17.) Flores vs. Drilon (GR.

104732, June 22, 1993)

Facts:
Sec. 13, par. (d), of R.A. 7227, otherwise known as the "Bases Conversion and
Development Act of 1992," under which Mayor Richard J. Gordon of Olongapo City was
appointed Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority
(SBMA). Under said provision, for the first year of its operations from the effectivity of
this Act, the mayor of the City of Olongapo shall be appointed as the chairman and chief
executive officer of the Subic Authority. Flores et. al., contend that said provision is
contrary to the Constitution, to wit: (a) Sec. 7, first par., Art. IX-B, of the Constitution,
which states that "[n]o elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in
any capacity to any public officer or position during his tenure," because the City Mayor
of Olongapo City is an elective official and the subject posts are public offices.
Issue:
Whether or not the proviso in Sec. 13, par. (d), of R.A. 7227 violates the constitutional
proscription against appointment or designation of elective officials to other government
posts?
Held:
Yes. Under Sec. 94 of the Local Government Code, it permits the appointment of local
elective official to another post if so allowed by law or by the primary functions of his
office. But in this section, it is not determinative of the constitutionality of Sec. 13, par.
(d), of R.A. 7227, for no legislative act can prevail over the Constitution. In this case,
Mayor Gordon is ineligible for appointment to the position of Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive of SBMA, his appointment contravenes to the Constitution because No
elective official shall be appointed or designated to another position in any capacity.

18.) Marquez, Jr. vs. COMELEC and Rodriguez (GR. 112889, April 18, 1995)
Facts:
Bienvenido Marquez, a defeated candidate in the Province of Quezon filed a petition for
certiorari praying for the reversal of the COMELEC Resolution which dismissed his
petition against the winning candidate, Eduardo Rodriguez, for being allegedly a fugitive
from justice. At the time Rodriguez filed his certificate of candidacy, a criminal charge
against him for ten (10) counts of insurance fraud or grand theft of personal property
was still pending before the Court of Los Angeles, USA. A warrant was issued by said
court for his arrest, it is claimed, it has yet to be served on Rodriguez on account of his
alleged flight from that country. Marquezs subsequent recourse was dismissed without
prejudice. Before the 1992 elections, Marquez filed a petition with the COMELEC for
cancellation of Rodriguezs certificate of candidacy on account of the candidates
disqualification under Sec. 40 (e) of the Local Government Code. Rodriguez was
proclaimed Governor-elect of Quezon and Marquez filed a petition to the Supreme
Court.
Issue:
Whether or not Rodriguez, at the time of filing his certificate of candidacy, is said to be a
fugitive from justice as provided for in section 40 of the Local Government Code?
Held:
The COMELEC did not make any definite finding on whether or Rodriguez is in fact a
fugitive from justice as such term must be interpreted and applied in the light of the
Courts opinion. Section 40(e) of the LGC (RA 7160) provide that a Fugitive from
justice in criminal cases here and abroad are disqualified from running for any elective
local position. Art. 73 of the Rules Implementing R.A. 7160, to the extent that it
confines the term fugitive from justice to refer only to a person who has been
convicted by final judgment is an inordinate and undue circumscription of the law. The
term includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment, but likewise
those who, after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution.

19.) Marquez, Jr. et. al. vs. COMELEC and Makati (GR. 118577, March 07, 1995)
Facts:
Juanito Mariano, a resident of Makati, along with residents of Taguig suing as
taxpayers, assail Sections 2, 51 and 52 of R.A. No. 7854 (An Act Converting the
Municipality of Makati into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati).
Another petition which contends the unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 7854 was also filed
by John H. Osmena as a senator, taxpayer and concerned citizen on the ground that
Section 2 did not properly identify the land or territorial jurisdiction of Makati by metes
and bounds, with technical descriptions, in violation of Section 10, Article X of the
Constitution, in relation to Sections 7 and 450 of the Local Government Code.
Issue:
Whether or not said provisions of R.A. 7854 are valid?
Held:
Yes. R.A. 7854, which converted Makati into a city, did not define the boundaries of the
new city by metes and bounds, because of a territorial dispute between Makati and
Taguig, which was best left for the courts to decide. The requirement that the territory of
newly created local government units be identified by metes and bounds is intended
toprovide the means by which the area of the local government unit may be reasonably
ascertained, i.e., as a tool in the establishment of the local government unit. As long as
the territorial jurisdiction of the newly created city may be reasonably ascertained by
referring to common boundaries with neighboring municipalities then, the legislative
intent has been sufficiently served.

20.) City of Manila vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (GR. 71159, Nov. 15, 1989)
Facts:
Vivencio Sto. Domingo, Sr. died and was buried in North Cemetery which lot was leased
by the city to Irene Sto. Domingo for the period from June 6, 1971 to June 6, 2021. The
wife paid the full amount of the lease. Apart, however from the receipt, no other
document embodied such lease over the lot. Believing that the lease was only for five
years, the city certified the lot as ready for exhumation. On the basis of the certification,
Joseph Helmuth authorized the exhumation and removal of the remains of
Vicencio. His bones were placed in a bag and kept in the bodega of the cemetery. The
lot was also leased to another lessee. During the next all souls day, the private Sto.
Domingo family were shocked to find out that Vicencios remains were removed. The
cemetery told Irene to look for the bones of the husband in the bodega. Aggrieved, the
widow and the children brought an action for damages against the City of Manila. The
court ordered the City of Manila to give the Sto. Domingo family the right to make use of
another lot. The CA affirmed and included the award of damages in favor of the Sto.
Domingo family.
Issue:
Whether or not the operations and functions of a public cemetery are a governmental,
or a corporate or proprietary function of the City of Manila?
Held:
The operations and functions of a public cemetery are under the proprietary functions of
the City of Manila. The city entered into a contract of lease with Irene Sto. Domingo. and
upon breach of contractual obligations by the City of Manila renders the City liable in
damages and is liable for the tortious acts of its employees, under the principle of
respondeat superior. A municipal corporation, like an ordinary person, is liable on a
contract it enters into, provided that the contract is intra vires. If the contract is ultra
vires, the municipal corporation is not liable.

21.) Borja, Jr. vs. COMELEC and Capco, Jr. (GR. 133495, September 03, 1998)
Facts:
Jose T. Capco, Jr. was elected as Vice-Mayor of Pateros on January 18, 1988 for a term
ending on June 30, 1992. On September 2, 1989, he became Mayor, by operation of
law, upon the death of the incumbent, Cesar Borja. Thereafter, Capco was elected and
served as Mayor for two more terms, from 1992 to 1998. On March 27, 1998, Capco
filed a Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor of Pateros in the May 11, 1998
elections. Petitioner Benjamin U. Borja, Jr., who was also a candidate for mayor, sought
Capcos disqualification on the ground that Capco would have already served as Mayor
for 3 consecutive terms by June 30, 1998; hence, he would be ineligible to serve for
another term. The Second Division of the Comelec declared Capco disqualified but
the Comelec en banc reversed the decision and declared Capco eligible to run for
mayor. Capco was subsequently voted and proclaimed as mayor.
Issue:
Whether or not a vice-mayor who succeeds to the office of mayor by operation of law
and serves the remainder of the term is considered to have served a term in that office
for the purpose of the three-term limit?
Held:
No. The term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to the right to be
elected as well as the right to serve the same elective position. Consequently, it is not
enough that an individual has served three consecutive terms in an elective local office,
he must also have been elected to the same position for the same number of times
before the disqualification can apply. The three-term limit on a local official is to be
understood to refer to terms for which the official concerned was elected. Thus, a
person who was elected Vice Mayor in 1988 and who, because of the death of the
Mayor, became Mayor in 1989, may still be eligible to run for the position of Mayor in
1998, even if elected as such in 1992 and 1995.

22.) SBMA vs. COMELEC (GR. 125416, September 26, 1996)

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

23.) Wilmer Grego vs. COMELEC and Basco (GR. 125955, June 19, 1997)
Facts:
Humberto Basco was removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff by the Court upon a
finding of serious misconduct in an administrative complaint lodged by Nena Tordesillas.
Subsequently, Basco ran as a candidate for Councilor in the Second District of Manila
during the 1988, local elections. He won and, accordingly, assumed office. After his
term, he sought reelection in the 1992 election. He again won. However, a case was
filed by Cenon Ronquillo (Candidate for councilor), who alleged Basco's ineligibility to
be elected councilor and other complaints were filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman and in the DILG. In 1995, Basco ran again for councilor. William Grego,
claiming to be a registered voter of Manila, filed with the COMELEC a petition for
disqualification, praying for Basco's disqualification, for the suspension of his
proclamation, and for the declaration of Romualdo S. Maranan as the sixth duly elected
Councilor of Manila's Second District. The Manila BOC however proclaimed Basco as a
duly elected councilor. In view of the proclamation, Grego filed an urgent motion
seeking to annul the illegal proclamation. The COMELEC dismissed the petition for
disqualification ruling that the administrative penalty imposed by the SC on Basco was
wiped away and condoned by the electorate who elected him.
Issue:
Whether or not Section 40 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160 apply retroactively to those
removed from office before it took effect on January 1, 1992?
Held:
No. Sec. 40, R.A. 7160, cannot apply retroactively. Thus, an elective local official who
was removed from office as a result of an administrative case prior to January 1, 1992
(the date of effectivity of the Local Government Code) is not disqualified from running
for elective local office. It applies only to those removed from office after the effectivity of
the LGC.

24.) Andaya and Inciong vs. City of Cebu (GR. 126661, December 03, 1999)
Facts:
Jose Andaya, Regional Director, Regional Police Command No. 7, submitted to the City
Mayor of Cebu a list of 5 eligibles for the mayor to choose one to be appointed as the
chief of police of Cebu City. The mayor did not choose anyone from the list because the
name of his protg, Andres Sarmiento was not included therein. The City of Cebu filed
a complaint against Andaya to require him to include the mayors protg in the list of 5
eligibles to be recommended by the Regional Police Director to the mayor. Andaya
refuses stating that aside from the fact that said protg is not qualified; the power to
designate the chief of police of Cebu City is vested with the Regional Director. However,
the mayor is authorized to choose the chief of police from a list of 5 eligibles submitted
by the Regional Director. Under RA 6975, Sec 51, the mayor of Cebu City shall be
deputized as representative of the National Police Commission in his territorial
jurisdiction and as such the mayor shall have authority to choose the chief of police from
a list of 5 eligibles recommended by the Police Regional Director. Then the Regional
Director, RPC No.7, appoints the officer selected by the mayor as the Chief of Police,
Cebu City.
Issue:
Whether or not the mayor has the authority to appoint the Cebu City Chief of Police?
Held:
No. As deputy of the Commission, the authority of the mayor is very limited. In reality, he
has no power of appointment; he has only the limited power of selecting one from
among the list of 5 eligibles to be named the chief of police. Actually, the power to
appoint the chief of police of Cebu City is vested in the Regional Director. Moreover, it is
the prerogative of the Regional Police Director to name the 5 eligibles from a pool of
eligible officers without interference from local executives. Hence, the mayor cannot
require the petitioner to include the mayors protg in the list of 5 eligibles to be
recommended by the Regional Police Director to the mayor.