admin cases chapters 5-7

8/12/2019 Admin Cases Chapters 5-7

1/29

1)LEON MATEO vs COURT OF APPEALS

This is a petition for review on certiorariassailing the decision dated April 26, 1988 of therespondent Court of Appeals 1 denying the petition for mandamus with preliminary injunctionfiled y the petitioners!

The antecedent facts are as follows" virtual 1aw lirary

#n $ovemer 9, 19%8, the private respondents &then plaintiffs' instituted an action for recoveryof possession and(or ownership with damages against the petitioners &then defendants', of atwo)hectare piece of land situated in Calamagoy, *agsaysay, +avao del ur, which land iscovered y Transfer Certification of Title $o! 9-.9 in the name of private respondent &thenplaintiff' /0ulia *ateo, married to rancisco del osario!/ 2

After protracted proceedings which lasted for almost nine years, the egional Trial Court of+igos, +avao del ur, - rendered a decision dated *arch 21, 198%, the decretal portion ofwhich states"chanro1es virtual 1aw lirary

3455#5, judgment is herey rendered"chanro1es virtual 1aw lirary

#rdering the defendants to vacate ot $o! 7.%2)A)2, sd)211682, situated in Calamagoy,*agsaysay, +avao del ur, covered y T!C!T! $o! 9-.9 in the name of plaintiff 0ulia *ateo,married to rancisco del osario to pay the plaintiffs 2,...!.. for and as attorney:s fees topay the plaintiffs ;,...!.. per year, commencing in the year 19%8 until they shall have vacatedthe land, for the income from the property that the plaintiffs failed to receive due to the refusal ofthe defendants to return the same to them and to pay the costs!

A copy of the said decision was served on the petitioners, defendants in the trial court, on *arch-1, 198%, ut since no appeal from this judgment had een filed within the reglementary period,or up to April 17, 198%, the same ecame final and e


2/29

alleging that the denial of their appeal was unwarranted and that the granting of the notice ofappeal was a ministerial duty enforceale y mandamus!

As adverted to at the outset, the respondent appellate court denied the said etition for*andamus in a decision dated April 26, 1988!

4ence, this recourse!

?n their etition, the petitioners sumit the following assignment of errors" 1aw lirary

1! That the instant petition is a concrete and specific e


3/29

The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same re=uires neither the e


4/29


5/29

*oreover, as the respondent court correctly oserved, the petitioners did not present any validand sufficient cause of action to justify any relief from judgment! Correctly the Court of Appealsruled"chanro1es virtual 1aw lirary

x x x

! ! ! etitioners: defense rests mainly on their allegation of /continuous possession for 17 years!/This is not a valid defense as against the plaintiffs: rights over the property or owner with anindefeasile title! The land in =uestion is covered y Transfer Certificate of Title $o! 9-.9 in thename of plaintiff 0ulia *ateo, married to rancisco del osario! There can e no claim of rightsased on 17 years continuous possession if the land is registered under the Torrens ystem inthe name of another ecause the latter:s rights are indefeasile as against the whole world! Thetransfer certificate of title issued to the plaintiff is on eruary 21, 1976, ringing the land underthe operation of the Torrens ystem, confers on the plaintiffs an imprescriptile title over suchland after the lapse of one year from issuance thereof! 17

x x x

?ndeed, the respondent court did not commit any reversile error!

3455#5, the petition for review on certiorariis +5$?5+! Cost against the petitioners!

# #+55+!

*elencio)4errera, aras, adilla and egalado, JJ., concur!

2)OLAMA vs PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

The petition for review assails the +ecision1of the Court of Appeals dated 0une 22, 2..7, in CA)B!! $o! 8;112, which reversed the +ecision2of the egional Trial Court &TC' of anao delur, *arawi City, ranch 1., in pl! Civil Action $o! 987).-, as well as the esolution-dated

August 17, 2..7 denying petitioner:s motion for reconsideration!The antecedent facts are as follows"etitioners Banie ! #lama, +atu *aDay anto, +arimang Antal ultan, Camad angcopan,0amil Aiden Tampugao, and Adulgafor Angindarat, alleged that they were the duly elected

unong arangay in arangays Alog, ita, Campo, *adaya, *indamudag and iantaran,respectively, all of the *unicipality of Tuaran, anao del ur, during the special arangay andangguniang Gaataan elections held on August 1-, 2..2! etitioners further claimed thatnotwithstanding their election and despite repeated demands, they were denied y therespondent hilippine $ational anD &$' of their ?nternal evenue Allotment &?A' for themonths of #ctoer, $ovemer and +ecemer 2..2 and 0anuary 2..-! $:s refusal to releasetheir ?A was allegedly anchored on the refusal of ocal Bovernment #perations #fficer&B##' 4adji 4ussein Tugaya Taua &B## Taua' to issue the certifications re=uested of himy the petitioners!;


6/29

Thus, petitioners filed a petition7for mandamus and injunction with prayer for the issuance of awrit of preliminary injunction and(or T# with the TC of *arawi City which was docDeted aspl! Civil Action $o! 987).- and raffled to ranch 1.! ?t seeDs the issuance of a judgmentre=uiring $ to release the ?A to the petitioners and their respective appointed arangayTreasurers!6

?nstead of an answer, $ filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lacD of cause of action

which was denied y the trial court in its #rder dated *arch -1, 2..-!%The TC also orderedthe issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction directing $:s *arawi ranch to /cease, desistand refrain from releasing the suject ?A:s for arangays Alog, *adaya, *indamudag andCampo, iantaran and ita, e


7/29

c! #rdering intervenors to desist, refrain, and cease from e


8/29

they were the duly elected heads of their respective arangays ased on the Certificates ofCanvass of @otes and roclamations of 3inning Candidates for unong arangay andGagawad ng angguniang arangay y the arangay oard of Canvassers22which showedthat they garnered the highest numer of votes for punong arangay in their respective areas!4owever, petitioners failed to e


9/29

themselves in this case! The principle echoed and reechoed is that legal rights may e enforcedy mandamus only if those rights are well defined, clear and certain! *andamus never issues indoutful cases!26

3455#5, the petition is DENIED! The assailed +ecision dated 0une 22, 2..7 andesolution dated August 17, 2..7 of the Court of Appeals in CA)B!! $o! 8;112are AFFIRMED!

Costs against petitioners!# #+55+!3)LECAROZ VS SANDIGANBAYAN

A$C?C# *! 5CA#I and 5$?5 5CA#I, father and son, were convicted y theandiganayan of thirteen &1-' counts of estafa through falsification of pulic documents! 1Theynow seeD a review of their conviction as they insist on their innocence!etitioner rancisco *! ecaro was the *unicipal *ayor of anta Cru, *arindu=ue, while hisson, his co)petitioner enlie ecaro, was the outgoing chairman of the Gaataang arangay&G' of arangay agong ilang, *unicipality of anta Cru, and concurrently a memer of itsangguniang ayan &' representing the ederation of Gaataang arangays!?n the 1987 election for the Gaataang arangay 0owil ed 2won as G Chairman of arangay

*atalaa, anta Cru! arenthetically, enlie ecaro, did not run as candidate in this electorale


10/29

-, par! &e', of A $o! -.19, the Anti)Braft and Corrupt ractices Act, against *ayor ecaroalone!#n % #ctoer 199; the andiganayan rendered a decision finding the two &2' accused guiltyon all counts of estafa through falsification of pulic documents and sentenced each of them toJ

a' imprisonment for an indeterminate period ranging from a minimum of ?@5 &7'K5A, 55@5$ &11' *#$T4 A$+ #$5 &1' +AK ofprision correccionalto amaA$+ 5# &67,...'andc' perpetual special dis=ualification from pulic office in accordance with Art! 21;of the evised enal Code!! ! ! &and' to pay jointly and severally the amount of T35$TK)T455T4#>A$+ ?E 4>$+5+ 5@5$TK)?@5 5# &2-,6%7', the amountunlawfully otained, to the *unicipality of ta! Cru, *arindu=ue in restitution!

The andiganayan ruled that since ed was elected president of the G and tooD his oath ofoffice sometime in 1987 efore then Assemlywoman Carmencita #! eyes his assumption ofthe G presidency upon the e


11/29

municipality of ta! Cru, *arindu=ue for having paid salaries to 5$?55CA#I who was not entitled thereto!Conspiracy was alleged in the ?nformations herein, and the Court found theallegation sufficiently sustantiated y the evidence presented!There is no justifiale reason why accused *AK# 5CA#I should havereinstated his son 5$?5 in the municipal payrolls from 0anuary 16, 1986 to0anuary -1, 198%, yet he did so! 4e could not have had any other purpose thanto enale his son 5$?5 to draw salaries therey! This conclusion inescapaleconsidering that the very purpose of a payroll is precisely that J to authorie thepayment of salaries! And 5$?5 5CA#I did his part y actually drawing thesalaries during the periods covered, aleit through another person whom he hadauthoried!y the facts proven, there was conspiricy in the commission of 5stafa etweenfather and son!

4owever, with respect to the charge of violating ec! -, par! &e', of A $o! -.19, theandiganayan ac=uitted *ayor rancisco ecaro! ?t found that ed was neither authoried tosit as memer of the ecause he was not properly appointed thereto nor had he shown tothe mayor sufficient asis for his alleged right to a seat in the municipal council! #n this asis,the court a quo concluded that *ayor ecaro was legally justified in not allowing ed toassume the position of Gagawad!#n 1 #ctoer 199; the andiganayan denied the motion for reconsideration of its decisionfiled y the accused! This prompted herein petitioners to elevate their cause to us charging thatthe andiganayan erred"First, in holding that ed had validly and effectively assumed the office of G ederationresident y virtue of his oath taDen efore then Assemly woman Carmencita eyes on 2%eptemer 1987, and in concluding that the tenure of accused enlie ecaro as president ofthe G and his coterminous term of office as G representative to the had accordinglye


12/29

The petition is meritorious! The asic propositions upon which the andiganayan premised itsconviction of the accused are" &a' although 0owil ed was duly elected G Chairman he couldnot validly assume a seat in the anggunian as G sectoral representative for failure to show avalid appointment and, &' enlie ecaro who was the incument G representative could nothold over after his term enless sooner removed for cause, all local electiveofficials hereinaove mentioned shall hold office for a term of si< &6' years, whichshall commence on the first *onday of *arch 198.!In the case of the members of the sanggunian representing the association ofbarangay councils and the president of the federation of kabataan barangay,their terms of office shall be coterminous ith their tenure as president fo theirrespective association and federation!


13/29

The andiganayan maintained that y taDing his oath of office efore Assemly woman eyesin 1987 ed validly assumed the presidency of the G upon the entil then, he hasnone at all! And for as long as he has not =ualified, the holdover officer is the rightful occupant!?t is thus clear in the present case that since ed never =ualified for the post, petitioner enlieecaro remained G representative to the anggunian, aleit in a carry over capacity, and wasin every aspect a de !ure officer, 1or at least a de facto officer 1!entitled to receive the salariesand all the emoluments appertaining to the position! As such, he could not e considered an

intruder and liale for encroachment of pulic office! 1"

#n the issue of criminal liaility of petitioners, clearly the offenses of which petitioners wereconvicted, i!e!, estafa through falsification of pulic documents under Art! 1%1, par! ;, of Theevised enal Code, are intentional felonies for which liaility attaches only when it is shownthat the malefactors acted with criminal intent or malice! 1#?f what is proven is mere judgmentalerror on the part of the person committing the act, no malice or criminal intent can e rightfullyimputed to him! 3as criminal intent then demonstrated to justify petitionersL convictionF ?t doesnot so appear in the case at ar!#rdinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for a crime to e


14/29

+uty ound to oserve the constitutional mandate, petitioner rancisco ecaro through theprovincial governor forwarded the papers of 0owil ed to then *inister of ?nterior and ocalBovernment A=uilino imentel, 0r!, re=uesting advice on the validity of the appointment signedy former resident *arcos! The response was the issuance of *?B rovincial *emorandum)Circular $o! 86).2 21and *emorandum)Circular $o! 86)1% 22stating that J

#@?$C?A *5*#A$+>*)C?C>A $#! 86).2

2! That newly elected G ederation residents, without their respectiveauthenticated appointments from the president, cannot, in any way, representtheir associations in any sangguniang ayan(sangguniang panlalawigan, as thecase may e, although they are still considered presidents of their federations yvirtue of the 0uly 1987 elections!

*5*#A$+>* C?C>A $#! 86)1%?t is informed, however, that until replaced y the #ffice of the resident or y this*inistry the appointive memers of the various angguniang ayan,angguniang anlunsod, and the angguniang anlalawigan shall continue tohold office and to receive compensation due them under e


15/29

the meaning of the provisions of an ordinance y a city mayor does not amount to ad faith thatwould entitle an aggrieved party to damages against that official! 3e reiterated this principlein $abutol v! %ascual2!which held that pulic officials may not e liale for damages in thedischarge of their official functions asent any ad faith! Sanders v! &eridiano II2"e


16/29


17/29

pending efore the *unicipal Court of os Angeles 0udicial +istrict, County of os Angeles, tate ofCalifornia, >!!A! A warrant issued y said court for his arrest, it is claimed, has yet to e served onprivate respondent on account of his alleged /flight/ from that country!efore the 11th *ay 1992 elections, a petition for cancellation &A 92).67' of respondentLscertificate of candidacy, on the ground of the candidateLs dis=ualification under ection ;.&e' of theocal Bovernment Code, was filed y petitioner with the C#*55C! #n .8 *ay 1992, the

C#*55C dismissed the petition!etitionerLs suse=uent recourse to this Court &in B!! $o! 1.7-1.' from the .8th *ay 1992resolution of C#*55C was dismissed without prejudice, however, to the filing in due time of apossile post)election quo arrantoproceeding against private respondent! The Court, in itsresolution of .2 0une 1992, held"

5vidently, the matter elevated to this Court was a pre)proclamation controversy!ince the private respondent had already een proclaimed as the duly electedBovernor of the rovince of Mueon, the petition elow for dis=ualification hasceased to e a pre)proclamation controversy! ?n #asimiro vs! #ommission on+lections, B!! $os! 8;;62)6- and"ntonio vs! #ommission on +lections, B!! $os!8;6%8)%9, jointly decided on 29 *arch 1989, 1%1 CA ;68, this court held that apre)proclamation controversy is no longer viale at this point of time and should e

dismissed! The proper remedy of the petitioner is to pursue the dis=ualification suit ina separate proceeding!ACC#+?$BK, the Court esolved to +?*? the petit ion, without prejudice tothe filing of the appropriate proceedings in the proper forum, if so desired, within ten&1.' days from notice! 1

rivate respondent was proclaimed Bovernor)elect of Mueon on 29 *ay 1992! orthwith, petitionerinstituted quo arrantoproceedings &5C 92)28' against private respondent efore the C#*55C!?n its .2 eruary 199- resolution, the C#*55C &econd +ivision' dismissed the petition! TheC#*55C +n anc, on .2 +ecemer 199-, denied a reconsideration of the resolution!4ence, this petition for certiorari, the core issue of which, such as to e e


18/29

C4A?*A$ +5 5+#! Gung puwede i)retain lang iyan! ahala naDung Duwestiyunin ang constitutionality nito efore the upremeCourt later on!5! C>5$C#! Anong naDalagay diyanFC4A?*A$ +5 5+#! ?yong dis=ualification to run for pulic office!Any person who is a fugitive from justice in criminal or nonpolitical

cases here or aroad!*aigat yung aroad! #ne who is facing criminal charges with thewarrant of arrest pending, unserved! ! !4#$#A5 AB>?AB! ? thinD that is even a good point, ano Jwhat is a fugitiveF ?t is not defined! 3e have loose understanding! ! !C4A?*A$ +5 5+#! o isingit na rin sa definition of terms iyongfugitive!i enny umalis na, with the understanding na oDay na sa atin ito!T45 C4A?*A$! 3hether we have this rule or not she can run! heis not a fugitive from justice! *rs! *arcos can run at this point and ?have held that for a long time ago! o can! ! !*! +#CT#! *r! Chairman! ! !

T45 C4A?*A$! Kes!*! +#CT#! etLs move to! ! !T45 C4A?*A$! 3ait, wait, wait! Can we just agree on the wording,this is very important! *anny, can you come upF*! 5K5! etLs use the word conviction y final judgment!T45 C4A?*A$! ugitive means someody who is convicted yfinal judgment! #Day,! ugitive means someody who is convicted yfinal judgment! ?nsert that on ine ;- after the semi)colon! ?s thatapprovedF $o ojection, approved &T$, #versight Committee, .%*ay 1991'!


19/29

taDen as to emrace those who merely were facing criminal charges! A similar concern wasepon the promotion of 0ustice Arturo ! uena to the upreme Court on 0anuary 7, 1999,the most senior Associate 0ustice 0orge ! ?mperial assumed the position of Acting residing0ustice of this Court, y operation of law, pursuant to ection 8)a, ule 1 of the evised?nternal ules of the Court of Appeals which provides"ec! 8!"pplication of the 1ule on %recedence! J The rule on precedence shall e oservedand applied in the following instances"

a! ?n case of vacancy in the office of the residing 0ustice or in the event of hisasence or inaility to perform the powers, functions and duties of his office, the


20/29

Associate 0ustice who is first in precedence shall perform his powers, functions, andduties until such disaility is removed or another residing 0ustice is appointed andhas =ualified!

Conse=uently, Acting residing 0ustice ?mperial now receives the salary and allowance ofthe residing 0ustice!*oreover, ec! -, residential +ecree 1;-8 amending !A! 91. as amended y !A! 7.97

states that upon retirement, a justice of the Court of Appeals /! ! ! shall e automaticallyentitled to a lump sum of five years gratuity computed on the asis of the highest monthlysalary plus the highest monthly aggregate of transportation, living and representationallowances he was receiving on the date of his retirement ! ! ! !/Considering the foregoing, advice is therefore respectfully re=uested on the propriety(validityof computing 0ustice ?mperialLs compulsory retirement enefits ased on the salary andallowances of a residing 0ustice!

< < < < < < <

admin cases chapters 5-7

Documents