Kagawad Jose G.

Mendoza Et Al
vs.
Barangay Captain Manuel Laxina Sr.

(Necessity of Oath of Office)

 Mendoza Et Al vs. Laxina Sr.
Facts:
• Respondent Laxina took his Oath (1st oath taking)
and assumed office as the duly proclaimed and
elected barangay captain of Barangay Batasan
Hills, Quezon City.
• An election protest was filed against respondent
by Fermo with the MTC and was eventually
declared as the winner in the Barangay Election.
• A motion for execution was filed by Fermo and
was granted by COMELEC
• Respondent vacated his position and relinquished
the same to Fermo
 Mendoza Et Al vs. Laxina Sr.
• Respondent filed a petition to COMELEC
questioning the order. COMELEC issued a
resolution annulling the order which granted the
execution on the ground that no good reason to
justify execution.
• COMELEC issued a writ of execution directing
FERMO to vacate the office but was eventually
refused.
• Respondent discharge his function and hold
office at the SK Hall and has appointed a
Barangay Secretary and Treasurer (Respondents)
 Mendoza Et Al vs. Laxina Sr.
• Respondent took his oath (2nd oath taking) of
office before the City Mayor and Fermo turned
over all the asset and properties of the barangay
to respondent
• In a Resolution the Barangay Council authorized
the appropriation for the month of November to
December salary of its barangay officials.
• Petitioners refused to sign the said appropriation
and filed with the City Council a complaint for
violation of the anti-graft and corruption practice
act and falsification of legislative documents
against the respondent and all official who signed
the questioned resolution.
 Mendoza Et Al vs. Laxina Sr.

• Petitioner contend that respondent made it

appear in the payroll that he and his
appointees rendered service even before
respondent took his oath in office.
• The Special Investigation Committee ruled
that respondent has no power to make
appointments prior to his oath taking and
found respondent to be guilty of gross
misconduct and recommended a 2 month
suspension as penalty
 Mendoza Et Al vs. Laxina Sr.

• The City Council adopted the

recommendation of the committee.
• Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with
the RTC.
• RTC ruled in favor of respondent exonerating
him of the decision of the City Council.
 Mendoza Et Al vs. Laxina Sr.

Issues:

• Whether Respondent Laxina should be charge

administratively by making appointments
prior to his 2nd Oath taking for the Office of
Baranggay Captain?
 Mendoza Et Al vs. Laxina Sr.

Ruling:
• No. Respondent should be exonerated of all his
administrative charges and his appointments of
the barangay officials were upheld.
• Respondent during his 1st oath taking assumed
office and was therefore vested with all the
rights to discharge the functions of his office.
Although he was unseated by virtue of a decision
on a election protest, the execution of the
decision was annulled by COMELEC.
 Mendoza Et Al vs. Laxina Sr.
• When COMELEC nullified the writ execution in favor of
Fermo, the Status Quo or the last actual peaceful
uncontested situation proceeding the controversy was
restored
• The re-taking of his oath (2nd oath taking) was a mere
formality considering that his 1st oath taking operated as a
full investiture of his right in office. The 2nd oath taking was
not sine qua non to the validity of his re-assumption in
office to exercise of his function.
• Physical Possession of office which was not immediately
relinquished by Fermo did not stop the re-assumption of
office of the respondent. Re-assumption of office should
be effective from the issuance of the writ of execution
ordered by the COMELEC which reinstated respondent to
office, thus no grave misconduct was committed.