law on public officers doctrines (agra) - sienna flores

- 1 -

CHAPTER 1DEFINITION, DISTINCTIONS, & CLASSIFICATIONS

SEGOVIA VS. NOEL A subsequent law changes the tenure of offices of justices &

auxiliary justices of the peace. The law should be given prospective effect only.

Though there is no vested right in an office, which may not be disturbed by legislation, yet the incumbent has, in a sense, a right to his office. If the right is to be taken away by statute, the terms should be clear in w/c the purpose is stated.

CHAPTER 2ELIGIBILITY & QUALIFICATIONS

IGNACIO VS. BANATE An unqualified person was appointed in an acting capacity. The appointment was invalid because an unqualified person

cannot be appointed as member even in an acting capacity. The incumbent continues in office in hold-over capacity until

the appointment and qualification of his successor.

VARGAS VS. RILLORAZA Act adds grounds of disqualification of a SC Justice & provides

that the President may designate judges having no such disqualifications to serve temporarily as SC Justices. The provision is unconstitutional.

The temporary composition of the Supreme Court is not authorized by the Constitution since the Supreme Court is one of the permanent institutions of the government.

Even if the substitute justice would be temporary, he would be participating in the deliberations & acts of the Supreme Court; his vote will be counted as any regular Justice. The method of appointment of a Supreme Court Justice provided by the Constitution is mandatory and binding upon all the departments of government. Hence, those not falling under the definition and those not duly appointed may not act as a Supreme Court Justice, even if only temporary.

CASTANEDA VS. YAP Elected mayor was less than the minimum age requirement of

23 when proclaimed elected. Notwithstanding petitioner’s knowledge of the respondent’s

ineligibility & failure to question such, petitioner is not estopped from questioning such ineligibility. A candidate’s ineligibility is always subject to question.

The right to an elective municipal office can be contested, under existing legislation, only after proclamation. There is no authorized proceeding by w/c an ineligible candidate could be stopped from running for office. Good faith does not cure a candidate’s ineligibility although it might be a good defense in a criminal prosecution.

YEE VS. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS A public school teacher who, by a voluntary change of

citizenship or a change thereof by operation of law, ceases to be Filipino citizen, becomes disqualified from holding any position in the teaching service.

Teaching in a public school is a public function w/c may be performed by citizens only.

CHAPTER 3ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OR TITLE TO OFFICE

CONCEPCION VS. PAREDES Law provides for drawing of lots by district of judges as a

means of determining the districts to w/c they may be assigned. The act is unconstitutional.

The appointment to an office is intrinsically an executive act involving the exercise of discretion.

The Philippine Legislature has no power to enact laws w/c expressly or impliedly diminish the authority conferred by the Act of Congress on the Chief Executive and a branch of the Legislature.

REYES VS. ABELEDA Sec. of Education appointed respondent instead of petitioner

who was recommended by the Dir. Of Public Schools. A person next-in-rank, competent & qualified to hold the

position & possessing an appropriate civil service eligibility, is entitled to a vacancy occurring in any competitive or classified position in the government. There is the proviso, however, that should there be 2 or more persons under equal circumstances, seniority must be given preference.

The appointing power enjoys sufficient discretion to select & appoint employees on the basis of their fitness to perform the duties & assume the responsibilities of the positions to be filled. The power to appoint is essentially discretionary.

There is no rigid formula imposed for exercise of power. The criterion should be what public welfare demands, what satisfies public interest.

There should be full recognition of the wide scope of such discretionary authority.

VENECIA VS. PERALTA Petitioner claims title to public office from his oath &

confirmation as against a subsequent ad interim appointee to the same office.

The designation of the petitioner as Acting Chairman of the NAWASA Board of Directors, being revocable & temporary in character, could not ripen into a permanent appointment, even if it was subsequently confirmed by the CA, because confirmation presupposes a valid nomination or recess appointment, of w/c there is no trace in the case at bar.

It was incumbent upon petitioner to clearly prove what kind of appointment was made.

ROSALES VS. YENKO Ad interim appointment was not released to and accepted by

appointee before confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

The appointment of petitioner is not valid. He does not allege that the original of the last ad interim appointment was transmitted to, and was received by him, obviously because the original was never released by the Office of the President. His ad interim appointment being incomplete, there was in fact & in law no ad interim appointment that could be validly transmitted to & acted upon by the Commission on Appointments.

RAFAEL VS. EACIB The statute provides that the chairman & members of the

board need only be designated by the respective department heads to sit ex officio w/o the necessity of new appointments.

For the chairman & members to qualify, they need only be designated by the representative department heads. With the exception of the representatives from the private sector, they sit ex-officio. In order to be designated, they must already be holding positions in the offices mentioned in the law. No new appointments are necessary.

It cannot be doubted that Congress may increase the powers & duties of an existing office w/o thereby rendering it necessary that the incumbent should again be nominated & appointed. For purposes of their tenure on the Board, they can be considered as merely on detail, subject to recall by their respective chiefs.

BARTE VS. DICHOSO The appointment of petitioner as Acting Vice Mayor was by-

passed by the National Assembly.

SIENNA A. FLORES LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS DOCTRINES

- 2 -

The petitioner does not have the right to continue in office & receive salary because his ad interim appointment ceased or expired upon the adjournment of the session of the National Assembly.

CHAPTER 4POWERS, DUTIES, & NORMS OF CONDUCT OF PUBLIC

OFFICERS

LO CHAM VS. OCAMPO A lawyer in the DOJ was temporarily detailed to assist the City

Fiscal of Manila w/ the same powers & functions of an Asst. Fiscal.

The duties of a public office includes all those w/c truly are w/in its scope – those w/c are essential to the accomplishment of the main purpose for w/c the office was created, or w/c, although incidental or collateral, are germane to and serve to promote the accomplishment of the principal purpose.

Powers & functions of the Assistant Fiscal may be entrusted. Signing of complaints, making investigations, & conducting prosecutions are not sacrosanct that only Presidential appointees or one expressly empowered by law may be permitted to assume such functions. A lawyer invested w/ the same authority as an Attorney General or Solicitor General is presumed to be competent to be entrusted w/ any of the duties devolving on a prosecuting attorney, due to the higher standard of training & experience required.

RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHIL VS. SANTIAGO The Public Service Commission imposed a fine on a radio

company for failure to render service expected of a radio operator. Such power is neither expressly no impliedly granted.

Except for constitutional officials who can trace their competence to act to the fundamental law itself, a public official must locate in the statute relied upon a grant of power before he can exercise it. It need not be express. It may be implied from the wording of the law. Absent such requisite, no warrant exists for the assumption of authority.

LAMB VS. PHIPPS Auditor failed and/or refused to issue clearance to a public

officer who has resigned. The right to allow or disallow a claim against the Government

of any of its branches, is, by law w/in the discretion of the Auditor. Hence, mandamus will not lie.

APRUEBA VS. GANZON City refused to allow the opening of a cafeteria in the city

market. Mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of

discretion by the public officer where the law imposes on him the right of duty to exercise judgment in reference to any matter in w/c he is required to act.

The privilege to obtain a renewal of the permit rested on the sound discretion of the Mayor & refusal on his part to grant continuance of the privilege cannot be the subject of mandamus.

MIGUEL VS. ZULUETA The name of the Provincial Building was substituted w/ the

name “President Garcia Hall.” The respondents are duty bound not only to observe, but even

to enforce the law. They may, thus, properly be compelled by mandamus to remove or rectify an unlawful act if to do so is w/in their official competence.

Where the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the observance of the law, the relator need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result of the proceeding. It is sufficient that he is interested as a citizen in having the laws executed and the duty in question

enforced, even though he may not have exclusive right or interest to be protected.

TORRES VS. RIBO The assistant district engineer & chief clerk represented the

district engineer & the division superintendent of schools, respectively, in the provincial Board of Canvassers.

An officer to whom discretion is entrusted cannot delegate it to another. The powers of the board are purely ministerial. It exercises quasi-judicial functions, such as the function & duty to determine whether the papers transmitted to them are genuine election returns signed by the proper officers.

The members of provincial board of canvassers are designated by law. The express enumeration excludes other officers. Not even the Comelec may lawfully appoint any person or officer outside of those mentioned. Appointment of a substitute member is not allowed.

MORFE VS. MUTUC The constitutionality of the legal requirement on government

officials/employees to submit sworn declaration of financial conditions, assets & liabilities is questioned.

The constitutionality of the legal requirement on government officials & employees to submit sworn declaration of financial conditions, assets & liabilities is questioned. The law is valid. The aim of the statute is to curtain or minimize the opportunities of corruption & to maintain the standard of honesty in the public service, and to promote morality in public administration. Thus, its aim is the public good. Thus, there is no invasion of liberty protected by the due process clause. This exercise of police power must be valid.

A public office is a public trust, and not property, but one can invoke due process from the standpoint of security of tenure. Before one may be removed, procedural due process must be complied with, and that cause of removal be a cause specified by law. Security of tenure, in that limited sense, is analogous to property.

CHAPTER 5RIGHTS & PRIVILEGES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

RODRIGUEZ VS. TAN Duly elected Senator seeks reimbursement of salaries paid

to de facto officer. A de facto officer ousted as a result of an election protest is

entitled to compensation for services rendered. The emoluments must go to the person who rendered the service unless the contrary is provided. (This case involved a duly proclaimed elective official who was later ousted.)

The de facto doctrine was formulated, not for the protection of the de facto officer principally, but rather for the protection of the public & individuals who get involved in the official acts of persons discharging the duties of an office w/o being lawful officers.

MONROY VS. CA Vice Mayor who became Mayor seeks reimbursement of

salaries paid to former Mayor who has ceased as rightful occupant.

Where a mayor withdrew his certificate of candidacy for Congressman and then reassumed the position of mayor, thus preventing the vice-mayor from discharging the duties of the position of mayor, the mayor should reimburse to the vice-mayor, as the rightful occupant of the position of the mayor the salaries w/c he had received.

GR: The rightful incumbent of a public office may recover from a de facto officer the salary received by the latter during the time of his wrongful tenure, even though he entered into the office in good faith & under color of title.

Possession of the title of office, not of the office itself, is decisive. A de facto officer, not having good title, takes the salaries at his risk and must, therefore, account to the de


- 3 -

jure officer for whatever amount of salary he received during the period of his wrongful retention of public office.

PEOPLE VS. JALOSJOS Accused asks that he be allowed to fully discharge his duties

as Congressman despite having been convicted of a non-bailable offense.

All top officials of the Government are subject to law. In fact, the higher the rank, the greater is the requirement of obedience rather than exemption.

The immunity from arrest or detention of Congressmen arises from a provision of the Constitution. The history of the provision shows that the privilege has always been granted in a restrictive sense. The provision granting an exemption as a special privilege cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms.

The confinement of a Congressman charged w/ a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 months is not merely authorized by law, it has constitutional foundations. One rationale behind confinement, whether pending appeal or after final conviction, is public self defense. Society must protect itself. It also serves as a warning to others. A person charged w/ a crime is taken into custody for purposes of the administration of justice.

The performance of legitimate & even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly in prison. Election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. The functions & duties of the office are not substantial distinctions w/c lift from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom & restricted in liberty of movement.

MERAM VS. EDRALIN The appointee is 9 or 10 salary ranges below the next-in-rank

personnel. Appointments under the civil service law should be based on

merit & fitness & should never depend on how initiate a friend or how closely related an appointee is to the powers that be. And granting that the respondent possesses that qualifications required for the contested position, it cannot be denied that the petitioner equally possessed the same qualifications, if not in greater degree, and more important, she is next-in-rank to the vacated position. Therefore, she deserves to be appointed to the disputed item.

QUIZON VS. OZAETA Double appointments are not prohibited as long as the

positions involved are not incompatible, except that the officer or employee appointed cannot receive additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by law.

SANTIAGO VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT The recomputation of petitioner’s retirement benefits was

denied on the ground that the additional compensation he received was merely an honorarium & that he was not appointed but merely designated.

The additional compensation received by petitioner was a salary, not merely honorarium. An honorarium is something give, not as a matter of obligation but in appreciation of services rendered, a voluntary donation in consideration of services w/c admit of no compensation in money. The additional compensation given to the petitioner was in the nature of a salary because it was received by him as a matter of right in recompense for services rendered by him as Acting Assistant General Manger for Finance & Administration.

Appointment is the selection by the proper authority of a given office. It is essentially executive.

Designation connotes merely the imposition of additional duties, usually by law, upon a person already in the public service by virtue of an earlier appointment/election. A person may also be designated in an acting capacity, as when he is called upon to fill a vacancy pending the selection of a

permanent appointee thereto or, more usually, the return of the regular incumbent. It is legislative in nature.

Nevertheless, in the law in question, the term ‘appointment’ was used in a general sense to include the term ‘designation.’

ALLARDE VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT Petitioner’s request for inclusion of the monthly allowance he

had been receiving form the municipality where he was assigned as MeTC Judge in the computation of retirement benefits was denied.

The allowances received by petitioner in the nature of reimbursement of expenses are excluded in computing his retirement benefits.

If said allowance were to be included in the computation of retirement benefits of judges, the result would be inequality & disparity in their retirement benefits. For there are rich municipalities that can give generous allowances to the judges & there are poorer municipalities that can give less substantial amounts or none at all.

GSIS VS. CSC No deductions were made from the salaries of a Vice

Governor availing of retirement benefits during the period that she served as such.

Retirement benefits given to government employees in effect reward them for the best years of their lives to the service of their country. In exchange for their selfless dedication to government service, they enjoy security of tenure & are ensured of a reasonable amount of support after they leave the government. The basis for the provision of retirement benefits is, therefore, service to government.

A government employee may avail of retirement benefits notwithstanding his failure to make contributions to the GSIS for the duration he was receiving per diem as compensation.

CONTE VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT COA disallowed in audit petitioner’s claim for benefits under

SSS Res. 56 granting “financial assistance” to retiring employees in addition to retirement benefits.

Retirement benefits are a form of reward for an employee’s loyalty and service to the employer, and are intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining years of his life, lessening the burden of worrying about his financial support or upkeep.

A pension partakes of the nature of ‘retained wages’ of the retiree for a dual purpose: to entice competent people to enter the government service, and to permit them to retire from service w/ relative security, not only for those who have retained their vigor, but more so for those who have been incapacitated by illness or accident.

SSS Resolution 56 constitutes a supplementary retirement plan. However, SSS has no authority to implement such retirement plan as RA 4968 bars the creation of any insurance or retirement plan – other than GSIS – for government officers & employees, in order to prevent the undue & iniquitous proliferation of such plans.

BRION VS. SOUTH PHIL. UNION MISSION OF THE 7TH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH

Respondent church discontinued petitioner’s monthly retirement benefit for establishing a rival religious group after his retirement.

Retirement is the withdrawal from office, public station, business, occupation, or public duty. It is the result of a bilateral act of parties, a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employee whereby the latter, after reaching a certain age, agrees and/or consents to severe his employment w/ the former.

Pension schemes serve to secure loyalty & efficiency on the part of employees, and to increase continuity of service & decrease the labor turnover, by giving to the employees some assurance of security as they approach and reach the


- 4 -

age at w/c earning ability & earnings are materially impaired or at an end.

Before a right to retirement benefits or pension vests in an employee, he must have met the stated conditions of eligibility w/ respect to the nature of employment, age & length of service.

The conditions of eligibility for retirement must be met at the time of retirement at w/c juncture the right to retirement benefits or pension, if the employee is eligible, vests in him.

Pension & retirement plans must be liberally construed in favour of the employee, it being the general rule that pension plans formulated by an employer are to be construed most strongly against the employer.

Petitioner has already retired. Hence, he already had a vested right to receive retirement benefits, a right w/c could not be taken away from him by expulsion or excommunication, this not being a ground for termination of retirement benefits.

UST FACULTY UNION VS. NLRC Upon the retirement of an employee or official in the public or

private service, his employment is deemed terminated. With the termination of employment, the right of the employer to control the employee’s conduct, the so-called ‘control test’ also terminates.

CHAPTER 6DISABILITIES & INHIBITIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

PEOPLE VS. DE VENECIA Defendant was charged w/ electioneering by distributing

leaflets supporting a mayoralty candidate. Although a classified (competitive) civil service employee is

prohibited from aiding any candidate, such classified employee is allowed to express his views on current political problems or issues, or to mention the name of his candidate for public office, even if such expression of views or mention of names may result in aiding one particular candidate.

Contributing money for election purposes to a candidate & distributing leaflets openly supporting a candidate is undoubtedly “aiding” such candidate. It was a solicitation of the electors’ vote in favour of a candidate w/c is a violation of Sec. 54 of the Revised Election Code.

CHAPTER 7LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

PHIL. RACING CLUB VS. BONIFACIO Commission on Races cancelled a race horse allowed by the

board of judges. They cannot be held liable for damages. Considering that the respondents have acted in their official

capacity in the honest belief that they had such power as in fact they acted on the matter only after an on the spot investigation, they cannot be held liable for damages.

A public officer is not personally liable to one injured in consequence of an act performed w/in the scope of his official authority, and in line w/ his official duty.

In order that acts may be done w/in the scope of his official authority, it is not necessary that they be prescribed by statute, or that they be specifically directed or requested by a superior officer, but it is sufficient if they are done by an officer in relation to matters committed by law to his control or supervision, or that they have connection to the department under whose authority the officer is acting.

A quasi-judicial officer who is invested w/ discretion is usually given immunity from liability to persons who may be injured as a result of an erroneous or mistaken decision, however erroneous the judgment may be, provided the acts complained of are done w/in the scope of the officer’s authority, and w/o wilfulness, malice or corruption.

DUMLAO VS. CA

City Engineer is charged w/ negligence for not repairing street where accident took place. Petitioner is not liable.

A public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done w/ malice and bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.

RAMA VS. CA Respondent officials abolished several positions, easing out

200 employees, and later hired 1000 new employees. The respondents are personally liable.

A public officer by virtue of his office alone, is not immune from damages in his personal capacity arising from illegal acts done in bad faith. A different rule would sanction the use of public office as a tool of oppression.

A public officer who commits tort or other wrongful act, done in excess or beyond the scope of his duty, is not protected by his office & is personally liable therefore, like any private individual.

MOON VS. HARRISON Cavans of rice were seized for distribution to the public

under an allegedly unconstitutional law & owner was paid less than their market value. The Governor General is not personally liable for damages.

At the time of the alleged acts, he was exercising the discretionary power w/c was vested in him as Governor General. No court has ever held and no final decision will ever be found holding an Executive personally liable in damages for the exercise of discretionary power under a law before it has been held unconstitutional. The law is presumed to be constitutional.

The defendants are not personally liable in an action for damages. Their acts were official & discretionary and they had a legal right to assume that the law was valid. In the commission of the alleged acts, they were acting for, and representing, the Government of the Philippine Islands under a law enacted by its Legislature and it is elementary that w/o its consent, no suit or action lies against the Government itself.

MERCADO VS. MEDINA Respondent commissioner committed an error of judgment

in not proceeding w/ the hearing of an overcharging case despite the pendency in the SC of a petition for certiorari.

Respondent is guilty neither of nonfeasance nor dereliction of duty. This offense implies a wilful or fraudulent omission or neglect of officially duty, and not mere failure to do a particular thing.

QUIMSING VS. LACHICA Peace officers arrested persons attending authorized cockpit.

Respondents are not personally liable for the damages. Respondents were in good faith. They were unaware of the

city ordinances relied upon by the petitioner. The facts of record sufficiently warrant the conclusion that they were faithfully discharging their duty as law enforcing agents.

MABUTOL VS. PASCUAL Public officials ordered demolition of an apartment building.

They are not personally liable for damages. A public official is not liable for damages for performing a

duty require by law & absent bad faith. The defendants are not personally liable for damages. The

plaintiffs themselves stated in their complaint that the defendants are all public officials and that they ordered the demolition of the apartment building in the discharge of their functions. There remains only the question as to w/n they acted in bad faith & the answer is in the negative.


- 5 -

FESTEJO VS. FERNANDO Dir. Of Public Works allegedly took possession of sugar lands

to the damage & prejudice of owner. He is personally liable for tort.

The present suit is a personal action against the Dir. Of Public Works. Ordinarily, the officer or employee committing the tort is personally liable therefore, and may be sued as any other citizen & held answerable for whatever injury or damage results from his tortuous act.

An officer who acts outside the scope of his jurisdiction & w/o authorization of law may thereby render himself amenable to personal liability in a civil suit. If he exceeds the power conferred on him by law, he cannot shelter himself by the plea that he is public agent acting under color of his office, and not personally. In the eye of the law, his acts are then wholly w/o authority.

PALMA VS. GRACIANO Governor instituted 2 criminal cases against plaintiff, allegedly

due to personal hatred & vengeance against the latter. There is no cause of action against the city & province.

As against the city & province, the prosecution of crimes is not a corporate function, but governmental or political in character. In the exercise of such function, municipal corporations are not responsible for the acts of their officers, except if and when, and only to the extent that they have acted by authority of the law, and in conformity w/ the requisites thereof.

When a public officer goes outside the scope of his duty, particularly when acting tortuously, he is not entitled to protection on account of his office, but is liable for his acts like any private individual.

BELIZAR VS. BRAZAS The fact that the duties & positions of the defendants are

indicated does not mean that they are being sued in their official capacities.

GENSON VS. ADARLE Highway District Engineer tolerated a subordinate to

moonlight on a non-working day in the office premises. The suit against the Highway District Engineer was in his private capacity, hence it was not a suit against the Government.

The accident happened on a non-working day and there was no showing that the work performed on that day was authorized by the government. While the equipment used belongs to the government, the work was private in nature, for the benefit of a purchaser of junk.

CARREON VS. PROVINCE OF PAMPANGA Members of the Provincial Board stopped work on a bridge w/o

any valid reason after contractor contributed a specified sum to build it. The defendants are personally liable for damages.

They acted w/o any valid reason, illegally & maliciously. When a public officer goes outside the scope of his duty, particularly when acting tortuously, he is not protected by his office but liable like any private individual. This liability is even clearer when the act performed involves corporate or proprietary functions rather than those strictly governmental or political in nature.

ZULUETA VS. NICOLAS Finding no sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case

after an investigation, the Provincial Fiscal refrained from filing an information for libel.

Refusal of the fiscal to prosecute when after an investigation he finds no sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case is not a refusal, w/o just cause, to perform an official duty. The fiscal has for sure the legal duty to prosecute crimes where there is enough evidence to justify such action. But it is equally his duty not to prosecute when after an investigation

he has become convinced that the evidence available is not enough to establish a prima facie case.

The fiscal has the authority and discretion to determine existence of a prima facie case. He is not bound to accept the opinion of the complainant in a criminal case as to whether or not a prima facie case exists.

AMARO VS. SUMAGUIT Chief of Police refused to give assistance to a victim of a

crime. It is the duty of the Chief of Police to give assistance to a

victim of a crime, and his refusal to do so constitutes an actionable dereliction.

VITAL-GOZON VS. CA Petitioner was sued in both her official & personal capacity

for her continued refusal to restore private respondent to his position in spite of the final & executory decision of the CSC declaring that his transfer/demotion was null & void, hence illegal.

Petitioner then had the duty to see to it that the decision be obeyed and implemented. The petitioner committed an actionable wrong for unjustifiably refusing or neglecting to perform an official duty.

RIVERA VS. MUNICIPALITY OF MALOLOS Contract was entered into by the municipal mayor in

violation of the requirement of law. Petitioner has no valid against the Municipality of Malolos.

Before a contract may be entered into validly by a municipality, the law requires that there should be an appropriation of municipal funds to meet the obligation validly passed by the municipal council & approved by the municipal mayor.

RIVERA VS. MACLANG Contractor brought personal action against the municipal

mayor for entering into a contract w/o following the requirement of law. The public officer is personally liable for contracts contrary to requirements of law.

The present action is against defendant-appellee in his personal capacity. His liability is personal

The intention of the law is to ensure that public officers entering into transactions w/ private individuals calling for the expenditure of public funds observe a high degree of caution so that government may not be the victim of ill-advised/imprudent action by those assuming to represent it.

ALMEDA VS. PEREZ Petition for forfeiture was amended to include new items of

alleged unlawful acquisitions. The proceeding for forfeiture is civil in nature and not

criminal. A proceeding under the RA 1379 (Anti-Graft Law) does not terminate in the imposition of a penalty but merely in the forfeiture of properties illegally acquired in favour of the State. The procedure outlined in the law leading to forfeiture is that provided for in a civil action.

As the proceeding for forfeiture is not a penal proceeding but a civil one, it follows that amendments setting forth newly discovered acquisitions may be inserted in the petition w/o obtaining the consent of the respondent.

CABAL VS. KAPUNAN Petitioner refused to be sworn as a witness & to take the

witness stand before a presidential committee investigating charges of alleged unexplained wealth against him.

Forfeiture, being a divestiture of property w/o compensation due to default or an offense, partakes of the nature of a penalty or punishment since it is aimed to restrain the commission of an offense & aid in the prevention of such. Thus, the proceedings for forfeiture of property are deemed criminal or penal (although generally, a civil proceeding in rem).


- 6 -

A proceeding to declare forfeiture due to evasion of certain revenue laws or for removal of an officer, is in substance criminal since it is not to establish, recover or redress private or civil rights, but to try to punish persons charged w/ the commission of a public offense.

Since the person here is the owner or the rightful possessor, the forfeiture is a punishment. Hence the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and thus one may invoke the right against self-incrimination.

The doctrine laid down in Almeda vs. Perez refers only to the procedural aspect of said proceeding, and has no bearing on the substantial rights of the respondents therein, particularly their constitutionally rights against self-incrimination.

ALBERT VS. GANGAN COA found petitioner liable for the amount of P36M covering

the payment of the loon proceeds for the lot acquired, w/c was disallowed in audit.

Petitioner, as head of the agency, cannot be held personally liable for the disallowance simply because he was the final approving authority of the transaction in question and that he officers/employees who processed the same were directly under his supervision.

The mere fact that a public officer is the head of an agency does not necessarily mean that he is the party ultimately liable in case of disallowance of expenses for questionable transactions of his agency.

Requisites to be personally liable for unauthorized expenditures:

1. there must be an expenditure of government funds or use of government property

2. the expenditure is in violation of law or regulation3. the official is found directly responsible therefore

MACADANGDANG VS. SANDIGANBAYAN Budget officer signed falsified vouchers for repair of

government vehicles & made a request for the allotment of funds w/o ascertaining w/n the repairs were needed.

Simply because a person in a chain of processing officers happens to sign or initial a voucher as it is going the grounds, it does not necessarily follow that he becomes part of a conspiracy in an illegal scheme. The guilt beyond reasonable doubt of each supposed conspirator must be established. Accused’s lack of care may be a ground for administrative action but does not give rise to culpability absent more evidence against him.

ARIAS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN Land w/c was assessed at P5/m2 in 1973 was acquired by the

government in 1978 for P80/m2 through negotiated purchase. Petitioners, one who headed & supervised the acquisition of private lands and the other who approved in audit the acquisition & payment of the lands were acquitted.

All heads of offices have the right to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations. A mere signature or approval is insufficient to prove conspiracy. Proof is necessary to establish overpricing for purposes of a criminal conviction.

CHAPTER 8TERMINATION OF OFFICIAL RELATIONS

NUENO VS. ANGELES Petitioner claims right to office for being unable to serve for

the full term due to the Japanese occupation. The term of office is fixed by law & cannot be extended by

reason of war.

ALBA VS. ALBA

Under the law, the appointee “shall hold office at the pleasure of the President.” The President may legally replace such appointee w/ or w/o cause.

Congress can legally & constitutionally make the tenure of certain officials dependent upon the pleasure of the President.

It is only in those cases in w/c the office is held at the pleasure of the appointing power & where the power of removal is exercisable at its mere discretion, that the officer may be removed w/o notice or hearing.

CADIENTE VS. SANTOS Mayor dispensed w/ the services of the City of Legal Officer

on the ground that the position was primarily confidential in nature.

The position of City Legal Officer is a position primarily confidential in nature. The phrase ‘primarily confidential’ denotes not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy w/c insures freedom of intercourse, w/o embarrassment & freedom from misgivings of betrayal of persona trust on confidential matters of state.

The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence, because their term of office lasts only as long as confidence in them endures; and thus their cessation involves no removal. When such confidence is lost & the officer holding such position is separated from the service, such cessation entails no removal but an expiration of his term. There being no removal or dismissal it could not, therefore, be said that there was a violation of the constitutional provision that no officer or employee in the civil service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law.

CRISTOBAL VS. MELCHOR The services of a private secretary in the Office of the

President were terminated. However, there was no evidence to indicate that the respective position of the dismissed employee was ‘primarily confidential’ in nature.

On the contrary the compensation attached & the designation given thereto suggests the purely or at least mainly clerical nature of their work. Considering that they were civil service eligibles w/ several years of service in the Government, their removal from office was illegal & contrary to law.

DULDULAO VS. RAMOS With the conversion of the municipality into a province, the

CFI Judge & Register of Deeds continued to be the officials of both provinces.

The principle of holdover is to preserve the continuity in the transaction of official business & the operation of the machinery of justice.

GONZALES VS. HERNANDEZ Resignation was subject to result of appeal contesting

employee’s dismissal. The petitioner has a right to reinstatement. There was no

resignation due to lack of intention to relinquish his position. To constitute a complete & operative act of resignation, the officer/employee must show clear intention to relinquish or surrender his position and there must be an acceptance by a competent & lawful authority.

His position was temporary in nature, hence there was no abandonment. He had a right to live during the pendency of his appeal & naturally the right to accept any form of employment.

ORTIZ VS. COMELEC Application for retirement benefits of a Commissioner of the

Comelec whose “courtesy resignation” was accepted by the President was denied by the Commission.


- 7 -

A ‘courtesy resignation’ cannot properly be interpreted as resignation in the legal sense for it is not necessarily a reflection of a public official’s intention to surrender his position. Rather, it manifests his submission to the will of the political authority & the appointing power.

Petitioner’s separate from government service as a result of the reorganization ordained by the Aquino government may not be considered a resignation w/in the contemplation of the law. His ‘resignation’ lacks the element of clear intention to surrender his position. We cannot presume such intention from his statement that he was placing his position at the disposal of the President. He did not categorically state therein that he was unconditionally giving up his position.

The curtailment of his term not being attributable to an voluntary act on the part of the petitioner, he should be deemed to have completed his term albeit much ahead of the date stated in his appointment power. As he is deemed to have completed his term of office, petitioner should be considered retired from the service.

ESTRADA VS. DESIERTO Petitioner claims that he did not resign as President of the

Philippines or he should not be considered as resigned as of Jan. 20, 2001 when respondent took her oath as the 14 th

President of the Republic. Elements of resignation

1. there must be an intent to resign2. the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment

The validity of a resignation is not governed by any formal requirement as to form. It can be oral or written. It can be express or implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect.

Whether or not petitioner has resigned has to be determined form his acts & omissions before, during and after Jan. 20, 2001 or by the totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts & circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue. Using this totality test, we hold that petitioner resigned as President.

No person can be compelled to render service for that would be a violation of his constitutional right. A public official has the right not to serve if he really wants to retire or resign. Nevertheless, if at the time he resigns or retires, a public official is facing administrative or criminal investigation or prosecution, such resignation or retirement will not cause the dismissal of the criminal or administrative proceedings against him. He cannot use his resignation or retirement to avoid prosecution.

PUNSALAN VS. MENDOZA Implied acceptance by the President of resignation was

shelved in the political party’s caucus. The respondent may validly reassume the governorship after

having tendered his resignation because there was no acceptance by the President of resignation.

There was a tender of resignation effective at the pleasures of the President. Obviously, it was not meant to be effective immediately; acceptance was still necessary. Abandonment by the incumbent of his office before acceptance of his resignation is punishable under the RPC.

CANNONIZADO VS. AGUIRRE Petitioner, after accepting another position, sought

reinstatement to his former position from w/c he was removed under a provision of law w/c was subsequently declared violative of his constitutional right to security of tenure.

He who, while occupying one office, accepts another incompatible with the 1st, ipso facto vacates the 1st office and his title thereby terminated w/o any other act or proceeding. Public policy dictates against allowing the same individual to perform inconsistent & incompatible duties. The incompatibility contemplated is not the mere physical impossibility of one person’s performing the duties of the 1

offices due to a lack of time or the inability to be in 2 places at the same moment, but that w/c proceeds from the nature & relations of the 2 positions to each other as to give rise to contrariety & antagonism should 1 person attempt to faithfully & impartially discharge the duties of 1 toward the incumbent of the other.

The rule on incompatibility of duties will not apply to the case at bar because at no point did petitioner discharge the functions of the 2 offices simultaneously. The incompatibility of duties never had a chance to come into play for petitioner never occupied the 2 positions, nor discharged their respective functions, concurrently.

FESTEJO VS. CRISOLOGO Grounds for suspension of municipal officers may be

classified under 2 categories:1. those related to the discharge of the functions of

the officers concerned (neglect of duty, oppression, corruption, and other forms of mal-administration

2. those not so connected with said functionsThose under the 2nd category, when the crime involving moral turpitude is not linked w/ the performance of official duties, conviction by final judgment is required as a condition precedent to administrative action.

PALMA VS. FORTICH Mayor was administratively charged & preventively

suspended based solely on the filing of 3 separate criminal cases for acts of lasciviousness.

As a rule, dismissal of an administrative case does not necessarily follow the dismissal of a criminal case, the former requiring only preponderance of evidence, while the latter requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Misconduct has been defined as such as affects his performance of his duties as an officer & not only as affects his character as a private individual. In such cases, it is necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the officer.

It is true that the charges may involve moral turpitude of w/c a municipal official may be proceeded against, but before the provincial governor & board may act & proceed against the municipal official, a conviction by final judgment must precede the filing by the provincial board.

SARIGUMBA VS. PASOK The deputy sheriff enforced a writ outside the region of the

RTC w/c issued it & went out of his way to unduly favour a party to a case.

He is guilty of misconduct to warrant removal from office.

NERA VS. GARCIN Petitioner a clerk (appointive officer) was charged w/

malversation of funds belonging to the employees’ cooperative association, a private entity. The preventive suspension of petitioner was valid.

The suspension here is merely a preventive measure & not a punishment or penalty. There is, therefore, nothing improper in suspending an officer pending his investigation & before charges against him are heard & he be given an opportunity to prove his innocence.

Under the Civil Service Law, when the person charged is merely guilty of neglect, the same must be in performance of his duty; but when he is charged w/ dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct, these need not have relation to the performance of duty.

An elective official stands on ground different from that of an appointive officer or employee. An elective officer, being elected by popular vote, is directly responsible only to the community that elected him. Ordinarily, he is not amenable to the rules of official conduct governing appointive officials, and so, he may not be summarily suspended, unless his conduct & acts of irregularity have some connection w/ his


- 8 -

office. He has a definite term of office, relatively of short duration, and since suspension form his office definitely affects & shortens his term of office, said suspension should not be ordered & done unless necessary to prevent further damage or injury to the office and to the people dealing w/ said officer.

OCHATE VS. DELING Mayor (elective officer) was convicted of slight physical

injuries & charged w/ illegal cockfighting w/c took place in another municipality & resisting arrest.

The acts charged cannot be considered to be related to the performance of his official duties; he need not be a mayor to commit the offenses charged. The charges do not constitute misconduct or maladministration of office.

Misconduct in office is misconduct such as affects the performance of his duties as an officer and not such as only affects his character as a private individual.

The misconduct, misfeasance or malfeasance warranting removal from office of an officer must have direct relation to and be connected w/ the performance of his official duties amounting to either mal-administration or wilful, intentional neglect & failure to discharge the duties of the office.

JOSON VS. TORRES Acting on behalf of the President, Executive Secretary

imposed preventive suspension on Provincial Governor w/o formal investigation on the basis of position papers.

Preventive suspension may be imposed by the Disciplining Authority at any time:

1. after the issues are joined2. when evidence of guilt is strong3. given the gravity of the offense there is great

probability that the respondent, who continues to hold office, could influence the witness or pose a threat to the safety & integrity of the records & other evidence

The appointive official/employee may be removed or dismissed summarily if:

1. the charge is serious & the evidence of guilt is strong2. when the respondent is a recidivist3. when the respondent is notoriously undesirable

The rules on removal & suspension of elective local officials are more stringent. The procedure of requiring position papers in lieu of a hearing in administrative cases is expressly allowed w/ respect to appointive officials but not to those elected.

When an elective official is suspended/removed, the people are deprived of the services of the man they had elected. Implicit in the right of suffrage is that the people are entitled to the services of the elective official of their choice. Suspension & removal are thus imposed only after the elective official is accorded his rights & the evidence against him strongly dictates their imposition.

MANALANG VS. QUITORIANO Director of a Bureau w/c was abolished claims that he was

illegally removed by virtue of failure to appoint him head of the new office w/c replaced the abolished Bureau. This is not a case of removal w/o just cause.

To remove an officer is to oust him from office before the expiration of his term. A removal implies that the office exists after the ouster. Such is not the case of petitioner for RA 761 expressly abolished the Placement Bureau, and by implication, the office of the director thereof, w/c obviously cannot exist w/o said Bureau.

By the abolition of the said office, the right thereto of its incumbent was necessarily extinguished thereby. The constitutional mandate to the effect that “no officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law” is in no point for there has been neither a removal nor suspension of petitioner, but

an abolition of his former office w/c is admittedly w/in the power of Congress to undertake by legislation.

A “transfer” connotes that the new office is different & distinct from the old office, for a thing may be transferred only from one place to another, not to the same place. Had Congress intended the new office to be a mere amplification or enlargement of the old office, it would have directed the “retention” of the “qualified personnel” of the latter, not their transfer to the former.

“Personnel” is used generally to refer to the subordinate officials or clerical employees of an office or enterprise, not to the managers, directors or heads thereof.

BRIONES VS. OSMENA Abolition of municipal positions was made as a mere

subterfuge for removal. The evidence on record show that the reasons given for the

abolition of the positions of the petitioners are untrue, & constitute a mere subterfuge for their removal w/o cause in violation of the security of the Civil Service tenure as provided by the Constitution.

Civil service eligibles who have rendered long & honourable service should not be sacrificed in favour of non-eligibles given positions of recent creation, nor should they be left at the mercy of political changes. While abolition of the office does not imply removal of the incumbent, the rule is true only where the abolition is made in good faith; that the right to abolish cannot be used to discharge employees in violation of the civil service law nor can it be exercised for personal or political reasons.

PEOPLE VS. CONSIGNA Court ordered reinstatement, after acquittal of criminal

charge of employee, but Civil Service Commissioner’s decision found him guilty, ordering his removal.

The decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service is not binding upon the courts.

Conviction necessarily results in dismissal from the public office occupied at the time he committed the offense.

If conviction necessarily results in a denial of such right to reinstatement in view of the penalty of disqualification provided by law, then reinstatement should also follow acquittal.

Although this administrative investigation was started after filing of the criminal case, the accused’s administrative superiors went ahead said investigation w/c ended w/ an order for his dismissal – instead of waiting for the result of the criminal case. The administrative investigation should have waited for the result of the criminal case.

PEOPLE VS. DALEON Upon acquitting one charged w/ malversation of public funds,

the court has no authority to order payment of his salaries corresponding to the period of his suspension because his right to the same was not involved in the case. The reason is that the only issue joined by the plea of not guilty is whether or not the accused committed the crime charged in the information.

While an accused acquitted of malversation may claim payment of back salaries during the period of his suspension & reinstatement, his relief lies not in the same criminal case, wherein he is acquitted, but in the proper administrative or civil action prescribed by law.

CLAUDIO VS. COMELEC “Recall’ refers to the election itself by means of w/c voters

decide whether they should retain their local official or elect his replacement.

2 limitations on the holding of recalls:


- 9 -

1. that no recall shall take place w/in 1 year from the date of assumption of office of the official concerned

2. that no recall shall take place w/in 1 year immediately preceding a regular local election

For my batchmates who stood beside mewhen my world came tumbling down:

Sam - Kara - Rois

Batch Sophia, The Women of Aleitheia


law on public officers doctrines (agra) - sienna flores

Documents