
or votes by precinct bears erasures or alterations Whtch rnay cast doubt as to
the veracrty al the number of votes stated theretn and may ailed the result ot
lhe election, upon request of the presidential or Vl08 presidential candidate
concerned or tws party, Congress shall, for the sole purpose of verrfy1ng
dctual number of votes cast fot President and VIOl: President, count the votes
as they appear In the cop!es of the electiOn returns subm1t1ed to at .
4_ Cases
a) Sec. 18.5 of R A 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Vobng Act of
2003), insofar as it grants sweepng authonty to the CommissiOn on Etcctions
to proclatm al winning candidates, IS as tt ts repugna.nt to
Sec 4, M VII of the Constttut10n, w"hich vests tn Congress the authority to
prodatm the wmneng PreSJdent.a18nd V.oe-Presldent.al candidates {Malla/irltal
V. Comelec, supra J
b) In Ruy Elias 1 ?fJeZ v. Senate of the PhillpPines. supra .. tt was
held that Congress may vahdly delegate the prehmmary detennmation of
the euthentK:rtt and due execution of the certrf.cates of canvass to a Joint
Congressional ComrruHee constituted under the Rules adopted by the Joint
Sessron of Congress
c) In P1mentf'l Jr v .Joml Committee of Congre55 to Canva,ss the
Votes Cast for President end Vice suprn , the Supreme Court held
th31 even after Congress flad aclfOUrned rts regular session, tt may wnttnue
to pertorm the constrtuttOOat dutv of canvassinQ the preskienlial and \nee'-
eltcton results w.thout need ot any call for a spcoal sessl()(l by
the ?resident
C. GOMELEC en bane: .s Natfoml BCHJrd of for Semltorlat
EJections [Sec 30. RA 7166]
1 Pursuanl to Sec. 30. R A 7166 ltlo flO\'>'l!r to determ no lhe
auU.enttcily and due execution of tt".e Certlrlcates or Canva s ICOCs) for
Senators exdus1vely rests tn the Comelec. as NatiOnal Board of Cam-assers,
not oo the board of canvassers. Thus the Spccml Provmccnl Board
or Canvassers (SPBOC) vahdly denied the repeateo mot100s of Pmente 10
questiOn the Bedol Provmoal Board of Canvasser,:; and the Municioal Board of
Canvassers dunng ts proceedangs, because allov.1ng the same would os ullra
VlteS " would be tantamount to al'owing a p(&-prodamat.on
conleSt WhiCh IS prohibfted by Sec. 15 R A. 7166 {Prmentol Ill .., Comelec
G R No. 178413, March 13, 2008}. .
D. Duty of tiN' Board of Canvusers. A canva:.sing board performs a purely
mtt"IISlenal tunct100, th.11 of compilrng and add ng the re.wtts as they appear rn
the reurn:i tlansmltted 10 I {Gwao v Comolec, 137 SCRA 366]
The Comelec shall have dred CQntfol and supervtSton over the board
o1 canvassers
2 Dunng tile canlfass, the Board ot Canvassers prepares lhe Statement
of Votes, WhiCh is tabulation per preonct of the votes c-blained by the candidates
as rellected 1n the etect1on returns. 1 as the St?tement or Votes which forms
the basls of the Cerufrcate of Canvass and or IM prodamat!On
a) In Cas/romayor v Comelec, 250 SCRA 298, ttl<> Muruopal
Board of Canvassers had prodaimed the pchltoner as the 8"' Wlllntng candidate
for member of me Sanggumang Bayan of Cahnog, Iloilo, on the strength or an
erroneous 18bolatJon of votes, the Board of Canvassers dtSCOvered thst it should
have been Demonto, not the pelrtJoner, who should halfe been proclaimed,
and thus post-haste faxed a of the CtVred tabuiatlon to the Comelec-
The Cometec then issued a resolution d!MCtlng the Board of Canvassers to
and annul the PfOdamation of the petlboner, and to Pfodaim the
WIOtllflg candidate On petrtJoners daim that no no6ce nor opportunity to be
heard was grven to him by the Come:ec the Supreme Court said that, 1n ordct
to Obviate the neoessty or remaOdng the case to the Comeft:c (Of' further
proceecfngs. the Board or shovld proceed to hear tt'le r>cl'loners
obtecttOnS and, only 1f warranted, should 11 then aMul the prodamabon of the
E. N.ture of Proceedings. Canvass procooongs are 3dmtn;.o;trab.re <tnrf
summary m nati.J(e

1 A map ty 110te of all the members of the board sMII De necessotY to
render a decistcn/Sec 225, B P. 881]
2 Whete hns been duly determined by lhe Come'ec that actual voting
and lectJOn by 11e regstered voters had taken plaoo, the ole elton returns cannol
be diSregarded and exduded - wrth lhe con spond ng d senfranctusement
of voters - but mus be accorded pnma facse status as bona fide reports of
the result of the 'Of canvassing and proclamation purposes x x x The
summury nature of the proceedlllgs that the oojecoons (to
the retums} be led only dunng lhs stage, because tt tS only at tillS t.me that
ltle 1ndUS1011 or exdus10n of any return 1s '" ISSUe, mere allegations or duress,
r.oercion, fraud cannot lnvalt<1ate election returns wM:h are otherwise clean
on lhett face See Grand Alliance for Democracy v Comelec. 1 SO SCRA 66S;
Gwao v Comelec. supra ..
3 Any polittcal party, 00<1htion or parties. through their
rep.'escntatves. and any can<hdalo has the nght to be present and to c:oun:'el
du<Jng the can .. ass of electiOn They snan havo the nght to eltamlne
U1e returns berng canvassed WithOUt toucl'\ng them to make their Qbo:;ervabons
theteon, and file ttielf challenges n acc.ordance With IM rules and regu!al!Ons
of the Comelec{Sec 25, R.A. 6646}
4 It shaU be unlawful for any officer or member of the AFP, tncludtng
the National PofiCC, or any peace offiCer or any armed or unarmed persons
oeJongulQ to WI extraleg<tl police agency, spec:al roroes, reactJon foroes.
stike foroes. home defense forces, barangay uMs. etc to enter
the room where tne can\lassmg or the cledtOO returns are held, and Wlthm a
ra..1tus of 50 mEters from such roorn (Sec 232. B P 881/.
5, The Comelec may order the annulment of the Certihcale of Canvass
wt1ich it round to be tampered after examm.ng the copies of the election returns
of the Municipal Judge and the ComeJec - no: the COfJY or the Municipol
Board of Canvassers - because al the copies of the election returns are
orignal oopes anliough the copy of the Muneapal Board of CanvassetS IS the
copy Sec 15, RA 7166. doeS no( specrty that the Comelec shall
use the copy cf the electtOO retum of the Mumopal Board of Canvassers 10
correcting a mantfest error [Maslura " Comclec, 285 SCRA 493}
F. Proclamauon. After the canvass of elechon returns, '" the absence ol
a perfec1ed ap;>eal to the Bomd of Canvassers shalt proclaim
the w1nnang CWldtdates
1 11 S mw settled that an canvass ol votes s 1Uegat and
cannot be mace the nass of a proclamatiOn A canvass cannot re refleaNe

of the true vote of the electorate urness all returns are considered and none is
omitted When tt'e mumop<JI board of 1nlhs disregarded
the riVe election returns, 11 "' effect disenfranchiSed the voters Of IM e:w:cluded
precincts The fact tt.al ::t ca'ldida:e 1 ly has assumed offtGa i!.
not a bar to the t>.(erose by the Comelec of the authonty to annul any canvas:;
and proclamatiOn Illegally made It IS true !hat after prodamat10n, the remedy
of a party aggriel'ed tn an electiOn an elecliM pro:esl But th1s is on tne
assumption that there has been a valid prodamabOn Wnere a prcdamation 1$
null and void, the proclauneo candidates assumption of otfce cannot deprrve
the Comelec of the power to declare suctt a proctamahon s nuhlty {Utto "
Comelec, GR. No. 15011 r, January 31, 2002].
2. In 38terma v 205 SCRA 1, wheri! what was filed was a
petitiOn to restrain lhe canvass and proolamauon, or to the P.ffects o1
pruclamalion, rt was hel<! that was not the appeal refened to
In Sec 245 whiCh Will ooeratc. to bar the Provmoal BoarC' of Cenv;,ssers from
mak1ng any prodamateon Wl.ho-Jt aut!"'Irity fro[Ott'e Comelec
3 Pehttooerl>. m.:mbers of the Boa1 d of Canvassers, who proclatmed
as the 8" wmnmg candidate one Who did not Obtatn th.! 8" ntghest n'Jmber or
votes may be Ctlr'IW18ly Pf'OSeculed for V\Oiahon of Sec n 1 to proclaim
the VY.nnlng eandldate) (AguJOtas Coun of Appesls 261 SCRA 171
4. No taw provides for a reglementary penod Mthin Nh1dl to file a retitiOfl
for annulment or eJection if thert" as yet. no prodamaton (Loong v. Comelec,
257 SCRA 1}.
A. Defined. Apre-proctamation controversy refers to any question pP,rtn ning
to or affcc11ng the proceedlllQS of the board or canvassers wh1ch be
ratsed by any candidate or by any regiStered pohhcal party or ooahtJon or
pofitJcal parties before the board or dtrectly wtth tne Comelec, or anv matter
r.used under Sectton"' 233, 234. 235 and 236 tn relation 10 the preparation,
transnussion, recetpt custody and apprecaahon of the electiOn returns
241, B.P. 881}. Tho ms!ltut10n of too preproclamatiOn cointroversy was
mtended to pre,entthe nefarious practice known as grab-lhel)(ocJamation,
1. No pre-proclamation cases in eleclion of natiOnal offiaals [Sec. 15,
R.A 7166} f<Y of the elections for President . V.ce-President.
Senator and Member of the House of Representatives, no pre-proclamatiOn
cases shall be ,<lllowed on relat:"!4 to the prcJ)8ration, transmtt.ston,
receipt, custody and of the election returns or the certifiCates or
canvass, as the case may be However, this doel'i preclude the author1ty
of the appropt iatc canva!l.sang body motu prop10 or upon wrttten compla10t of
an interested person to correct mao, fest errors in the cerlifqte of canvass or
e.ectton returns before 111. Ouestons afTectng the compoSition_or proceedings
ot the board of cantassers may bo tmtiated n the or darectly with the
a) Parttes a aversely affected by a ruhng CJI the board of canvassers
on questiOnS the oompos100n Of proceedings of the board may
appeal tile maller to the Commtssion w1thin three (3) days from a ruling
thereon The Comrmsston Sh<'ll summanly decide the case w1th1n five (5)
days from the iltng thereof fSec. 1g. R.A. 7166/ In this case, therefore,
the Comelec rray sun entertain a pre-proclamatiOn oootrovcrsy InvolVing
the Illegal composition or proceedmgs of the Board of Canvassers {lim v
b) Alartlfest errors Likewise, the Comelec may entertain petmons
for the oorrectcn of man rest errOfS" in the CertifiCate of canvass or in the
eicct10n returns But to be mantfesl", the errors must appear on the race of
the Certificates of Canvass or eledJon returns sought to be corrected. and
object1ons thereto must have been made before the Board of Canvassers and
speetfically noted m the mtnutes of their reS{lecttvc proceedtngs [Chavez v
Comoloc, 217 SCRA 315]. A mani fest efl'orls one thals VISible to the eye or
Obv.ous to the understandlllg lhnl whtch 1s palpable, Incontrovertible,
no to make 1t more clem {O'Hara\' Comelec G.R Nos.
148!14 r-12. Matcn 12. 20021
r) A petltlOn tCK correctloO of errors 1n the Centfteale or Canvass
may be filed at any ttme befOI'e proclamation [&nee v. Comeii)C, 242 SCRA
273/ However. m Tol18s v Comelec, 270 SCRA 583. tl was held lhat nllhougl'l
the orovs10n applies ro a pre-prodamahon controversy 'here is noth"l9 to
tiS appl calion to ca:>es n which the valtdlty of the proclamation is
rn questiOn. Stncf! the Statement ol Votes rs !he basis of the Certficate of
Canvass end of the any error m tfle Statement affects the vahdtl(
or the Thus, even 1f the pebhoner had already been proclaimed,
hiS prodall'ation is void, and the Comelec has the pov..oer to annul the same
n) CorrectiOns should be made by 1nserttng the Cllnections m the
Statement of Votrs or by preparing a new Sfatemenc of Votes mcrnporating the
correctiOns (Ramrez v Come/eC. 270 SCRA 590]
2. Pre-proc/amaiiOil case dtfferent from on action tor annulment of
election results OF c1eclarotmn of fat/uro of eJectiOns 1,., Ab,1ya v Comeiec.
G.R. No. 145007-08, .January 28, 2003. the St.lpreme Court had occasion ro
re1temte the dtstinction, as eartier PfOI"'C>Unced tn Loong " c..;.omolec. .supra., vrz.
Whtle the Comelec tS reslncted in pre--proctama'IOfl cases lo an examlflation
or lhe eledion rotums on lhetr face and is Wllhoul junsdrctwn to go beyond
or behind them and Investigate eleC-10n 1n cases of actiOI\S f(>r
aonulmer.l of electiOn results or decJaraoon of falure of electiOns. the Comelec
may conduct technical examinallon ol election documents and compare and
analyze \iOters' s.gnatures and fmgerprints 1n order to determnP. whether or
not the had mdeea beP.n rroo. honest ana dean
a) But thts prrnciple thai, n pre-prOllama!loo cases, the Cornelec is
Wtthout JUrisdtdJon to go beyond or behnd the e!ectll'lrl returns and Investigate
tTTegutarities presupposes that the returns "appear to be authenhc and
dUy acx:ompfished on thetr face Whefe. as In thiS case, mere Is a pnma fade
shoWing ttJat the retum IS not genurne. several entries hawlg been om:ltted 1n
the questioned election rerum, the pnndple ooes not apply ts
not pc:Merles$ to detennme rf there IS basts ,., the exdus1011 of lhe questioned
e1ec1100 return {Lee v Comelec. G.R. No. 157004, Juty 4 ?003]. Thus. tn
Jarnallo' Comelec. G.R No. 174551, March 7, 2007, the Supreme Court satd
that the Comelec did not have to Jook at other to coodudo thai the
et.ectJon returns were manufactureJ. because the defects were apparent on
the face of the eledion retums themselves Eartier, n Chu v Comelec, 3n
Phil 509 (1999). 11 was already rntrmated that a pre-proclamation case as me
proper remedy If tho defects and irrcgolanties are apparent from a physical
1nspect100 or the elect;on retums
b) But where the resolutiOn of the 1ssues ra1sed wou'd requre the
Comelec to p.erce the verr of eJecttOn retums that appear puma facre regular,
the remedy Is a regular elect lOll protest v Comelec, 327 SCRA 4otJ
B. Comelec Junsdicrion. The Comelcc has cxclust.,e ,;unsdctJon over pro-
prodamati.,n cases
1. Whtle tne Comelec has appellate junsdiction over erectton
contests involvng munopal offices, rt cannot be depnved or tts exclusiVe
Junsdction over contests Indeed, tl IS lmmalenal 1f some
of the groonds adduced are grounds for an election contest rather than for a
pre-prodamation controversy [Otforo v. Comelec. 103 SCRA 7 41 J.
C. Issues whiCh be ntscd (Sec 243, B P. 881}.
1. Illegal composmon or proceedmgs ot 1118 Board of Canvassers.
a; Under Comelec rulf:!s, If the pehucn mvolves the lleg;;l
composttlon of tne Board of Canvassers. 11 must be filed 1mmedalely when
the Board beg1ns to act as such or at the t1me of the appOintment or lhc
member whose capacity as such 1s obJected to [Vtllamor v. Comelec. G R.
No. 169865, Ju'y 1. 2006}
b) By parttapattng 1n the proceedmgs, the petitioner IS deemed to
h<Jve acqUiesced in the composrtJon of the Board of Canvassers. A petitiOn
on Illegal composrtron of the board ot can ... should be filed
tmmed.ttely wt>en the Boafd begins to act. A petillon filed five days after
Pf'QC'.lamalion is filed out of bme (Laodeno v Com&fec, 276 SCRA 705].
2. The ca..,vassed election returns are incomplete, contain mafenal
Clefer.ts m the s1me retums or In other authent1c copies thereof, as mentioned
rn Sees 233. 234, 235 end 236 of this Code
a) Sec 233: When the electiOn returns are delayed. lost or
destroyed, the Board may any of the authentic- copies of said election
retums or a ce1if.ed copy issued by the Corr:elec. Notwthstandng
the fact that not all the returns ha11e been rece.ved. the Board may termtnale
the canvass and proclaim the Winners on !he bass of available returns f the
missing ele<"tion returns Will not affect the results or the election )
b) Ses:. 234. If some requ!>iles. m form or data, had been omitted
n lhe eleCtron retums, the Board call 101 all the members of the BEl lo
complete or c.;.orrect the return [Note For thts purpose, the Boaru may even
order the openhg of the ballot box and recount lht> votes ]
1) 1t1s error for the Comcrec to e,)rdt.Jde from the canvass electJOn
returns where the defect In the return refers only to some moomplete data
Inasmuch as Sec 23-1. B P 881. should then be applied (Pnloroy v
249 SCRA 44(JJ
c) Sec 235. When the electiOn returns subrnotted to the Board appear
to be laf'll)er9d w.th, altered or falsr ied aft8f they have of the hands of lt.e
BEl. Of' otherwiSe not authenttc, or JXeoared under duress, force. inhmidaltc;n,
etc., the Board shall use tne other of said returns - x x If the other
copies are tampered Wllh, etc., the Board or any candidate etfectee
shall bring the matter to the Comelec x x The Corr.elec. after nobce
to all candidates concemed, and arter berng sahsfied that the 1nteg.ty o! the
ballot box had been dl,jy preseNed, shall Ofder the openmg ol ttl! ballot bo.J.
and order the BEl :o recount the votes of the ca:ldidates and to
prepare a now eiectK>n retum
d) Sec 236 Where there !XIsts n other authentiC
or the retums or drscrepanoes "' the votes ot any candidate tn wordS
and fegures m the same rc:um. ano dfferP.oce affects me results of the
elcchon, ttto Cometec, upon motton ol thP Board of Canvassers oroP.r
the openln' of lhe ballot bo.c to recount !he votes cast !Of 11 e pufpOr.e of
determning the true result ot tr.e count of votes of he
I) Wnerc the of llotes shows tampP.t tng, alteratiOn
and falsificatiOn or any other anomaly an the preparatiOn of the olcc!JCn re:urn,
the ComE;Iec should order a recoont of the 'IOtes cast 1n tne preanct, after
determining that the ballot bOx has not been tampered wtlh The fatlure of lhe
Comelec to do so, after exeludtng lhe tetum, w. I result"' the d1sentrandusement
of the voters 1n the partJCUiar preanct. Neither can the Certificate of Votes be
used for the canVfKS because it was only by the Oumman (Parorav v.
Comctec. 249 SCRA 440)
(NOTE: While the duty of the Board of canvassetS ts m1n1stenc;t and, as a
general ruJe. 11 may not tr\Qlllfe into rssues beyond tt\e reiurn, tte
Sltuauons contemplated 1n Sees. 234, 235 ano 236 a'low the Board ct
Canvassef'S to order the opening of tho ballot box and recount t:\e votes or the
candiOates affected.)
3 The electiOn retums were pmpored undPr duress. thTI)81.s coerciOn, or
mlimidBIIO'l , or they 111c obwously manufocturod or not aulhOntC
a) See Lag1!'Tibay v Comefec. 76 SCRA 175 on what an otw1ously
rt>turn 1s U v.as "' this case that the SuprPme Court enunc1ated
tne doclnne of statJslle.11 tmprobBbilltiCS
b) In pro-proctamahon contests. the Board of Canvassers and the Come&ee
llfC noa requirec to look beyond or behind tho election returns which are, on
the11 lace, regular ;Jfld authentiC. In lh1s case, pctibol"er fa1lcd to jusbfy tho
exclusion of the challef19ed retw ns on the ground ol duress, tnlirTlldalron, threat
or ooerQOO. rnasmur.h as he otl'ered only selfservmg affidavits, Absent any
evidence appeanog oo the face of the retums lt\al may are indeed spurious,
manuractured llr tampered wtth. the election irregutanttes crted by tho petitioner,
wtllch would recx.ure evidence a/,u:Jde, cannot be ra1sed in a pre-prodamation
cootrolt'E!fSy {Dtmayas, Jr. v Comelec, G.R No. 14195253. Apn/20, 2001}.
4. When substllut6 or fraudulem returns in ronuoWJrled polimg plaoes
were canvassed, the reSJJfrs of which rrwtenafly affected the standmg of the
uggn'eved candidate or candlliates
D. Procedure. Re;,d Sees, 244-245, B P 8C1, SeQ. 17-22. RA 7166
1. Commencement of pte-proclamatiOn controversy [5ec. 17, R A. 7166).
Ouest1ons atl'ectmg the compos11lon or pmceedmgs of the board of canvassers
may be 1nibatcd Wllh the Commisson However, matters raised under
Scchons 233, 234, 235 and 236 ot the OmntbtJs Elec*ion Code in rnlat.ton to
the preparatiOn, transmission, reroipt, custtJdy and appreciation of the election
retums, and the centfJCates of canvass shall be brought in the first instance
before the board of canvassers only
2. SunliTI8/y dlstJOSIIiOn of pro-proclamauon 18. R.A.
7166) All cootroversu)s on election returns or certf!C<'tes of
canvass shall, on the basis of the reoords and evidence elevated to t by the
board of canvassers. be disposed or summanly by the Commission within 7
days from re<:eot lher8of. Its decision shan be executory after the lapse or 7
days from rece1pl by the los1ng party.
., Dtsposit!OIJ of contested election retums (Sec. 20. R.A. 7160)
a) An) candidate, pot/t1ca! party or coahllon of political parties
contestmg the incluSIOn Of exclusion in the canvass ol any election returns on
any of the groundS 8\.lthonzed under the Omrubus ElectiOn Code shall suhmtt
the1r oral to the ch::t1nnan of I he board of canvassers at the lime the
ouestroned return 1s presented fOf ndusion in the canvass Such objection
shall oo recorded tn the rT'Jnutes ot thP. canvass.
o) Upoo rccetpt or any such objection, the board of canvassers sh:JII
811lomatally defer tho canvass of the contested returns and sha
1 proceed to
canor,ss the wtt ch me n<ll contestee by any party
c) Stmuttaf'leous w1th the oral objocllon, the objecting party shall '
also enter Ius ob;ec:tlon '" the form for v.nttcn ObJCChons to be prcscrfbed by
lh6 Commsslon W1thtn 24 hours from and after the pr scntnt10" or suet&
an obJCGttCn, the objeCting party shall submit the evtOeOGe "'support ot the
Ob!cchoo, wh1ch Shall he artached to the rorm for, wntten
same period of 24 hours after presentation of the obJectiOn an,. pany may fie a
wntten and venfi .11 oppo5tioo lo the 1n the form also to be pr8$C11bed
by the ComrntSSIOfl , thereto supponlf''O evfdence If any The board
shall not enteftan any obJection or opoos1hon untoss reduced ro writ1og :n
the prescnbed forms The elfidence attached to tho objedons or oppoSttJoo,
sobmUed by the oarues, shall be rnroodl3tely and lonnalfy admtlted mto the
records of the board by the Chatrman aH1x1ng his S'S}nature at the back of each
and every J)4{;e thereof.
d) Upon recetpt of the evidence, the bOard shalllalce up the contested
retums, consider the wrrtten oh,eclions thereto and oppoSl'JOI'l. tf any. and
summanly and '"vnedtately rule thereon. The board shall enter rts ruling on the
Df'escnbed form and authentiCate the same by the s1gnatures of 1ts members
o) Any party adversely affected by tt-e ruhng of toe board :sha I
1mmed1ately the bOard If ne lntellds to appeal sad ruling The board
.shall enter satd mformation in the mmu!es of the canvass. set aside the returns
nd proceed to consider the other
I) Aner all the uncontes!ad returns Mve been canvassed and the
contested retums ruled upon by I!, the board shall suspend ltle canvuss. V/itnln
48 hNrs therefrom. any party adversely atreded by the ruhng may file wlh lhe
board a wntten and venfiE!d nottee of appeal, and within an unextendble period
of 5 daY$ thereafter. an appeal taken to the Comm1ss10n
) In Castromayor v Comelec, 250 SCRA 298, I was held :hat
a proctamaoon based on retoms 1s void Slmaarty, In Jamrl v
ComPJec, G.R No 123648, December 15, 1997, twas ruled that where there
IS yet no canvass, there cao be no valtd prodamahon
g) lmmed1atety upon rcoeiJ)t of the nohce ol appeal. the board
shall make an appropnate report to the ComtntSSIOfl, c!evahng therewith the
oomplete records and evidence subm1t1ed n the canvass, and fUmtShlt'IQ the
par.es wnh cop.es of the report
h) On tf\e baSts of l'le reooros and eVIC!Colce elevated to 11 by the
board. the CommtSsion shall surnmanly the appeal wlhio 7 days :rom
the rr<:eiC)I of saao and P.VtdE'!lce Any appe<41 brought before !he
CommtSsaoo on the ruhng of too board, Without the ocoompt!shed forms and
lhe OVICience aopended lhcreto, !'ihall be sumrnarity dsmJSSed The deCISIOn
of the Comr111ss:0n shall be oxecutOfY after U\e laps" of 7 dnys from recetpt
thereof by the bStng party
1) The board of canvassers shall not prodaim any candidate
winner authonzcd the CommtSlon aner lhft latter has ruled on the
objeatOns brought to h on appe;JI by the lostng pany Any proclamation made
tn violation hereof shall be vOid aD 'ntt/0 unless the cootestcd retums v.ilf not
adversely affect the results of the elect1on
4 ParMI proclamatiOn /Sec 21, R.A 71fw/ Notwltlstandng the
pendency of an,. pre-proclamnboo controversy. the CommissJon may summanly
order the prodamation of other c.'lnd!dates whose election w1ll not be
affected by the outcome of tne controversy.
Tne procedure prescnbed above 1S mandatory, non-c.omphance v.1th
any of steps is fata! to the pre-proclnmatioo petttlon.J
D. Cases.
1 v Comelec, 153 SCRA 67. On the basic tssoe of wheU1er
Sanchez' petJIIOn foe' recount and/or re-appreoatJon of ballots may be
a p-eprodamation oontroversy, the Supreme Court said NO, ror
ttm follOWing reasons
a) An election retum IS there is an 011\lSSIOn 10 the
eiP.cbon return of the name of any candidate and/or his corresponding votes.
cr 10 case the number of votes for a canchdate ha.1 been omttted. Here. the
election returm ore complete and &nd.cate the name of Sanchez as welles the
numbe. of votes counted and C!Jipreoated tn hiS favor by the BEl. x x x Errors
II\ appceoatton of bnllots BEl are proper subject for an eledton protest
and not for a pre-prodamahon contest.
b) The appreoahon of ballots IS not pan of the proceed1nqs of !Pe
Board of 11 is pertormed by the BEl at lhe precinct level Thts is
retteraled in Ct:.ave;. v. Cometec. supra
c) The enumerat100 of the ISSUes wtlich may be r31Sed tn a pre-
proclamation controversy under Sec 243, BP 881. 1s resmctrve and exclustve.
The complete elccbon returns wtlosc authentJcrty S not tn Question must be
prima coosdcred vahd for the purpose of catW::ISS ond pi"'Cbm:lltOO
OUR Nf: J PE\'ltwt: R r>Oi ITlC.AL.lAW
d) To &Kpand the tssues beyond !hose enumerated In Sec. 243 and
allow recount or re-appreoahon where a daun of misdedantbon of stray votes
1& made wou1>1 open lhe floodgates to such Jnd paralyze Mnvass and
proclam.lhon proceedings, given the propen51:y of the lose-r 10 demAnd a
recoun1 The policy of the law Is that a pre-proclamation controversy should
be summanly deCided.
e) Thf'! grOU'ld for recount relied uoon by Sanchez is d early not
among the ISSUeS lhat may be raSC<I 1n a pre-proclamatiOn con!ro\lersy Hs
all&gahoo of nvalidabon of sanchez" W>tes 1ntended ror rum bears oo retato()ll
to the corredness and authentiCity of the electiOn returns c:tnvassed
2. In Pstoray v Cometec. 279 SCRA 470, 1t was held that where the
obf6dions 110 the indusion of the election returns are directed pnmanty at the
ballots reflected '"the returns. the issue appreaabon of ballots an<!
cannot be raised in a pre.proclamaliOn controversy
J In Balindong v Cometec, 260 SCRA 494, and 11"1 Mstalam v ComeJec.
271 SCRA 733, lhe Supreme Court satd that the te<:hnJCal examrnaoon of ttle
s19natures aod thumb marks of voters runs counler to the neturc artd 5cope of
a pre-prodamat10n contest; the remedy to rl.'lse these ssues m nn 'lledloo
4. In Alfonso v Cometec. G R No 107847. June 2. 1994, the
Ccvne1ec rule<3 that the votes fOf Pedro should not be etedtted
to pebtJonef Irma Alfonso (wt.o substituted for her ratner, Pedro, be<:aUSI! the
tatter died on lhe of thd the ordered the C1ty Board
of Canvassers to re-canvass the etect10n retuMs, w.thout open the ballot
boxes. and prodaun lhe wmmng cand,oates On the denial by the Comelec of
petitiOner's request that the ballot bo)fes be opened and tfM> votes ccu'l ted, ltle
Supreme Court hefd that the Come lee did not commit grave abuSIJ or dtSCrotJOn,
because prayer b re-opening o1 ballot t''llCes IS not a proper tSSoe tn a pm-
proclamatjon controversy, but shoold be tnre-;hed out in an election <.ontest.
5 VtMaroya v. Comelec, t 55 SCRA 633 In a pre-prodamatiOC'l c.Jntest,
the Comelec may order the oorrecllon of a clerical error 1n !he Statement of
votes (prepared by the Board of Canvassers to c:orrespond tc, the figures
renee-ted tn the election returns - P.11en d the canoidate/repre'>entatr/e fa1Jet.l
to file the ltmety protest dunng the as tho error tn lhe Statement of
Votes was not apparent on l:s face
6 Ouremdes v Comelec. 178 SCRA 746 The fallcre to object to lhe
Statement or Votes before the Board of CanvassP.rs 11oes not conslllu!P- a bar
10 rats.ng the iSSUe for the flf'St time before the ComefeG, the taw IS Silent as
they may be raiSed. ThP. Statement of Votes suppof1s the cerbficate
of canvass and shall be the bi'SIS of proc!amatton CooseqoenUy, any error
'" the Statement of Votes would affect the prodamat100 made on the baSis
lhereol x x x All electtOO contest presupposes a vabd prodamallon When lhe
prodamation 1S null and void, tt is no proctamauon at all. and the assumphon
of offtee by the proclatmed r..andrdate cannot der,M lhe Comelec of the power
10 deClare suet\ nuUtty n an apPfOpnate pre-pr('Clnmatlon controversy
a) lhus. In Castromayor Comalec. 250 SCRA 298. the SuJ)(eme
Court said tha1 any party dssatisfied wtth tne rultng ol the Board of canvassers
(after rt was ordered by the Comelec to reconvene and annul the proclamabOO
of the petrtJoner} shall have the nght lO appeal to the Comelec. Since the
Statement of Votes which was to be corrected by the Board rorms the baSIS ot
the Ceftifte'3te of Canvass and the proclamatJOO, petitiOner begs tne Quest.IOO
by saying that :h s is not a pre proclamation controversy and the procedure
for pro-pcodamation coottoverses cannot be applied to the correctiOn In the
oomputat10n of the total number of votes obtained by the candtdates in the
Statement of Votes
b) likewise, in Mentang v C.omelec. GR. No. 110347, F9brtJary 4,
1994. the Court declared that1t had already ru
od that the filing of a pet1ti0n to
annul a proclamation suspends the running of the 10-day period wtthln wtlidl
to file an eJectoo contest, provided that Utere are allegations which, when
proved, wtn render tr,e proclamation null void Such petrtiOn may be filed
dlfecdy With the Comelec even as a J)fe-;l)damahon controversy, provided
it tS done within ten days after proclamatiOn (NOTE A petruon to correct
manrfest errtlfS must be filed wtthin frve days from proclamation, if filed directly
with the Corr.ele<: while there does not $8001 to be a fixed bme frame wlthm
wnich to file a petrtion to annul a proctamatJOn, lhe same betng hmtted only by
the standard of reasonableness I
7. In Since v. Comelec, 242 SCRA 273, 1t was held that the Comelec
cannot be faulted l'Of subseQuemty annuftng a prodamaoon on account of a
mathemahcal error committed by the Board of m the computation
or votes recorved by both petitioner and prrvate resPOndent What 1S soughl by
private respon<:ent is the correction or mantfest m1!>takes 1n the mathemahcal
ad:M10n or mere mechallical errors '" the add1t10n or voles, and does not
Involve the opentng of hallol bo)(es or the elCBilllflaiiOn or appreciation ot
IJaHots While Sec 7, Rule 27, Comelec Rules of Procedure, provides that
tha petrtJoo ror correctiOn may be fi ed at any 1 me be
ore proclamation thete
cs nothmg to St.-ggest that rl r.annot be to cases hke the one at bar rn
wtuch the validly Of the nroctamnhon tS ty 10 qoestton (CnstromB'r'Of v.
Comclec supra.}.
0U fLIN I !;E1JI..C\'IR !t-1 POt ITJCAL IJW,'
8. Uturalum v Comeiec. 181 SCRA 335 The padd;ng ot lhe Regis:ry
LISt or Votes of a muniOpalrty is not a lis
ed ground for a pro-proclamation
9. Lazatrn v. Comclcc, 157 SCRA 337 Because the had
already been procta1med (on orders or the Comelec). had tal<.t!n h1s oath anc
had assl'mecJ h1s d Jhe<: as Member. Hoor:e of R"'prttsenl3trves the 1ssue of
nvahdtt;. of hs ;>rodamatl()(l and connected lhr:reiNIUl, Is a miJtter
prooerfy addtessed to thO House or RepresentativeS Elect0f81 T nbUoal (wtuch
cs the SOle JUdge of all contests reta11ng to eJection. returns and Qu3llftealJOns.
of Members of the House of RepresentatiVeS) See a1so Aqu1no v Comelec,
supra where 11 was held that assump11oo of JUnsdir.tJon by the Hou$e of
Repre..entatJves Electora' Tnbunal (HRET) takes place only after the w1nning
candidate has been duly prodaimed and has taken the oeth or offrce. becaus'! 11
is only then that he IS sa10 to be a member of the Hoose of Representahves
10 Darantmao '' Comelec (June, 1989). The has the power
to mqurre whe!l.er the members of the Board of C-anvassers are qualified or
not, and wMther or not an electtOn ha<t been held tn a preonct. In order to
detetmine the integnty of the returns
11. Alangdeo v Comehlc (June 1989). The fl "lQ with the ComeJec ot a
petition to annul or to suspend proclamatiOn shat: suspend the running or me
penod to file an eledion protest
12. Cas1mi:o v. Comelec. 171 SCRA 468 The affidavits of the watcher
and the petthonor (alleging duress. Crsud, coerQOt'l Of ntrmida!K>'l attendant to
preparatiOn of e ectJon returns) are se:f-servrog.
13 Mayor v Comolec (JBf1/.J8f'Y 1989). After the proda;fT!ed w nner had
assumed office, lhe propet rernoo y ll> an efectaon orocest, 110t a pro-p!"QCfanratiOfl
.A. JurisdiCt iOn over EltK:tion Contests.
1. Ong,.al nnd excluswe
a) Presidentl'llce PreSident - Supreme Court
b) Senator --.. - .............. Senate Etodoral Tribunal
c) Rcoresentative --. HR Electoral Tnbunal
d) Reg.onai/ProwlCia!ICity ..... COMELEC
o) Muncapal ..... . .............. RTC
f) Ba-angay ............ .................. MuniCJPai/MetropOIIt.an Tnal Coun
2 !lppe!Jate Jurisdiction.
a) From decisiOns o! the RTC and Muni<:ipaiCity Courts. appeal shall
be made excluStvcly to the Comelec, whose dec1slon shall be final . executory
and unappealable.
1) E!ectgn Contests for Mupqpal Offaces. Allelecton
lllii'OMng municipal offiCeS filed With the Regional Trial Court be.decidod
The dedsion may be appealed to the Within five
days from pronulgabon or receipt of a copy thereof by the aggnevcd party
The CommisSIOfl shall decide the appeal Within 60 days aner et IS stJbmJned
for deGISIOO. but not tater than 6 monthS after the filing of the appeal, which
decision shall be final , unappealable and e)'ecotory [Sec 22, R.A t166j. A
mohon fOl' the reconstderation of :he RTC decision is a prohibited pleading,
and does not interrupt the runnrng or the 5-Qay period for appeal [V61oria v.
ComeleC. 211 SCRA !JOT} But the Comolec cannot depnve the RTC of its
OOinpE"tence to order of 1ts deoSIOfl pend1ng appeal, this being a
Judro pcerogative and there besng no taw disauthorizlng the same; besideS.
tt:c Comelec rules would dep0o the prevailing party of a substanbal nght to
f1'lOV'e for such reher v de Jesus. 206 SCRA 779, Malaluan v Comelec.
254 SCRA 397}
n) In the exerase of Its exclusive appellate jurisdiction, the
Comelec has the fjOwer to issue w1 ts of prohib1hon. mandamus or certk>ran.
because the last paragraph of Sec. 50, 8 P 697, 1S stllm fuU force and effect.
aM has not been repealed nor amended bv 8 P H81 (Rclampagos v Cumba,
43 SCRA C,02] This abandons the ruhng m Velofla and in GarCia.
u1) The provisron of R.A 6679 !)ranting appellate jurisdiction to
RegiOnal Tnal Courts over deciSIOns of MuniCipal Courts m elec:oral cases

rnvcMng eiP.Clrve barangav offiaals IS. unoonslrtuoonal (Flores v Comelec, 11U
SCRA 484} But in the absence of any express proviSIOn In the governing law, tl
ts the Regtonal Tnal Court, <l court of general Junsd clleln, whtcn has JUrtSdiCton
over controversres involvmg elect tOn ot meMbers of the Saoggun1ang Kabat.aan
[Me rca 1o ., Board ur Ek!cttOI? Supervisors GR. No 109713, Ap111 6, r 995].
rv) TI1P. fact that oocisions final tAtters or rutings ol ttl@ Come ec
rn appealed cac;es .nvolvl"g erechve munropal and b.arangay offiCials are final,
executory and unappealable does not Pfeclude a recoor!>e to tne Supreme
Court by way of a speeaal CIVIl action for oertioran {Ge/ido v. Comefec. !93
SCRA 78} But this recourse rs avalable only when the Comelec's factu.11
detcmunatJOn s marred by grave abuse of (AJverez l Come/ec,
G.R. No 142527. March t, 2001]
b) From decsSlOns or the Comelec, appeal snail be maoe through
a Pehnon ror Rev-.ew by CerltOmN unc!er Rukt 65 of !he of Court. to be
fried \\tth the Supreme Court w11n1n thtrty 130) days from recetpl or a copy of
the deaslon, on the ground of grave abuse or dJscretJon l:lntamount to lack Uf
exce.>s of JVnsdiCtion or vralatton of due process See Arotuc v Comelec, 88
c) From a decistan of the Electoral Tribunal, appeal shall be through
a Petition for Review (0 be filed wtth the Supreme Court ort the ground of
grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack Of eYoess or junsoiCltOr, or a
VIOiiltK>n of th.e process. See Rootes v HR EleC10r.JI Tnounal 181 SCRA
I) In Puzon v HRET {Fet>tvary. 198!1}. lhe Supremo Court
that rcVtew of a oeosl()(l of the Electoral Tnbunal ts POSStbl< cnty in
the uerdse of supervisory or exlraordtnary JUilWidlon and only uJ)On ShOwtng
that lhe TribtJnal's error resui:.S from a wtt1msical, unNarran1ed,
arbitrary Of despotiC exerose or ;>ower
u) In Lazallll v HRET. 168 SCRA 391, the Supreme Court said
that for purposes of electiOn con1ests cognizable by the Electoral Tnbunal.
the HRET 1'\Jies of procedure shall over the provisions of rhe Omntbus
ElectiOn Code
111) 111 Abbbs Senat Electoral Tnbunal, 16G SCRA 651, t'-e
SenatOfs-members of ltle Senate Electoral Tnbunal cannot be drsqudllfied
from heanng the case, as the mass dtsquahfrcation would leave the lftbunal
no ahematJVe but to abandon a duty tl'lat no other court or body can perfom
ThiS d:>es not predode the posSibihly of a Senator-member tnhrbttmg hmsalf

from s:ttJng in JUdgment on a case before satd tnbunat, as hiS c:onsdenee may
3. Action:;, whrclr may be filed
a} Protest
b) OJo W;1rranto
S. Election Protest.
a) Must be filed by anv can<Mate who has file<l a
of candidacy and has been voted uoon fQf ltle same of!iOO. Tan
v. Comelec (June 1898), it was held that the Gubematonal candadate rs net
lhe proper party to mst tute electiOn protest regarding the eledion of the VICO
Governor, Board members and Muniopal Mayors
b) On groypds or (Iaud. terro!Jsm, lrreoulartltes or tlteoal acts
committej dunoo or after the castJng jtnd coonlJQO of votes.
I) The purpose of an eleebon protesles to ascertain whether the
caoclldate procla1med elected by the board of canvassers is the true and lawful
chotce of the electorate. The proceedif'g may be instrtuted oo the theofy that
1M c1ect100 returns which are deemed pnma faoe to be the true reports ol
how the electorate on election day and which serve as the basis for the
proc:amation the winning candidate, do not accurately reflect the true will of
the voters due to alleged rnegulantres that attended tne counting of the baftots
In a protest prosecuted on such a theory, the protestant ortllnarily prays ltlat lhe
offiCial coun1 as renected in the elceOOn returns be set aside in favor o1 a reVISIOn
and recount af the ballots, the resJrts of Nflich shoUld be made to prevail over
those re1lec:ted in the rewms pursuant to the dOctnne that m an electJon contest
where what k involved Is the number of votes of each candidBJe, the best. and
the most co.'lCiusiYe ev'ldence Bt& the baRots themsel\a-s. However. the superiof
sta1us of the ballots as eVidence of how the electorate voted presupposes lhlt
these were the very same barlots actually cast and counted 1n the eledlOflS
Thus .. it has been held that before the ballots found in a box can be used to set
iiSide the reh.orns the court (or the Qxnelec. as the rnay be) must be sure
lhat rt has before rt the same bal'ots depoSited by the voters /Rossi v Comelec.
G R No. 168253. Marc/1 16 2007].
ta) Thus . .n lhrscase. the Court Jald down the lolloWJng gudeltnes
[a] the ballots cannot be used to overturn the offrool count as refleded in the
electJOf'l returns unless u tS first shown affirmatively th:ltlhe ballots been
presP.tved wrth a cere wtuch preciiKfes the opportunity or tampcnng and all
susptaoo of change, abstraction Of suost tut10n, {b) the burden ot provlflQ that
the mrognty o: the ballots has been J)feserved it\ such a ITU!MCI IS on tho
protestant, let where a mode of preservmg the ballots s enpmoo bv 1 w, proor
must be made of such subslanual compf1anCP. wtlh tfle requuements ot that
mode as would provide assurance that the blllllots havE": been kept 1nviolatu
sltght devmhons trom the prease mode or acn ev ng that end,
(d] 11 rs only when the protestant has stlcrwn substanltal complrance wtth lhe
prOVIsions or taw on the preservatiOn of the ba'lols that burden of proo..tng
actual tampenng or the hkehhoocl thereof shifts to the proteStE:e, end (e} only
If 11 appears to the satisfactiO:l of the cou11 or that the mtegnty ollhe
ballots has been preserve should I adopt tt\e result as shown by the recount
and not as reflected n the eleciJOO returns
u) In Anio v Come lee :! tO SCRA 290, 11 was neo mat the 1a11ure
ot the protestant to ratse the quest1on of eoent1C8I haodwnltng or of 1mpugnmg
the vahd1ty of the ballots on that ground does not preclude the Comelec from
re,ectl"lg the ballots Unl1ke an crd1nary sut. an eler.':tan protest IS or utmost
pobhc QJilClem The nghts of tr e contending parties must yeld to tho tar
greater Interest ollhe cal zens tn uphoidtng the sauct1ty of the ballot Thus the
Comelec Slmpl cannot close tis eyes to lhe illegalrty of the ballots. even if the
protestant OfT"ttted lo ra1se the ground in his protest In Emr "' Cometec. 243
SCRA 700. tr.e Court upheld the aultlonty ol tho Comelec to deterrrune Y.'helher
ballots flao wnllen by two or more persons or tn groups wntten by only
one hand Without need of calling ror the servteeS or handwmmg expertS lfiis
inveshgaton being more '" the nature of an tolernal process ..
u) Ar1 rogardi09 lhe reVJSIOn of ballot"> IS an tnterlocutOf)'
order because II still reqwes a party to perform oenain acts leadlllQ to the final
ad;udteation of the case {Butaong v 210 SCRA 745/ -
iv) As a general rue, the riiiOQ of an prote5t or quo
watranto precludes the SUbsequent ming of a pre-proclamatiOn contioversy
Of amounts to ar. abandonment of ooe eartier filed (LDOdeno v Comelec 276
SCRA 706}, thus deprrvmg the Come lee of the auth0f1ty to InQuire mto and pilss
upon llt.e or the protestee or the validity of hs proclamalton The reason
for this 1s that once the compet'!nt nbuna h<".' a<.quited J\JnSdiChOn over an
election protest Of a petlhon ft)f quo warranto. all Questions retat-ve thereto
Will have to be m the case rtself and not 1n ano'hcr proceeding Yhts
procedure Will ptevent confuSIOn and conOJcl ot au'honty {V!lfamor v Comelec
GR. No. J69865. Julv ?1. 2006}
Iva) Th1s rule, however, adm1ts of tfle folloWing exceptions
(a) The Board of Canvas..c;ers Wf'S imptoperty constituted: (b) Ouo warranto
Is not th proper remedy, (c) What was filed -... s not rea11y a pe!tllon for quo
warranto or an electiOn :;ro'.est but a ,pet.t on to annul a proclam<l!ion; [d) The
tihM of an elec!lon contesl was expressly made w1lh001 prejud1co to the pre
prodamabon controversy, or 'N'dS made ad cautek-'lm or (eJ The proclamat on
w:lS null and void {Samsd v Comelcc, G R No. 107854, July 16, 1993:
retteratoo In D:Jmayas. Jr. v Comelec, G R No 141952-53, Apn/20, 2001] tr
the proc:iarllaton ;s void, the prc-ptodamatJon case IS not rendered moot and
academiC [Ranirez v. Comelec, 270 SCRA 590}
1\lb) Butln Tan v. Comcfcc, G.R Nos. 166143-47, November
20. 2006, the Supreme Court sa1d lhallhere 1s no taw or rule prohrbiling
:o;lmuttancous prosecuhoo or tldjudcabon ot pre-proclamatiOn controverstes
and election ()'01csts. tl'le Simultaneous prosecuton sceoano may be
eplaint!d by t:-.e faetltlat prc-prodam.'lhon controversies and elec-JIOil protests
d1ffer 10 terms ot the 1ssucs i nvolved and the evidence admiSSible 10 each
case, and the objective E'ach seeks to ach1cve. {NOTE: As theSfl cases.lflvolve
eleclive provif1CJal offrces, tho Comelec has ongmal eKcluSJve JUnSdctJOn over
both pre prooamation controvefS/es and elec:JIOII contests. Obviously, thOre
can be no of auJhortty, snd thus the cases can be SJmutlaneously
prosecuted Mfore, and adJudiC8tod by, the same tn'bunal.]
v) The entry of a general demal tn an electiOn case does not
amount to an adrrussiOfl of the matenal allegaiJOns 1n the protest [Loyola v.
HRET. G R No 109026, January 4, 1994)
vi) Where the pnvate 'respondent faded to commence the revision
of tltu ballots n too counter-protested preoncts. stubbornly mamtain1ng that
said ballots shOuld be rev1sed ooly 1! 11 1S shOwn after the revision (of the
ballots 111 ttle protested preoncts) that the pehtJOner leads pnv;1te respondent ,
the 1aaer mu:.! be deemed to have abandoned or waived hts counter.protest
(Abeia v Judge Tazada. G.R NO 112283, August 30, 1994/
1111) In Mtnam Defensor Santrago v Frciel Valdez Ramos. 253 SCRA
599 11 was held that the elechon protest f1led by Santiago agarnsl President
was rendered moot and academrc by the electiOn of Santiago as a
Senator 1n the M3y 1995 el'!cllons and her assumption of offrce as such on
June 30 1995 In assummg the OffiCe or Sen<! lOr, !he Protestant has effectively
allaodoned o Withdrawn thiS protest, or at tho very least. 1n the language of
MorateJa v Relova, abandoned llCr to protect and pursue the
pubiJC.tnteresrmvotved 10 the matter of who is the real choiCe olll'!e eledOrate"
Moreover t1 of thiS proti'>St would serve pubhc lntcrP.St as It would
r. :w - - - ., - , .,.,
10a1 should be deoded by th'J mun10pal or me:topohtan tnal court wrthm
days from fihrJ7 thereof. beca"'se an electeon case. unlike ord10a1y actiOns.
fOlves public mtetest [Bolalm v Judge c.Jcoano, AM No
'bruory 14. 1997} '
2. Payment of Dcx:J.et Fee A protestant has 10 pay a docket fee of P300
d an addctiOnal docket lee it there S a clnim '<X damage For faiful"t1
f - - --
,,jess.pate the aura ol uncerta10ty as to the r85utts of tho 1992 presidential
tnereby ennanong the all too crucaat pol ueal st<!b!lty of the natoo
cjunng this period of recovery
tiJ Where the Comctec had, in previOUs cases ruled tMI the
1enue for the revtsion of ballots shall bo n Maf\lta rt IS grave abuse of arscrel1on
or the Comelec to deny peltt<ooor's request for the re11iS10,., ol ballots ro be
le'd 1n Manla on the pretext that tlere s not enough storage space 10 contam
tthe ba!lot boes. sUdl mconSJstent acooo Ienos to denigrate publiC trust 1n
$te and of the Comelec /CabBgw: v. Comelcc 260
>CRA 503]
o ix) Whefe the omtSStOns are menl!)' ac.mm.strauve lapses, e.g
cJbsence Of the chaifman's Signature on the voter' affld9VIIS, rst of voters ()(
I(Obng lhe absence or exoess of detachable coupons. or dscrepancy
, ltle number of detachable coupons and the number of baRots it was errcr
,r the HRET to nullify the election results 1n lhe ab3ence or a clear show.ng
thf fraud. 'The vc!ers should not be penali2ed for something no: ol thelf own
{AITOvo v HRET, 246 SCRA 384}
C) Within leo (lQ) daVS from prpdamatJOn of UJ9 resv'ts of the election
1 i) The peood for lihng an I)(Oiest suspended dunng
a pre-proclamation con:roversy [Golchaftan v Comelec 245
208. Mana.'lanv. Bernardo, G R No. 125752, December 22, 1997].
fi) Where. after five c1ar.; from the prodamat10n of the
anlndidale, the loser flies a mot.on for reconslderaoon 10 the
)Otroversy, there ar;t only ftve days Which remalll of the period Within Nhich
file an eJect>O'l protas1fRoquero v Comelec, 289 SCRA
tu} The Comelec may not "!!llertaln a counter-protest filed beyood
e regktmef1taty penod to file the same [Kho v Comefec. G R No 124033
'tOlem!>er 25 1997]
protestant. it IS far more prudent to abide by tho existing and strict lim11atJons
or. 1ntervenlt01 and substitutK>n under lhe law and the rules
c. Quo Wananto.
1 Requ"sites
a) Fed by any reg ste;ed voter m the consutuency
tne basic doclet fee. thfl protest ShoUld be dtsmissed {Gatcha!Jan v COIOOioc.
245 SCRA 208, Sol/or v. Comclcc, 339 SCRA 685]
a) Wtlle 1t s truo that t1l1l ooun acqwres JUriSdiCtiOn ov r a case only
upon complete payment of the prescnoed fees. the rutc adtruts or exceptionS
as wrn.n the party never ra1scd the assue of IUnSdlettOO of the tnal court (Tqam
v. Sibonghsnoy, supra.] In v Comelec, G.R No 168296,
3 ' 2006. in an electon prorestanvolvtng baraogay elective off.ce, the pe'lt10ner
raJsed the Issue that the ooor1 had no JunsOO:tJOn beCause ol the failure of tne
other party to pay the corroct filing fees for f&rSt time on appeal befOfe
the Comelec. The Court held that the petii.IOOer paruopatod rn the
proceedings and voluotaOiy subm1Ued to the fvnsdictton or the trial court It was
only af er the ':nal court aSSUP.d rts deCISIOn 10 him that the pettiiOner
the rssoo of JUrisdiction, for the first hme on appeal with the Comelec.
3 Cert1ft:ate of Absence of Forom Shopping The requ rement under
Supreme Court Crrcutar No. 04-94 applies to electeon cases [Loyola v. CoiJrt of
Appeals. 245 SCRA 4 77: TomRrong v. Lubgu:Jan. 269 SCRA 624).
4 Deatl: of Protestant The death of the protestant does not extinguish
an electiOI\ pretest In De Castro v. Ccmelec, 267 SCRA 806. tt was held that an
electron prott!St rs amboed wtlh pub he rnterest whidl raises at onto a
and above ordinary civrlactions. beCause i1 involves not only the ad1ud1catton
of the pnvate interest of the rival candidates but also the paramount need ot
dtspelling once and for all the UN:ertainty that beclouds the real choice of the
electorate Wlt.'l respect to woo shall dtseharge the prerogatrves of the oHICO
Within ther git. In this case, 1l was held lllat the Vrce Mayor-elect has the
status of a real party in interest in the cootinuatien or the proceed1ngs. See
also Lomuqdsng v Comelec. 21 SCRA 402.
a) In Poe v Glona Macnpagai-Arroyo, PET Case No. 002. March
29, 4005. the Supreme Court said that if persons not real parties in the action
could be allowed to intervene. wiU be unnecessarily oomphcated,
expensive &nd intermnah'e - and this .s not the poliCY or the law. InasmUCh
as no real par.JeS suctl as the vice-prcsldenbal in the 2004 electtons
h#a- N\IT>P l-vw;ud tn mtervene. Gf ,., be substituted ror the deceased
b) On grounds of tnehg;billtv or dtsloyalty to the RepubliC ol tt.e
c) Wtlh'" ten ( 10) da)'S rrorn proclamalron olthe results of the election.
2. Cases.
a) In Sampayan v D11.ra, 213 SCRA BOi", the piHtltOr rar prohtl>thon
filed wth the Suoreme Court Oy residents of Northern S"rnar Ggatnst
Oaza for the latter betog allegedly a green c.atd and a
permanent resldent of the u.s . was diSmissed on the foiiOwnp grounds fl
the case has be<:ome moot and academic. because Oaza s terrn was '" end
J .. me 30, 1992; [ir] the StJpfen'le Court is wt!hout Jurrsdctlon, lhe House of
Electoral Tnbunal be1ng lhe proper forum. as tile latter rs the
sole judge of all contests relalmg lo the elediOn, returns and
of members of the House of Representdt.ves . .:snd (111) a f1fl /ado offtt;.er,
Daza cannol be made to rermburse funds disbursed dunng hts term of offiCE; ,
because his acts are val<d
b) In Fnvafdo v Comelec, 174 SCRA 245, the Court hetd !hal
eonsldenng !hal the OC>Pi of Frrvaldo's of nalurauzation tn the U.S
was obtained only rn September, 1988. the peti1ion for dtsqualificabon may sull
be considered as hav.ng been seasonably rt:-ed even tf fi:ed more tharl seven
montm: from the ptodamation Relate this to Loong " Comelt..:.c. 216 SCRA
c) In Marquez v Comelec, G.R. No !12889. Apnl 18, 7995, the
Supc-eme Court held It .a tArt . 7 3 ofthe Rules lmplementlr.gll'le LocatGovemmen1
COde (particularty Sec 40. RA 7160). to the extent thai 11 the term
fugotive from jusbce" to refBf only to a person "who h&s been conviCted by
final jUdgment is an inordinate and undue orcumscnptiOt'l of the law The
term '"fugitiVeS from JUSIJoe" IncludeS "not only those WhO flee after OOOVICtiOfl
lo a'IOtd punlshmert. but littewise those who, 'lfter bemg ctwged, Ree to aVOid
prosecution Thus, Ill R?drigue.z v Comelec, G R No. 120099. July U , 1996
the Supreme Cot.n ruled that Rodnguez cannot be considered a "fugiblle from
JUSUce" because hiS arrtvat '" the PhiiPP*1'6S from the U.S. precedod the flltllQ
of the felony charges and lhe issuarce of warrant for hrs arrest by the
Angeles Court by at least fiVe months.
0 between Quo Wclmtnto In elecive and In appointive
In an elective office. lhn 1"5ue IS eligbilrty of the the
<X>llrt or tnbunal cannot dedare lhe pro!estant (or the candda!e who obtane.:t
the second higtcsl number of votes) as haVIng been elected See LebO v.
Comclec, 176 SCRA 1: Abolla v. Comefec, 201 SCRA 253: Ortega v. Comete<:.
211 SCRA 297 Sunga v. Come/oc 288 SCRA 76
a Thus, m Ocampo". Hou$9 ol Representatives Electoral Tnbunal,
G R No 158468, Juoo 15. 2004. tne HRET had dedafed Mark CrespO
(Mark Jtmenezl ineligihte for the Office of Representative of the 6"' d1str1Ct of
Maf1tla lor lack of residence In lhe distncf. aod Pablo Ocampo, theseoond placer,
moved that he be decfarej lhe W!nnef, lhe Supreme Court saki thatlhere must
be a ftnal judgm)nt (of beloro the eleetiM in order that the votes
of tne d1squabtied candidate can be considered stray". The obvioos ratiOt\ale
is that tn YOhng for a candidate W!'lO has not been dtSquabfted by final judgment
during election day, the people voted for him bona fide, WithoUt any intention
to misapply their franctuse, and in tt'le honesl belief lhat the candidate was
then quatlftud to btl the person to whom they would entrust the exeraso of the
powers of government Thus. to proclatm the serond placer would be artathema
to tho most ba$1C precepts of and democracy enshnned in our
Constitution It woold, In effect, be advocating a mass:ve dtsenfranchtSement ol
the majonty of voters of the &' distnct of
2. In an aopoinllve offiCe. the issue tS the legality of the epporntment; the
court determ.ots wt'lo of the part1es has legal trtle to the office.
D. Execution pending appeal. The rnat ooun. may grant a motion for
execuhon pend.ng appeal, because the mere filing of an appeal does not divest
the &nat court of1ts JOnsdtcbon over a case alld to resolVe pending inci<ients.
Sfnce the couo had JUnsdtctJon to act on the motioo (for execution pending
appeal) al the lime it was filed. that JunsdictrOn conhnued until the matter was
resOOied. and was not lost by the subsequent action of the opposing pany
{Edding v. Comelec. 246 SCRA 5021
1 The why such executton is allowed In election cases. as
statP.d rn Gahol v.. Riodi(Iue, GR. No L-40415, June 27, 1975, is "to gMt as
much eecognibon tu lhe worth of the tnal Judge's deciston as that which IS
lmtoally by taw to the proclamatiOn or the board of canvassers. Indeed,
to tnal courts of then dascreiJon to grant e.lCecutfon pending appeal
would "l>n;)g back the ghost o1 tne 'grab the prodamabon, prolong the protest'
so often resorted to by devious pohttaans n the past In their efforts
to perpetuate their hold on ao electrve pubhc otrrce {Uy v. Comelec. CJted n
SDntos v Comclec. G.R. No 155618, Morell 26, 2003}.
2 In Nevarosa v Comelec. G.R. No 157957, September 18, 2003. n was
!wold that the RegtO<"'al Tnal Coun or:.nt motion for execut'on Dendng
appeal when there are veltd and special re950ns to grant the same, sUCh as
(a) the public Interest lllVofved or the Will of the (b) lhe shortness
or lhe rematMI9 portiOn or the term, or (c) tne lengttl or twne lhatlhc election
contest has been peodl:'lg Earler. an v. Cometec :!70 SCRA 413.
and an Ramar; v Comelec. 286 SCRA 189, the Court ru.od that the
fact tnat only a short penod ac; I.e" of lhe term of efface ,!; a .good ground for
pendmg appeal
3. However. the rule must be stridly construed aganst lhe
and only When the reason IS of such urgency will such e)(eculJ<'In peoding
appeal be allowed. as It as an exceptoo to the general rule. FollOWing CMIIaw
junsprodence, the reasons allOwang for ammedaate executiOn musl be of SUCh
urgency as to outwoegh ttle inJury or damage or the losing party should such
party .secure a l"eWf'S88 of the Judgment on appea. Absent such, the ordet
must !Ht strJd(en dovm as flafed wllh grave abUse of Not every
invocatiOn of publtc nterest W1lh particular reference to the wa of the electorate
may be apprecaatoo as a good reason. espeoatly so '' the same to be
selfservng and has not been cJearty established. PubliC interest wll be best
served only when the candtdates voted 'ex the pos tion are finally proda1med
and arUdged WJnoer., the election (Cam/Jan v. Comelec, G R No. 124169
Aoril 18, 1997)
4. The muttOn for executiOn pen<Jing appeal must be fi'ed before the
exp4ratJon of the penod for appeal (Relttmpagos v. Cumba 243 SCRA 690) lr.
Asmala v Comei6C, 289 SCRA 746, the Supreme t::oor1 saod that the part1es
nad five days from servtce or within whiCh to appea and although
the responder.& had filed has appeal on llrre, the appeal was deemed perfedeo
as to him only This di not dopnve the petrtiooer of riQht to avail hrmsetf
of the five-day period to appeal, tf he so d8.Sired. Acoon:frnQiy, dunng thas five-
day peOod, the petitioner may file a motion for execubOn pendjng appeal Th.s
ruttng was re4erated in l.Jcate v Comeek G R No 144678. March 1, 2001
F. Award of o.t.ge.s. Award of Damages. Ad:Jal or compensatory
damages may be granled contests or in quo warranto proo.!edings
'" aocordanoe With taw /Soc. 259. B. P 88 t I
1 It was the antent of the legislators to do away w1h the provisions
lndernnatyiog party for expenses ancurred rn the electiOn contest,
an the absence of a act or omisSion dearly attribulable to the losing
{Atl6nza v Comeloc, G R /l.'o 1085.13, Docembet 20, 1994)
2. Wtaen the appeAl trot.1 " deol"JOn 111 an election case hm. a!r ady
becoi'Tlf! :-noot !he case beng ,Jn eleel10n anvolvmg tne office of mnyar
the term or which has already explfed. the appeat ts on that ground,
unless a deciSK>n on the ments would be of practical value. In the case at
ber.ch, the petitiOn appears to be moot and acaderrwc becaose the parties are
oonld.Stlng an elecllon post to which tne1r nghl to the offa no longer exists,
hov:evet, the questiOn as to damages rematns ripe for adjudteattoo {Matofuan
v Comelec, 254 SCRA 397} But the award ot damages was reversed by
lhe Supteme Court. saying that the cntenon for a JUStifiable award or elecloo
protest expenses and salanes and emolumP.nts remains to be the excstence
of pertinent breach of obligatJons ansing from contracts or quask::ontrads.
toftiOus acts Of c:nmes or a legal provision authonz.ng the money claim
'"tne oootext or election cases. If any damage had been suffered by pnvale
respondent due to the executiOn of judgment pendJng appeal. that damage
may be satd t.o be equivalent to damnum absque m;una
G. lnterpret.tion of ceruin words nd phra.se:;. See v ComekH:,
SCRA 194.
1. Contest: any matter anvollltng tho IItle or clatm of Iitie to an elective
orrace. made before or altar proclamatJOO of the wmner. Whether or not the
con:estant is daming the offiCe In d1sptrte
2 Bectioo, .r.tm.I.!M and wmhfjeal!ons: an its totality, refers to all matters
alfect.ng the vafidrty of the ooote:r;tee's IItle to are posit100
3 Elect!OO refers to the oonduct of thtl pOll!., ancluding the listing of
voters the holdog of the electoral campa.gn, and the casting and oountmg ol
4. shall ndude the canvass or the returns and the prodamatioo
ol the winneni, together With questions concerning the oompostlon of tho
Board of canvassers and the authentiCity of ctections
5 Qyalrficatioos. matters which ooukf be raiSed 1n a Quo wamno
proceeding the proclaimed winner, such as his <fiSioyaJty t> the
Republic, Of has or the nadequac'l of hrs certifacate of candidacy.
.) , U
A. Enume111tion of cfecrion offenses Read Sec 2Gt. BP 88
Some proh1biJed acts
a) Vote-buyoo and vote-selling. In People v Fener, 54 0 u. 1348,
it was held that dcstribuhon or agarettes tc- people who attended a r..ohhcal
meeting faits Within the context of the prohibition.
b) waaeono uoon tne resytt of tbe eled!on. Any money or thlllg of
value put up as ,. bet Of wager shall be to the Government
c) Threats. !ntimtdat!OO tecronsm use of fraudulenj de\!ICf or other
roans or ooeroon
d) AtlQO!Olment of new emolwyee (except 10 case of urgent need
With notiCe g.ven to the Comelec WJ:hrn three days from the apporntmenl).
creatJon of new pos1ttons. PfOmoton, or granting salary .ncreases
e) Caf!YJOQ of dcadlv weapon willJ!jl 1J radjys or 100 'rom
prednct In Mappals v Judge Nunez, 240 SCRA 600. It was held that rt rs not
necessary that the deadly weapon be se z.ed from the accused while he wos
in the 'precinct or Wlthu a radrus or 100 meters therefrom, 1 is enough that the
accused earned a deadly weaoon weth n the prohoblted radrus dunng any of tno
and hours speafied tn the law
f) Transler oc detail or oovemf'!lent off'!daVemoloyr!e Without Comelec
In People v Reyes. 247 SCRA 328, rt was held that the transter
or detail of a government offcer or employee Wll not be penafi7ed by Sec.
261 (h), 8 P 881, tf done to promote effiCienCy in lhe government service
To two etements must coocur. YrZ.: (r) The fact of transfer oc
the election period as fixed by the Comelec: and (ii) The transfer
or oetail was made wflhout pnor approval or lhe Comelec In With
Its rmplemenhng rules and regulatiOns In lh1s case,lhe transfer was effected
one day before tt:e Comelec ISSUed Re!.Oiuton No 2333. which prescnbed the
rules and regulatiOns on how to obtarn Comelec appc-oval fOf such trnosfers
2 Good fath ts not a cJelense Electon offenses are generally mala
prohibtta Proof of cnmrnal rnter.t ts not ne<:.essary Gtxxl rath
or lad 01 ahce rs not a defense. tr.e commrSSIOn or the p-oh bl!ed ac: is
suffiCient. Sec People v Bayona. ' 6 Ptul 1Bt People F11en1es 181 Phil
B. Jurisdiction over election olfenses.
1 /nveS'tgBtiOil and prosecr.rlon The CommtS!iiOn on Electrons MS
umdetton to lnvesbgate and prosecute cases mvolvrng violations of
electron lawsi Sec 2(6). Aft IX-C. ConstrtutJon Oe Jesus v P:<>ple, 120SCRA
760 Corpus v Tanodbayan, 149 SCRA 281}. but 11 may validly delegate the
to the :?rovtndal Prosecutor, as rl did woon 1l promulgated Resolu!ion
No 1862, dated March 2 1987 {People v Judge Basilia, 179 SCRA 87].
a) Bot it r.. not the duty of the Come lee. as mve&trgator and prosecutor.
to gather proof rn support of a complatnt filed befOle tl (Ktlosbayan v ComeleC.
G R No 128054, OctOber 16 1991)
2. Tnaf ancl decision The Regional Trml Court has exduSNe Ofl9IMI
furisdtetJOn to try and decide 3ny cnmnaJ ac!IOns or proceechngs for violatiOn of
electiOn taws The metropolitan or munropal trtal court. by way of exceptiOtl ,
exercrses JUrlsdctJOn only over offenses relaung to failure to regster or to
It 1s the speaal intenliOil of the Omnibus Electron Code to vest in reg100al
ltial court junsdictron over election offenses as a matter of excepton to tho
general proviSions on iunsdidion over crlmmal cases found under B P. 129,
as amended (even by R.A 7691) [Naldoza v. LDVIIIes, 254 SCRA 286}. Thrs
rulrng is rerterated '" Comelec v Noynay. 292 SCRA 254, calling attention to
Sec. 268, BP 881
c. Preferential disposiuon of election offenses (Sec. 269. B. P. 88 'J.
1 lnvestgaoon an<l prosecu\101\ of c!edlOn offenses shall be grvon
pnonty by the Comelec. The investJgatrng offrcer shall resolve the case withn
five (5) days from submiSSIOn.
2. The courts shafl likewise grve prererence to election offenses over
all ()(he( cases. except pei.Jtions for a wnt or habeas c:orpus. Cases shAD be
decided wrthn thirty (30) days from submiSSIOn.
D Prwscription period for P.lection offenses. Frve (5) years from date of