Respondents.: Leo Echegaray, Petitioner, vs. Secretary of Justice, Et Al.
Respondents.: Leo Echegaray, Petitioner, vs. Secretary of Justice, Et Al.
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the In the meantime, in a Deed of. Absolute Sale with Right to Repurchase
lands of the public domain. They are private lands and belong to the dated October 28, 1981 (Exh. 10), private respondents De la Paz sold
ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept of private land title that three lots with right to repurchase the same within one year to private
existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However, the respondents spouses Reynaldo and Susan Veneracion for the sum of
right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral P150,000.00. One of the lots sold was the lot previously sold to
domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right petitioner.
to alienate the same.
Petitioner discovered that the lot he was occupying with his family had
9. MARTINEZ v. CA been sold to the spouses Veneracion after receiving a letter, (Exh.
P/Exh. 6-Veneracion) from private respondent Reynaldo Veneracion on
FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision March 19, 1986, claiming ownership of the land and demanding that
of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decisions of the they vacate the property and remove their improvements thereon. On
Regional Trial Court, Branches 25 and 28, Cabanatuan City, May 12, 1986, private respondent Reynaldo Veneracion brought an
finding private respondents spouses Reynaldo and Susan action for ejectment in the Municipal Trial Court, Branch III, Cabanatuan
Veneracion owners of the land in dispute, subject to petitioner's City against petitioner and his mother (Exh. 14). On the other hand, on
rights as a builder in good faith. June 10, 1986, petitioner caused a notice of lis pendens to be recorded
on TCT No. T-44612 with the Register of Deeds of Cabanatuan City (Exh.
U). The MTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, but since the main issue is
ownership, the better remedy of the plaintiff [herein private
respondents Veneracion] is Accion Publiciana in the Regional Trial
Court, having jurisdiction to adjudicate on ownership.
On February 20, 1991, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision Second. In this case, the Court of Appeals based its ruling that private
finding private respondents Veneracion as the true owners of the lot in respondents Veneracion are the owners of the disputed lot on their
dispute On March 20, 1991, petitioner then filed a petition for review reliance on private respondent Godofredo De la Paz's assurance that he
with the Court of Appeals of the RTC's decision in Civil Case No. 670-AF would take care of the matter concerning petitioner's occupancy of the
(for ejectment). Likewise, on April 2, 1991, petitioner appealed the trial disputed lot as constituting good faith. This case, however, involves
court's decision in Civil Case No. 44-[AF]-8642-R (for annulment of sale double sale and, on this matter, Art. 1544 of the Civil Code provides
and damages) to the Court of Appeals. The CA declared the that where immovable property is the subject of a double sale,
Veneracions to be owners of the lot in dispute as they were the first ownership shall be transferred (1) to the person acquiring it who in
registrants in good faith, in accordance with Art. 1544 of the Civil Code. good faith first recorded it to the Registry of Property; (2) in default
thereof, to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and (3)
ISSUES: in default thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title. The
requirement of the law, where title to the property is recorded in the
1. Whether or not the resolution of the Court of Appeals denying Register of Deeds, is two-fold: acquisition in good faith and recording in
petitioner's motion for reconsideration is contrary to the constitutional good faith. To be entitled to priority, the second purchaser must not
requirement that a denial of a motion for reconsideration must state only prove prior recording of his title but that he acted in good
the legal reasons on which it is based. faith, i.e., without knowledge or notice of a prior sale to another. The
presence of good faith should be ascertained from the circumstances
2. Whether or not private respondents Veneracion are buyers in good surrounding the purchase of the land.
faith of the lot in dispute as to make them the absolute owners thereof
in accordance with Art. 1544 of the Civil Code on double sale of As early as October, 1981, private respondents Veneracion already
immovable property. knew that there was construction being made on the property they
purchased. The fact that there are persons, other than the vendors, in
HELD: actual possession of the disputed lot should have put private
respondents on inquiry as to the nature of petitioner's right over the
First. This contention is without merit. property. But he never talked to petitioner to verify the nature of his
Art. VIII, Sec. 14 of the Constitution provides that "No petition for right. He merely relied on the assurance of private respondent
review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall Godofredo De la Paz, who was not even the owner of the lot in
be refused due course or denied without stating the basis therefor." question, that he would take care of the matter. This does not meet the
This requirement was fully complied with when the Court of Appeals, in standard of good faith.
denying reconsideration of its decision, stated in its resolution that it
found no reason to change its ruling because petitioner had not raised Art. 1357 and Art. 1358, in relation to Art. 1403(2) of the Civil Code,
anything new. requires that the sale of real property must be in writing for it to be
enforceable. It need not be notarized. If the sale has not been put in
writing, either of the contracting parties can compel the other to
observe such requirement. This is what petitioner did when he
repeatedly demanded that a Deed of Absolute Sale be executed in his
favor by private respondents De la Paz.
exercise of the power vested in the BP to reorganize the judiciary, the
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED. Father allegation of the absence good faith as well as the attack on the
Martinez is the buyer in good faith. independence of the Judiciary being unwarranted and devoid of any
support in law. A Supplemental Answer was likewise filed on
10. AGUIRRE v. RANA, BAR MATTER No. 491 08/10/1981, followed by a Reply of PETITIONERS on 13/10. After the
11. IN RE: IBP ELECTIONS BAR MATTER NO. 491 hearing on 15/10, in which not only petitioners and respondents were
12. DE LA LLANA v. ALBA heard through counsel but also the amici curiae, and thereafter
submission of the minutes of the proceeding in the debate on BP129,
This case is about the crucial issue of the constitutionality of Batas this petition was deemed submitted for decision.
Pambansa Blg. 129, entitled as “An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary,
Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes.” Such issue rose The question on the amount of efforts to study the legal aspects of the
from the possible collision of legislative power and the task of judicial case was also raised. And after such exhaustive deliberation, the
review that is judicial reorganization, as protected by our Constitution, exchange of views supplemented by memoranda from the members of
it provided that: “The members of the SC and the judges of inferior the courts, it is held that BP 129 is CONSTITUTIONAL
courts shall hold office during good behavior until age 70 or
incapacitated to discharge their duties. The SC shall have power to This was resolved by the Court is this manner:
discipline judges of inferior courts by a vote of at least 8 members to
st
order their dismissal.” For the assailed legislation (BP129) mandates 1 : the question of standing was placed in order. As far as Judge de la
that justices and judges of inferior courts from CA to municipal circuit Llana is concerned, he certainly falls within the principle set forth in
courts except SB and CTA, unless appointed to the inferior courts People v. Vera Thus: “The unchallenged rule is that the person who
established by such act, would be considered SEPARATED from the impugns the validity of the statute must have a personal and
Judiciary. It is the termination of their incumbency that the Petitioners substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
justifies a suit of this character, it being alleged that thereby the sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement.” With respect to the
security of tenure provision of the Constitution has been ignored and other petitioners being members of the bar, they also possess standing,
disregarded. such was attacked by saying that this is a public right and not right as
their own as an individual, such view is an inhibition to parties intent on
The fundamental issue raised in this proceeding, was erroneously keeping public officials staying on the path of constitutionalism.
entitled Petition of Declaratory relief and/or for Prohibition considered Moreover as taxpayers, this was amply demonstrated as well.
by this Court as an action for Prohibition, seeking to enjoin the
Respondents from taking any action in the implementation of BP129.
The Petitioners sought to bolster their claim by imputing lacking of
good faith in the enactment and characterized it as an undue nd
2 : The imputation of arbitrariness to the legislative body in enacting
delegation of legislative power to the President, granting the Pres.
BP129 to demonstrate LACK OF GOOD FAITH DOES manifest violence to
Authority to fix the compensation and allowances of justices and judges
the facts. The ANTECEDENT FACTS AS FOLLOWS:
thereafter appointed the determination of the date when the
reorganization shall be deemed completed. In SolGen Estelito P. On 07/08/80 Presi. Committee on Judicial Reorganization was
Mendoza’s response, he pointed out that there is no valid justification organized. EO creating it was later amended by EO 619-A, specifying
for the attack on the constitutionality of this statute, as it is a legitimate
the task of the Committee which is to: “formulate plans on the Thereafter it was submitted to the BP to be approved. Moreover, some
reorganization of the Judiciary which shall be submitted within 70DAYS amendments to the bill were adopted by the Committee on Justice,
from 07/08/80, to PROVIDE THE PRESIDENT sufficient options for the Human rights and good Government (Committee), during the
reorganization of the entire Judiciary which shall embrace all lower sponsorship speech of Minister Puno, he recognized that the CB42
courts, including CA,CFI, the City and Municipal Courts, and all Sp. would result in the attainment of more efficiency in the disposal of
Courts, except SB.” cases and the improvement of the quality of justice, such
reorganization designated to suit the court system of the exigencies of
On 17/10/80, A report was submitted by such committee presenting the present day and the foreseeable future.
that: “there are problems, both GRAVE AND PRESSING THAT CALL FOR
REMEDIAL MEASURES.” Specifically attacking the improved court In the answer to the arbitrariness of its enactment, it must be observed
management and training of judges to be insufficient; and the vital that BP has 590 pages devoted to its discussion. With such background,
concern is the problem of clogged dockets, it admits that it would take it becomes obvious how lacking in factual basis in the allegation that its
much effort and would result in potential problems due to the enactment is tainted with vice of arbitrariness. There is good faith from
complexity and delicacy of the task of reorganization, but it will be its inception to the affixing of the Presidential signature.
fruitful for the economy of the country and to be able to implement
social justice in narrowing the wealth and the poor elements, thus rd
3 : Abolition of an office within the competence of a legitimate body if
delay could be expected and that is enough to push judicial done in GOOD FAITH SUFFERS FROM NO INFIRMITY. Certain points are
reorganization, the BP had no choice. It had to act, before the ailment presented to fortify this argument:“Valid abolition of offices is neither
became worse. removal nor separation of the incumbents and, if the abolition is void,
the incumbent is deemed never to have ceased to hold office.”
It also stated that there is no denying the need for the reform as
Abolition of an office does not amount to illegal removal of its
observed in the previous generations, significant amendments have
incumbent, in order to be valid, the abolition must be made in good
been made to the judiciary Act of 1901. This was uniformly the
faith.
expansion of the jurisdiction and members of the Courts, to keep up
with the growing economy and population of the country. The test remains whether the ABOLITION IS IN GOOD FAITH. Such
element is present in the enactment of BP129: it is answered in this
After submission of such report Cabinet Bill 42, which later became the
manner: citing Justice Laurel separation opinion in Zandueta v. De la
basis of BP129 was introduced. Its explanatory note is as follows:
Costa: “affirming that in no uncertain terms the standard of good faith
“Pursuant to the President’s instructions, the proposed legislation has
as the test of validity of an act abolishing an inferior court, and this too
been drafted in accordance with guidelines of that report with
with due recognition of the security of tenure guarantee.”
particular attention to certain objectives of the reorganization, to wit,
the attainment of more efficiency in the disposal of cases, a The principles embodied in Sec. 2(reorganization by the legislature) and
reallocation of jurisdiction, and a revision of procedures. In 9(security of tenure by judges) of Art VIII must be coordinated and
consultation with the governmental and parliamentary leadership, it harmonized.
was felt that some options in the report be not availed of and preferred
an innovation. (i.e. intermediate appellate court merely appellate The particular point here discussed the purpose of fulfillment of what
adjudication, the preference has been opted to increase is jurisdiction was considered a great public need by the legislative department and
to help the SC effectively.) that of Commonwealth Act 145 (in present case BP129) was not
enacted purposefuly to affect adversely the tenure of judges. The said provision gave rise to the Court to inquire further in the
allegation that the security of tenure is endangered. Once again, the
There was greater necessity of reorganization consequent upon the principle of separation of powers (Angara v. Electoral Commission)
establishment of the new government. “Doubt is should be resolved in “obtains not through express provision but by actual division.”
favor of the valid exercise of the legislative power.”
BP retains its full authority to enact whatever legislation may be
Lastly on the question of abolition, on the reorganization, there was no necessary to carry out national policy as usually formulated in a caucus
fact of abolition, the mere creation of an entirely new district of the of the majority party, it is understandable then why in Fortun v, Labang
same court is valid and constitutional, such flowing from the it is stressed that with the provision transferring to the SC
fundamental proposition that the legislature may abolish inferior administrative supervision of the Judiciary, there is a greater need to
courts and therefor reorganize them territorialy or otherwise preserve unimpaired the independence of the judiciary, especially so at
necessitating new appointments and commissions. present, where to all intents and purposes there is a fusion between
the executive and the legislative branches.
Here the challenged statute creates an intermediate appellate court,
regional trial courts, metropolitan trial courts of the national capital th
region, and other metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts in 5 : abolition of existing inferior courts collides with the security of
cities, as well as in municipalities, and municipal circuit trial courts. tenure enjoyed by incumbent justices and judges under Art X Scc 7 of
There is even less reason to doubt the fact that the existing inferior the Consti. The court is empowered “to discipline judges of inferior
courts were abolished, as such establishment according to the BP is the courts and, by a vote of at least 8 members order their dismissal.”
appropriate response to the grave and urgent problems. Under the Judiciary Act, it was the President who has vested with such
power. Removal is of course distinguished from termination by virtue
Petitioners thus fail to prove that the BP129 is not within the bounds of of abolition of office. There can be no tenure to a non-existent office.
th After the abolition, there is in law no occupant. In case of Removal,
legislative authority.4 : the implementation of BP129 task on the there is an office with an occupant who loses his position. In that sense,
Executive may give rise to question affecting a judiciary should be kept the security of tenure is not impaired. No question of law is involved.
independent. The scope concerning all inferior courts except CTA and Neither is there any intrusion into who shall be appointed to the vacant
SB gave rise to such question. positions created by the reorganization.That remains in the Executive.
No departure from judicial power. Thus BP 129 could stand the most
"The provisions of this Act shall be immediately carried out in
rigorous test of constitutionality.
accordance with an Executive Order to be issued by the President. The
Court of Appeals, the Courts of First Instance, the Circuit Criminal th
Courts, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, the Courts of 6 : Reconciliation of constitutional provisions.BP expressly vested with
Agrarian Relations, the City Courts, the Municipal Courts, and the the authority to reorganize inferior courts and in the process abolish
Municipal Circuit Courts shall continue to function as presently existing ones, a power that is now vested in this tribunal.
constituted and organized, until the completion of the reorganization
provided in this Act as declared by the President. Upon such Citing Angara decision, “the Constitution has blocked out with deft
declaration, the said courts shall be deemed automatically abolished strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, the
and the incumbents thereof shall cease to hold office." legislative and the judicial departments of the government, the
overlapping and interlacing of functions and duties between the several The petitioners objection based in the statute refer to as “definite time
departments, however, sometimes makes it hard to say just where the frame limitation.” Bereft of merit.
one leaves off and the other begins”
They ignore the categorical language of this provision: The SC shall
It is to be avoided to harmonize the provisions in question, there could submit to the president within 30 days from the date of the effectivity
be a case of power against power. of this act, a staffing pattern for all courts constituted pursuant to this
Act which shall be the basis of the implementing order to be issued by
th st
7 : undue delegation of legislative power to the President, the grant the President. The 1 sentence of next section is even more
of authority to fix the compensation and the allowances of the Justices categorical. “The provisions of this act shall be immediately carried out
and judges thereafter appointed. in accordance with an EO”. Certainly, the petitioners cannot be heard
to argue that the President is insensible to his constitutional duty to
The language is clear “Intermediate Appellate Justices, Regional Trial take care that laws be faithfully executed.
Judges, and Municipal Circuit Trial Judges shall receive such
compensation and allowances as may be authorized by the President While the existing lower courts continue functioning, until the
along the guidelines set forth in letter of Implementation No. 93 completion of the reorganization act as declared by the president.
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 985, as amended by Presidential Upon such declaration, the said courts shall be deemed
Decree No. 1597." There exist a standard. AUTOMATICALLY ABOLISHED and the incumbents thereof shall CEASE
to hold office. It is clear.
The test of completeness underlying in the doctrine of non-delegation
must be invoked. No fear need be entertained by incumbents whose length of service,
quality of performane and clean record justify their being named anew.
"To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard,
which implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines It is without interruption in the continuity of their service. It is a
matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy. Otherwise, the reaffirmation of the good faith that will characterize the
charge of complete abdication may be hard to repel. A standard thus implementation by the Executive.
defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and
specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances th
8 : On 08/09/81, morning of the hearing, Petitioners sought to have
under which the legislative command is to be effected. It is the
the writer of this opinion and Justices Ramon C. Aquino and Ameurfina
criterion by which legislative purpose may be carried out. Thereafter,
Melencio-Herrera DISQUALIFIED because the first was named chairman
the executive or administrative office designated may in pursuance of
and the other two, members of the Committee on Judicial
the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and regulations.
Reorganization.
The standard may be either express or implied. If the former, the non-
delegation objection is easily met. The standard though does not have Such motion was denied. It was made clear that not one of the 3
to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and members had any hand in framing BP 129.They were not consulted.
purpose of the act considered as a whole." They did not testify. The challenged legislation is entirely the product of
the legislative body.
- Edu v. Ericta -
Their work was limited, set forth in the EO, to submit alternative plans
for reorganization. This work is more in the nature of scholarly studies. administration of justice.
th It does not follow that abolition of good faith of the existing inferior
9 : Cardinal article of faith. It is the people who are endowed with
courts and creation of new ones will result in a judiciary unable to
rights, to secure which a government is instituted. Acting as it does
discharge with independence its solemn duty. Nor fear that less than
through public officials, who exercise certain powers for the benefit of
good faith will attend the exercise of the appointing power.
the body politic. As laid down by our constitution “A PUBLIC OFFICE IS A
PUBLIC TRUST” It is a legal imperative. It is to be viewed that the 3 departments as one in their determination
to pursue the ideals and aspirations and to fulfill the hopes of the
A public official is vested with certain rights to enable them to perform
sovereign people as expressed in the constitution.
his functions and fulfill his responsibilities more efficiently. From that
standpoint, the security of tenure provision to assure judicial 13. CAYETANO v MONSOD
independence is to be viewed. 14. GAMINDE v COA
15. BRILLANTES v YORAC
It is an added guarantee that justices and judges can administer justice
[G.R. No. 93867 : December 18, 1990.] SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR.,
undeterred by any neither fear nor reprisal. Their judgments to be Petitioner, vs. HAYDEE B. YORAC, in her capacity as ACTING
inspired solely on their knowledge of the law and dictates of their CHAIRPERSON of the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
conscience, free from unworthy motives and corrupting influence. The
independence of which they are assured is not solely for their welfare. Facts: Pres. Aquino created a fact-finding commission in relation
to a coup attempt in 1989. The chairman of the said fact-finding
The challenged legislation was subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny,. commission was Hilario Davide, then chairman of the COMELEC.
Because he had to vacate his position, Pres. Aquino appointed
The judges may be guaranteed a fixed tenure of office during good
Haydee Yorac, who was an associate COMELEC commissioner
behavior, but it allows them to be subservient to one administration to
during that time, to be a temporary substitute. She was
another, the independence of the judiciary will be nothing more than appointed in an acting capacity, which was opposed by Sixto
an empty ideal. Brillantes Jr. His contention is that under Art. X par. C of the
Constitution, it states that in no case shall any member of the
Our judges are those who would not just blindly obey the King’s order
COMELEC be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
but “will do what becomes him as a judge.” capacity. He also adds that the act of choosing the temporary
chairman is supposed to be decided by the members of the
Good judges with “men who have mastery of the principles of law, who
COMELEC, and as such, the independence of the COMELEC as a
discharge their duties in accordance with law, who are permitted to
constitutional commission was violated by the president when
perform the duties of the office undeterred by outside influence, and
she appointed Haydee Yorac.
who are independent and self-respecting human unit in a judicial
system equal and coordinate to the other two departments of Issues: Did the president committed a violation of the
government.” constitutional independence of the COMELEC in her act of
appointing a temporary chairman? Was the appointment
There is no reason to assume that the failure of this suit to annul BP129 constitutional?
would be attended with deleterious consequences to the
Ruling: Yes. The president violated the constitutional motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
independence of the COMELEC when she appointed Hayde Yorac Commission en banc.
as the temporary chairman. Consequently apoointment made by
the president is unconstitutional. As a rule, the three ISSUE:
constitutional commissions are essentially executive in nature. WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.
However, these constitutional commissions are not under the
control of the president. The appointment made by the president HELD:
in this case that was based on administrative expediency, but
such was not grounded on any statutory provision, much less Yes.
the constitution. Art. X par. C of the constitution provides that
"In no case shall any member of the COMELEC be appointed or
SC ruled that the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction, or with
designated in a temporary or acting capacity”. The members of
abuse of discretion, when it resolved the appeals of petitioners in the
the COMELEC are the ones who have the choice whom to sit as
abovementioned SPECIAL CASES without first referring the to any of its
acting chairman. In practice, the most senior member of the
Divisions. Said resolutions are null and void and must be set aside.
COMELC is the one chosen. The principle is that the constitutional
Consequently, the appeals are deemed pending before the Commission
commissions are independent bodies, and as such should be given
for proper referral to a division.
the liberty to choose who their chairman.
16. CSC v DBM
18. AMBIL v COMELEC
19. CAMPOREDONDO v NLRC
20. GENERAL v ROCO
17. SARMIENTO v COMELEC
21. CSC v SALAS
22. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v CSC
FACTS:
23. VISTAN v NICOLAS
This case is a special civil actions for certiorari seek to set aside the
Resolution of COMELEC in the following Special Cases: GR No. 1056278,
FACTS:
GR No. 105725, GR No. 105727, GR No. 105730, GR No. 105771, GR No.
Leonila A. Vistan – Complainant
105778, GR No. 105797, GR No. 105919 and GR No. 105977. These
Ruben T. Nicolas (Municipal Trial Court Judge of Pandi Bulacan) –
cases, as argued by the Petitioners, were issued with grave abuse of Respondent
discretion because COMELEC en banc took cognizance and decided the These were consolidated cases brought by the same
appeals without referring first to any of its division. SEC. 3 complainant, Leonila A. Vistan, against Judge Ruben T. Nicolas, then
SUBDIVISION C, ARTICLE IX OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTIO expressly MTC Judge of Pandi Bulacan.
provides: The first was an administrative matter docketed as A.M. No.
MTJ -87-79 filed on March 1987. The complainant alleged that
Sec. 3. The Commission of Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, respondent, as then MTC Judge of Guiguinto, Bulacan rendered a
and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite decision in a criminal case “People v. Narciso Paloma” for Forcible
disposition of election cases, including pre-election controversies. All Abduction with consent, acquitting the accused without first ruling
such election cases shall be heard and decided in division provided that on the accused written offer of evidence. It manifested respondent’s
gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority and any election except to vote nor shall he use his official
discretion. authority or influence to coerce the political activity of
Further, complainant stated that Judge Nicolas was any other person or body.
maintaining an illicit relationship with a woman not his wife and
with whom he has a child. Rule 5.10, Canon 5, Code of Judicial Conduct:
A.M. No. MTJ-87-79 was initially dismissed for being moot
and academic as respondent resigned from service when he became A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on
a congressional candidate in the 1987 election which unfortunately political question. But to avoid suspicion of political
he did not won. However, respondent was re-appointed as MTC partisanship, a judge shall not make political speeches,
Judge of Pandi, Bulacan. contribute to party fund, publicly endorse candidates for
The immorality charge was referred to the Regional Trial political office or participate in other partisan political
Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan while the gross ignorance of the activities.
law and grave abuse of authority and discretion was referred to the
office of the Court Administrator (OCA). For having held himself out as a congressional candidate
The second case A.C. No. 3040, for disbarment was filed on while still a member of the bench, he took advantage of
May 1987, sets forth basically the same charges except for the his position to boost his candidacy, demeaned the stature
violation of election laws. It arises when Judge Nicolas while still the of his office, and must be pronounced guilty of gross
MTC Judge of Guiguinto, Bulacan and before the start of the misconduct.
campaign period set by the COMELEC, started circulating
handbills/letters indicating his intention to run for a congressional II. Judge Nicolas on acquitting the accused despite that he
seat. had not yet ruled on the accused written offer of
ISSUES: evidence, thereby depriving the prosecution of the
I. Whether or not Judge Nicolas is guilty for violation of
opportunity to present rebuttal evidence, deciding the
election laws.
case prematurely, and exhibiting gross ignorance of the
II. Whether or not respondent Judge is guilty for gross
law, the Court impose a fine of 3,000. Reduced to 2,000
ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority and
upon motion for reconsideration.
discretion.
III. Whether or not Judge Nicolas was guilty of immorality. III. (Additional Facts)
HELD:
I. Yes, Judge Nicolas was guilty for violation of election With the knowledge of the death of Angelita de Castro,
the paramour, and disappearance of the two material
laws.
witness. RTC Judge recommends to dismiss since the
evidence submitted was not sufficient to hold respondent
Section 45 of Presidential Decree No. 87 (Civil Service administratively liable for immorality. However, OCA
Law) clearly states: came up recommending that the proper penalty be meted
No officer or employee in the Civil Service including against respondent.
members of the Armed Forces, shall engage directly or
indirectly in any partisan political activity or take part in
Faced with contradicting recommendation, the Court In fact, moral integrity is more than a virtue; it is a
returned the case back to OCA with the assistance of necessity in the judiciary.
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for further WHEREFORE, prayer for DISBARMENT is DENIED;
investigation. severely censored for his gross misconduct in holding
himself out as a candidate for an elective office while still
The NBI report contains: a member of the bench.
- The two material witnesses was found and executed a For the administrative matter, DISMISSED from service,
sworn statement that they personally know Judge with prejudice to re-employment in any branch, agency
Nicolas and his paramour since they were their or instrumentality of the government including
government owned or controlled corporations, and with
neighbors. Their disappearance was due to the
forfeiture of all his accrued retirement benefits and leave
harassment of alleged henchman of Judge Nicolas. credits.
- With regard the murder of the paramour, one of the
three suspects was arrested and admitted that the 24. DOMINGO v ZAMORA
legal children of the respondent as well as the two
other suspects planned the killing. FACTS:
- The NBI has reason to believe that Judge Nicolas and On March 5, 1999, former President Joseph E. Estrada issued Executive
his children orchestrated the death of his paramour. Order (EO) No. 81 entitled "Transferring the Sports Programs and
Activities of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports to the
Immorality does involve grave misconduct and the NBI Philippine Sports Commission and Defining the Role of DECS in School-
has prima facia proof that the charge is true. Based Sports."
The Executive Judge of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan
aligned its recommendation with OCA that the proper Pursuant to EO 81, former DECS Secretary Andrew B. Gonzales issued
penalty be meted against respondent. Memorandum No. 01592 on January 10, 2000. Memorandum No.
(SC ruling) 01592 temporarily reassigned, in the exigency of the service, all
The Supreme Court agreed with the recommendation of remaining Bureau of Physical Education and School Sports (BPESS) Staff
RTC and OCA. to other divisions or bureaus of the DECS effective March 15, 2000.
A Judge’s official conduct should be free from impropriety
or any appearance thereof. His personal behavior in the On January 21, 2000, Secretary Gonzales issued Memorandum No.
performance of official duty, as well as everyday life, 01594 reassigning the BPESS of staff named in the Memorandum to
should be beyond reproach. various offices within the DECS effective March 15, 2000. Petitioners
High ethical principles and sense of propriety should be were among the BPESS personnel affected by Memorandum No.
maintained, without which the faith of the people in the 01594. Dissatisfied with their reassignment, petitioners filed the instant
judiciary so indispensable in an orderly society cannot be
petition.
preserved.
There is no place in the judiciary for those who cannot
During the pendency of the case, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9155,
meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and
otherwise known as the "Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001",
integrity.
was enacted on August 11, 2001. RA 9155 expressly abolished the
BPESS and transferred the functions, programs and activities of the (3) Transfer any agency under the Office of the President to any other
DECS relating to sports competition to the PSC. department or agency as well as transfer agencies to the Office of the
President from other Departments or Agencies.
ISSUES:
Whether EO 81 and the DECS Memoranda are valid. Since EO 81 is based on the President's continuing authority under
Section 31 (2) and (3) of EO 292, EO 81 is a valid exercise of the
HELD: President's delegated power to reorganize the Office of the President.
The instant petition is DISMISSED for being moot and academic. No The law grants the President this power in recognition of the recurring
pronouncement as to costs. need of every President to reorganize his office "to achieve simplicity,
economy and efficiency."
The subsequent enactment of RA 9155 has rendered the issues in the
present case moot and academic. Since RA 9155 abolished the BPESS Petitioners' contention that the DECS is not part of the Office of the
and transferred the DECS' functions relating to sports competition to President is immaterial. Under EO 292, the DECS is indisputably a
the PSC, petitioners now admit that "it is no longer plausible to raise Department of the Executive Branch. Even if the DECS is not part of
any ultra vires assumption by the PSC of the functions of the BPESS." the Office of the President, Section 31 (2) and (3) of EO 292 clearly
authorizes the President to transfer any function or agency of the DECS
Although the issue is already academic, its significance constrains the to the Office of the President. Under its charter, the PSC is attached to
Court to point out that Executive Order No. 292 ("EO 292" for brevity), the Office of the President. Therefore, the President has the authority
otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, expressly grants to transfer the "functions, programs and activities of DECS related to
the President continuing authority to reorganize the Office of the sports development" to the PSC, making EO 81 a valid presidential
President. issuance.
Section 31 of EO 292 provides: This distinction is crucial as it affects the security of tenure of
Continuing Authority of the President to Reorganize his Office. - The employees. The abolition of an office in good faith necessarily results in
President, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to the employee's cessation in office, but in such event there is no
achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall have continuing dismissal or separation because the office itself ceases to exist. On the
authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the other hand, the transfer of functions or agencies does not result in the
President. For this purpose, he may take any of the following actions: employee's cessation in office because his office continues to exist
(1) Restructure the internal organization of the Office of the President although in another department, agency or office. In the instant case,
Proper, including the immediate Offices, the Presidential Special the BPESS employees who were not transferred to PSC were at first
Assistants/Advisers System and the Common Support System, by temporarily, then later permanently reassigned to other offices of the
abolishing, consolidating or merging units thereof or transferring DECS, ensuring their continued employment. At any rate, RA 9155
functions from one unit to another; now mandates that these employees "shall be retained by the
(2) Transfer any function under the Office of the President to any Department."
other Department or Agency as well as transfer functions to the Office
of the President from other Departments and Agencies; and 25. OP v BUENAOBRA
Procedural History: of a non- career service position, could be removed from the service at
This petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court the pleasure of the President
assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed and
set aside petitioner's Resolutions dismissing respondent Nita P. Answer:
Buenaobra from the service. No, her removal from office is not at the pleasure of the
President. A non-career service personnel enjoy security of tenure.
Statement of Facts:
The Office of the Ombudsman filed a case against respondent Reasoning:
Nita P. Buenaobra, Chairman of the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (KWF), Republic Act No. 7104 creating the KWF provides for 11
with the Sandiganbayan for allegedly causing undue injury to the commissioners to be headed by a chairman and all appointed by the
government through gross inexcusable negligence in connection with President, where it also says, the chairman shall serve full-time for a
the unauthorized reprinting of a dictionary. term of seven years.
Upon respondent's motion, a reinvestigation was held, where
Under Section 6, Article IV, of Presidential Decree No. 807, or
the Ombudsman approved the withdrawal of the case filed against
the Civil Service Decree, it describes a non-career service employee or
respondent. officer has a tenure which is limited to a period specified by law.
Apparently, the Presidential Anti- Graft Commission (PAGC)
conducted a parallel administrative investigation ("the admin case") The Non-Career Service shall include:
against respondent charging her with the same acts and omissions. Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed
Respondent was charged with giving unwarranted benefits to Merylvin terms of office and their personal or confidential staff;
Publishing House, Inc., through gross inexcusable negligence in not
taking legal action to collect the 15% royalty fee approved by the KWF Above-mentioned, respondent, who is the Chairman of the
Board to be levied against the publisher for its unauthorized reprinting KWF, is a non-career service personnel whose tenure is limited to
and selling of the dictionary. seven years as provided under R.A. No. 7104. Since her tenure is fixed
Respondent moved to dismiss the administrative case on by law, her removal from office is not at the pleasure of the
grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping in view of the pending appointing authority.
Sandiganbayan case. The PAGC denied respondent's motion to dismiss
and the OP advanced on respondent's dismissal from the service. As consistently ruled, a non-career service personnel enjoy
Respondent moved for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, security of tenure. They may not be removed without just cause and
she filed a petition for review with the CA, where it has been granted non-observance of due process as mentioned in Jocom v. Regalado.
respondent's petition holding that the proceedings before the PAGC
were substantially flawed for not giving her the opportunity to present Besides, the inaction to collect the royalty fee should not be
evidence. The CA also found no evidence to prove respondent's pinpointed to the respondent, since the KWF itself disauthorized her
administrative liability in not collecting the royalty fee. from entering a contract with the publisher. So, without this contract,
she is unauthorized to collect because there is no basis for collection.
Issue:
Whether the respondent, a presidential appointee and a holder Holding:
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit and decision of the CA is setting aside the decision of the MSB or revoke the appointment of the
hereby AFFIRMED. petitioner Dr. Borja.
The petitioner filed this issue to the Supreme Court.
26. CENTRAL BANK v CSC
Issue
Facts Whether or not the Civil Service Commission has the power to
The Promotions Board of the Central Bank with a representative to revoke an appointment and appoint of a substitute of its choice?
the Civil Service Commission found that petitioner Dr. Angela Jordan
was qualified to the position of Assistant Bank Physician. The said
position has the Salary Grade of 22, and the petition then had the
Salary Grade of 20 which made the petitioner as qualified for the next Ruling
in rank position. The Senior Deputy Governor of the Central Bank No. The Civil Service Commission has no power to revoke an
approved the promotion of Dr. Jordan from the position of appointment and appoint of a substitute of its choice.
Coordinating Assistant to Assistant Bank Physician. Thus, contested by Under Section 7, par. A, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, the
private respondent Dr. Basilio Borja . authority of the Civil Service Commission is limited to reviewing if the
The private respondent Borja contested to the Central Bank that he appointment complies with the requirement of the law. It is
was more qualified than she and he was the next-in-rank to that undisputed that the petitioner is qualified. The Civil Service
position, hence he should have been the one appointed as the Commission has no authority to revoke an appointment only for a
Assistant Bank Physician. However, the Central Bank dismissed his case ground that another person is more qualified. Moreover, the
because it was filed beyond the reglementary period and he is not the appointing authority is given ample discretion in the appointment of a
next-in-rank since he only has the Salary Grade of 16. qualified person to a vacant position. And therefore the Commission
After the Central Bank dismissed his case, he appealed to the Merit has no authority to direct the appointment of a substitute of its choice.
System Board. Yet, the decision of the MSB was set aside and
confirmed the approval of the appointment of Dr. Jordan. 27. BRILLANTES v COMELEC
The private respondent therefore appealed to the Civil Service
Commission on the grounds that he was denied due process of law Facts:
inasmuch as he was not furnished a copy of the motion for
reconsideration by the bank. The CSC thus forwarded the appeal to the Congress through the enactment of Republic Act No. 8436, authorize
Office of the Governor of the Central Bank his comment with the the COMELEC to use an Automated Election System (AES) for the
request that his comment be transmitted to the Commission with 10 process of voting, counting of votes and consolidating the results of
days after receipts. Likewise, petitioner Dr. Jordan furnished a copy election for both national and local elections. It also mandated the
with a warning that failure to do shall be considered a waiver of her COMELEC to acquire an automated counting machines, computer
right to submit the same. However, they filed a Ex-Parte Motion for equipment, devices and materials. RA 8436 authorizes to adopt a new
Extension of Time to File Comment due to they received the notice electoral forms and printing materials. The COMELEC intended to
beyond the 10 days period. However the CSC denied their petition, implement AES during the May 11, 1998, Presidential elections
directed the immediate appointment of the private respondent and particularly in Mindanao but due to the malfunctions of the machines,
the implementation was deferred.
similar organizations with prior authority of the commission shall be
COMELEC adopts the Resolution No. 02-01790 which aims to entitled to one observer.
modernize the 2004 elections in 3 phases: I - Biometrics system of
registration, II - Computerized voting and counting of votes; and III - NAMFREL and heads of major political parties wrote to COMELEC their
Electronic transmission of results. Biddings for each phase was concern in Resolution 6712 for it disregards RA 8173, 8436 and 7166
conducted, which it only authorizes the citizen's arm to use an election return for
unofficial count. Also, the Board of Election Inspectors is only
Pres. Gloria Macapagal - Arroyo through EO 172 allocated the sum of authorized to have contact with the return before the commission
2.5 billion pesos to fund the AES. On February 10, 2003, COMELEC unseals it and the instruction in Resolution 6712 breaks the chain of
requested from Pres. Arroyo the release of the supplemental P500 custody making it void. In the present case, motion to admit attached
million budget, issued in EO 175. April 15, 2003, contracts on both petition-in-intervention was filed to the Court. Movants petitioners
Phase I and Phase II were awarded to Mega Pacific Consortium and urge the Court to declare Resolution 6712 as null and void.
Philippine Multi-Media System Inc. promulgated by the COMELEC in
Resolution No. 6074. But the Information Technology Foundation of Issue:
the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition for the
nullification of the said resolution, approving the contract for Phase II. Whether the Resolution No. 6712 is VOID
However, due to the Court's decision, Resolution No. 6074 was
declared null and void. Phase II of the AES was scrapped and the Held:
COMELEC had to maintain the old manual voting and counting. The
Phase I also encountered problems in its implementation. So the Resolution 6712 is VOID. First, it violates Sec 4 of Art VII for preempting
COMELEC was determined to implement the Phase III (Election the sole and exclusive authority of congress to canvass the votes for
transmission of an "unofficial quick count"). election of President and Vice President. Returns of every election for
the said positions SHALL BE TRANSMITTED TO THE CONGRESS,
Senate President Franklin Drilon addressed a letter to Chairman Abalos DIRECTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE. Second, it contravenes
that the COMELEC should not conduct quick count on the result of the the provision on Sec 29 (1) of Art VI that no money shall be paid out of
election on President and Vice President for it violates Sec 4 of Art. VII the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation by law because
of the Constitution that the Congress has the sole and exclusive the election result is unofficial in character. Lastly, Resolution 6712
authority to canvass the votes for President and Vice President. Such disregards NAMFREL as the ACCREDITED CITIZENS ARM as it is provided
quick count conducted would be preemptive of the authority of the in Sec 27 of RA 7166 as amended by RA 8173 and reiterated in Sec 18
Congress and be lacking of any constitutional authority. of RA 8436. NAMFREL is exclusively authorized to use a copy of election
return for an unofficial counting of votes whether national or even in
On April 27, 2004, COMELEC met en banc and further discussed and local election.
resolved the implementation of Phase III. On the following day,
COMELEC approved Resolution No. 6712 declaring it adopts the policy 28. SANDOVAL v COMELEC
that the precinct election result in each city and municipality shall be
immediately transmitted to COMELEC Manila. In relation with this, the Petition for the Proclamation of Petitioner Sandoval as
citizens arm commission and civic, religious, professional and other congressman-elect for Malabon-Navotas Legislative District.
Facts: 9. Meanwhile, Navotas proceedings were disputed by riots of
1. Petitioner Sandoval and Private Respondent Canuto Oreta supporters of opposing mayoralty candidates that the comelec
vied for the position of Congressman in Malabon-Navotas had to more it to PICC.
district last May 11, 1988. 10. Comelec that released a resolution stating that the bond of
2. On the election day, voted had been cast and contented in canvassers must finish the report and must declare a winner.
various precints in the municipality. 11. Private respondent filed a petition and prayed to have the
3. In Malabon, a reception group and several canvasing announcement suspended and prayed for them to answer the
committee were formed to expedite the canvassing. inquiry about the election returns then they canvassed and found
4. May 16, 1998, Counsels for Private Respondent made a that 804 returns were counted and seeing no error proceeded in
request upon Malabon Election Officers to furnish to them a their plan to release the results.
complete set of the list of voters. They requested also for a 12. Then they declared Petitioner Federico Sandoval the duly
complete list of precints in the municipality together with the elected congressman of Legislative district of Malabon-Navatos.
number of voters. Sought permission to conduct an audit of 13. The following day, Private respondent filed with comelec an
tabulation reports. These requests were denied. appeal for Nullification of the proclamation. Verbal order to
1. That any counsel for candidate has neither personality resolve the canvass of votes-include 19 precints to canvass.
nor right to conduct an audit of the tabulation report 14. Comelec En Banc- Ordered that proclamation be set aside.
proceeding of the board presumed to be regular. District Board Void:
2. Granting of the requests would delay the proceedings of 3. Defiance of Verbal Order by the comelec to suspend
board the prejudice of the will of the people of Malabon. proclamation of winner until the correction of
5. On May 17, 1998, Malabon municipality board concluded manifest.
its proceedings. It canvassed 804 out of 805 precints- 4. Incomplete canvass
Private respondent obtained the highest number of vote 15. Petitioner filed a comment:
with 57,760 while petitioner was second with 42, 892 1. Comelec resolved the issue with hearing
votes. therefore not giving him his due process of
6. Ma. Rosario Lapuz, the authorized rep of private law.
respondent wrote comelec chairman Bernardo Pardo and 2. Violates Rep. Act 7166.
informed him that several election returns were not 3. Seeking correction does not live with comelec
included in the May 17 canvassing. but with board of canvass
7. May 19, 1998, Private Respondent wrote again and 4. Oreta based by his failure to raise questions
reiterated her claim. before.
8. May 23, 1998, Private respondent filed with Comelec- 16. SG Silvestre Bello III- Manifestation and Motion
Petition to correct Manifest error in Tabulation. He 5. Comelec Motio proprio and ex parte
contested that 804 election returns were canvasted but annulment of Petitioner's proclamation tainted
only 790 were returned. He prayed that: with Grave Abuse of discretion amounting to
1. The canvassers of Malabon reconvened to correct said lack of excess of jurisdiction and violated
error. petitioner's right to due process.
2. The declaration of Congressman be suspended until 6. Comelec has no jurisdiction
the alleged error be corrected. Issue:
1. Whether comelec has jurisdiction over the petition
filed by Private Respondent. The COMELEC dismissed the petition because the grounds enumerated
2. Whether Due Process of Law was exercised. are not those which constitute declaration of failure of election under
Sec. 6 Art. 1 of Omnibus Election Code.
Held: Held:
Section 242 of the Omnibus Election Code of Comelec is Petition must fail. Sec. 6 Art. 1 of Omnibus Election Code clearly
authorize to resolve an illegal proclamation are after due provides that there are only three instances wherein a failure of
process and hearing. election may be declared, those are:
1. The election in any polling place has not been held on the date
The Comelec has Quasi-Judicial Power.
fixed because of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or
Comelec Order SPC 98-143 and SPC 98-208 is Annulled, other analogous causes.
Rewarded to the Comelec ordered to hold a hearing, whether
petitioner may hold office but it is still with the discretion of 2. The election in any polling place had been suspended before
Comelec. the hour fixed by law for the closing of voting on account of
force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
causes.
29. AL HAJ v COMELEC
3. After voting and during the preparation and transmission of
Facts: the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, the
Tawantawan M. Caruntongan Al Haj and Nasser Manalao are election results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure,
candidates for Municipal Mayor and Vice Mayor, respectively. They
violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes.
filed a petition to COMELEC to declare a failure of elections in
Municipality of Munai, Lanao del Norte on the following grounds: The irregularities pointed by the petitioner such as vote buying, fraud,
1. Massive vote buying and terrorism are grounds for an election contest and may not be
invoked to declare a failure of election.
2. Illegal assignment of Rakim Paute as Election Officer of Munai
In 1993, DILG Secretary Rafael Alunan III filed a complaint with the The Court ruled that in cases where the Ombudsman and the Special
Ombudsman for violation of corrupt practices under RA 3019 against Prosecutor were unable to agree on whether or not a probable cause
those who participated in finalizing the bid and the contract. They are exists, the Court may interfere. The Ombudman may have erred in
disregarding the Special Prosecutor's recommendation, however, he corresponding Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan (SB). The
should be allowed to review his decision and may correct it if SB found probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest of
necessary. The Court also found that the petitioners were deprived of respondents and issued the same against them, where respondents
due process when reinstating the complaint against petitioners without posted bail. On the same day, respondents filed a Motion for
their knowledge. They were not informed about the reinvestigation, Reconsideration but the Office of Ombudsman denied the motion with
which is a different proceeding from the preliminary investigation, and the ratiocination that the filing of an Information before the SB
so, they were unable to participate in the proceedings. precluded the said Office from taking cognizance of the said motion.
The Court remanded the case to the Ombudman to determine However the respondents filed with the SB a joint motion for
probable cause. reconsideration. The SB granted the motion of the respondent and
ordered the prosecutor to reinvestigate the evidence and take the
appropriate action.. The Special Prosecutor office agreed with the
38. PEOPLEv VELEZ findings that there was a prima facie case against respondents but
recommended modifications to the Ombudsman, namely, that the
Facts Information in Criminal Case No. 24307 be withdrawn and another
The petitioner Salmingo filed a criminal affidavit with the office Information for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 be filed only
of the Ombudsman against the respondents Edwin Velez City mayor of against City Engineer Eladio S. Mondragon Jr. They found out that there
Silay, along with 3 others. The petitioner charged the respondents of was no overpricing of the said equipment and stated that the city
the following: engineer will be the one liable because he was the who should have
1. Installing and operating a rock crusher without the required inspected the equipment before purchase, this is a negligence on his
Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) from the DENR; part who failed to exercise the degree of diligence he was expected to
perform.. The SB granted the motion to withdraw Information of the
2. Incurring an overdraft against appropriation in the amount of prosecution and the case was dismissed. However Salmingo filed for a
P3.991M, in violation of Section 158 of the Government Accounting motion for reconsideration which was subsequently denied.
and Auditing Manual; Issue:
1. Wether the petitioner has the proper standing to file the case
3. Entering into a transaction that is grossly or manifestly
2. hether SB violated Section 27 of RA 6770 when it treated the
disadvantageous to Silay City, in violation of Sec. 3 (g) of RA No. 3019;
"Joint Motion for Reconsideration / Reinvestigation" of
4. Malversation of P2.528M in violation of Art. 217 of the RPC; and respondents as a motion for reconsideration under Sec 27 of RA
6770 and when it granted the "Motion to Withdraw
5. Technical Malversation of at least P11.648M in violation of Sec. 305 Information" filed by the Office of the Ombudsman and
(a) of the Local Government Code and Art. 220 of the RPC dismissed Criminal Case No. 24307.
As a result, the FIIB, as nominal complainant, filed before the With the denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed the
Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman a instant petition for review.
formal complaint against herein petitioner. The complaint was treated
as both a criminal and an administrative charge and docketed as OMB- ISSUE: Whether the Ombudsman’s findings that the TRV applications
0- 98-0214 (criminal aspect), for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt were illegal constitutes an indirect interference by the Ombudsman
Practices Act and for falsification of public documents, and OMB-ADM- into the powers of the BOC over immigration matters.
0-98-0038 (administrative aspect), for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct,
Falsification of Public Documents and Gross Neglect of Duty. HELD: We do not agree. The creation of the Office of the Ombudsman
is a unique feature of the 1987 Constitution. The Ombudsman and his
In a Joint Resolution dated January 22, 1999, Graft Investigation Officer deputies, as protectors of the people, are mandated to act promptly on
Marlyn M. Reyes resolved the administrative case filed against complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employees of
petitioner the Government, or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Foremost among its powers is the authority to investigate and complainant for the copies of the school canteen's financial
prosecute cases involving public officers and employees. statements.
After respondents had given their side of complaints, graft investigation
Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of officer Helen M. Acuna found respondents guilty of violation of Section
1989, was passed into law on November 17, 1989 and provided for the 5(a) of R.A No. 6713 and imposed upon them the penalty of reprimand.
structural and functional organization of the Office of the Ombudsman. However, Officer Julita Calderon set aside the said decision finding that
Under RA 6770, the lawmakers intended to provide the Office of the respondents were also guilty of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best
Ombudsman with sufficient muscle to ensure that it can effectively interest of the service under Section 22(t) of Rule XIV, of the Omnibus
carry out its mandate as protector of the people against inept and Rules Implementing Book V of EO No. 292, and accordingly penalizing
corrupt government officers and employees. The Office was granted them with six months suspension. Respondent’s motion for
the power to punish for contempt in accordance with the Rules of reconsideration and or reinvestigation having been denied elevated the
Court. It was given disciplinary authority over all elective and case to Court of Appeals. The appellate court declared that the penalty
appointive officials of the government and its subdivisions, is merely recommendatory to the Department of Education.
instrumentalities and agencies (with the exception only of impeachable Issue:
officers, members of Congress and the Judiciary). Also, it can Whether the office of the Ombudsman has the Authority to impose
preventively suspend any officer under its authority pending an administrative sanctions over public officials.
investigation when the case so warrants. HELD:
The Court notes that the provisions under Article XI, Section 13 of the
The Philippine Ombudsman, as protector of the people, is armed with 1987 Constitution and Section 15(3) of R.A 6770 qualifies the "order"
the power to prosecute erring public officers and employees, giving “to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute" an officer or
him an active role in the enforcement of laws on anti-graft and corrupt employee “— akin to the questioned issuances in the case at bar. The
practices and such other offenses that may be committed by such power of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute any illegal act
officers and employees. The legislature has vested him with broad or omission of any public official is not an exclusive authority but a
powers to enable him to implement his own actions. shared or concurrent authority in respect of the offense charged.
By stating that the Ombudsman "recommends" the action to be taken
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED.
against an erring officer or employee, the provisions in the Constitution
40. OMBUDSMAN v MADRIAGA and in R.A. 6770 intended that the implementation of the order be
coursed through the proper officer.
Facts: The word "recommend" in Sec. 15(3) must thus be read in conjunction
The San Juan School club through its president Teresa Nuque, filed with the phrases "ensure compliance therewith" or "enforce its
before the Office of the Ombudsman a complaint against respondents disciplinary authority” as provided in Section 21 of R.A. No. 6770. In
Gertrude Madriaga, school principal of San Juan Elementary School and fine, the Ombudsman's authority to impose administrative penalty and
Anna Marie Bernardo, canteen manager of the same school, in enforce compliance therewith is not merely recommendatory. It is
violation of Section 1 of Rule IV and Section 1 of Rule VI of the Rules mandatory within the bounds of the law. The implementation of the
Implementing Republic Act (R.A) No. 6713 otherwise known as the order imposing the penalty is, however, to be coursed through the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and proper officer. The challenged Court of Appeals decision is reversed
employees, for not promptly responding to the letter request of the and set aside.
but can only conduct the same if instructed to do so by Ombudsman.
41. ZALDIVA v SB Even his original power to issue subpoena, which still claims under
Section 10(d) of PD 1630, is now deemed transferred to the
Facts: ombudsman, who may, however, retain it in the Special Prosecutor in
The petitioner filed two (2) petitions against the respondent. connection with the case he is ordered to investigate.
Nos. L-79690-707 in April 27, 1988 and Nos. L- 80578 in April 27, 1988.
In g.r. no. 79690-707, “Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and WHEREFORE, the court hereby:
Mandamus under Rule 65”, petitioner Enrique A. Zaldivar, governor of 1. GRANT the consolidated petitions filed by petitioner Zaldivar
the province of Antique, sought to restrain the Sandiganbayan and and hereby NULLIFY the criminal information’s filed against him
Tanodbayan Raul Gonzalez from proceeding with the Prosecution and in the Sandiganbayan; and
hearing of Criminal cases Nos. 12159 to 12161 and 12163-12177 (for
2. ORDER respondent Raul Gonzalez to cease and desist from
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) on the ground
conducting investigations and filing criminal cases with the
that said cases were filed by said Tanodbayan without legal and
constitutional authority, since under the 1987 Constitution which took Sandiganbayan or otherwise exercising the powers and
effect on February 2, 1987, it is only the Ombudsman (not the present functions of the Ombudsman.
or incumbent Tanodbayan) who has the authority to file cases with the SO ORDERED.
Sandiganbayan, and
In g.r. no. 80578, petitioner Enrique A. Zaldivar, on substantially 42. ORAP v SANDIGANBAYAN
the same ground as the first petition, prays that Tanodbayan Gonzalez
be restrained from conducting preliminary investigations and filing Facts:
similar cases with the sandiganbayan. 1. Three info were filed before Sandiganbayan by
Issue: Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor Rodolfo Aquino
WON the respondent Raul Gonzalez still has the power and duty charging Presiding Judge of Mangataren, Pangasinan.
as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution. Vicente Orap with violation of Sec (3) of Rep Act 3019
Held: or otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
No. the duty is given to the Ombudsman; the incumbent Practice Act.
Tanodbayan (called Special Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution and 2. Accused unlawfully and feloniously recieved various
who is supposed to retain powers and duties not given to the amounts of money from several persons in connection
Ombudsman) is clearly without authority to conduct preliminary with Criminal Case No. 2032 or People vs Iglesias-for
investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases with the reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide,
serious physical injury and damage to property.
Sandiganbayan, except upon orders of the Ombudsman. This right to
3. Before schedules arraignment, Petitioner filed a
do so was lost effective February 2, 1987. From that time, he has been
motion to quash info on ground that officer who
divested of such authority.
signed the same had an authority to do so and
Under the present Constitution, the Special Prosecutor (Raul Sandiganbayan did not acquire jurisdiction.
Gonzalez) is a mere subordinate of the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) and Issue:
can investigate and prosecute cases only upon the latter’s authority or 1. Whether provision sec. 9 in relation to section 10 of PD 1607 of
orders. The Special Prosecutor cannot initiate the prosecution of cases the Tanodbayan decree is applicable.
No, the court declares that the CHR has no such power and it was
Held: not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or quasi-
Section 17 and sec 19 of PD 1607 gives authority to conduct judicial agency in this country or duplicate much less take over the
preliminary investigation. Petition was dismissed. functions of the latter.
The Constitution clearly and categorically grants to the CHR the
power to investigate all forms of human rights violations involving
43. CARINO v CHR civil and political rights, it can exercise that power on its own
initiative or on complaint of any person but it cannot try and decide
Facts: cases as courts of justice or even quasi-judicial bodies do. To
On 17 September 1990, some 800 public school teachers, among investigate is not to adjudicate or judge. Adjudicate means to settle
them members of the Manila Public School Teachers Association in the exercise of judicial authority.
(MPSTA) and Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) undertook what The CHR has no business intruding into the jurisdiction and
they described as “mass concerted actions” to dramatize and functions of the Education Secretary or the Civil Service
highlight their plight resulting from the alleged failure of public Commission. Whether or not the conclusions reached by the
authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again been Secretary of Education in disciplinary cases are correct and are
brought to the latter’s attention. The mass action consisted in adequately based on substantial evidence or whether or not the
staying away from their classes, converging at the Liwasang Secretary of Education had in truth committed human rights
Bonifacio, gathering in peaceable assemblies. Among those who violations involving civil and political rights are matters which may
took part in the “concerted mass actions” were 8 private respondent be passed upon and determined through a motion for
teachers at the Ramon Magsaysay High School who had agreed to reconsideration addressed to the Secretary himself and in the event
support the non-political demands of MPSTA. of an adverse verdict, may be reviewed by the Civil Service
Despite directives for them to return to work within 24 hours, or Commission and eventually by the Supreme Court.
face dismissal, the teachers did not comply and the mass actions
continued into the week, with more teachers joining in the days that 44. CANONIZADO v AGUIRRE
followed. As a result thereof, the 8 teachers (private respondents)
were suspended from work for 90 days. The issue was then Facts:
investigated and on 17 December 1990, DECS Secretary Carino
ordered the dismissal from the service of one teacher and the The petitioners, Alexis Canonizado, Edgar Dula Torres, and
suspension of 3 others. The respondents complained to the CHR Rogelio A. Pureza were incumbent commissioners of the National
that while they were participating in peaceful mass actions, they Police Commission when Republic Act No. 8851, otherwise known as
suddenly learned of their replacements as teachers, allegedly the PNP Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998, took effect.
without notice and consequently for reasons completely unknown
to them. The NAPOLCOM was originally created under Republic Act No.
Issue: 6975 (RA 6975), entitled "An Act Establishing The Philippine National
Whether or not the CHR has the power under the Constitution to try Police Under A Reorganized Department Of The Interior And Local
and decide and determine certain specific cases such as the alleged
Government, And For Other Purposes." Under RA 6975, the petitioners
human rights violation involving civil or political rights.
were appointed as commissioners of the NAPOLCOM. None of their
Held:
terms had expired at the time the amendatory law was passed.
units therein, including the lines of control, authority and responsibility
On March 6, 1998, RA 8551 took effect; it declared that the between them. In involves a reduction in personnel, consolidation
terms of the current Commissioners were deemed as expired upon its of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of
effectivity and thus assailed by petitioners for being unconstitutional. functions.
According to petitioners, sections 4 and 8 of RA 8551 are
unconstitutional and they argue that their removal from office by virtue Naturally, it may result in the loss of one's position through
of section 8 of RA 8551 violates their security of tenure. removal or abolition of an office. However, for a reorganization to be
valid, it must also pass the test of good faith. No bona fide
Public respondents insist that the express declaration in section reorganization of the NAPOLCOM having been mandated by Congress,
8 of RA 8551 that the terms of petitioners' offices are deemed expired RA 8851, insofar as it declares the terms of office of the incumbent
discloses the legislative intent to impliedly abolish the NAPOLCOM commissioners, petitioners herein, as expired and resulting in their
created under RA 6975 pursuant to a bona fide reorganization. In removal from office, removes civil service employees from office
support of their theory, public respondents cite the various changes without legal cause and must therefore be struck down for being
introduced by RA 8551 in the functions, composition and character of constitutionally infirm. Petitioners are thus entitled to be reinstated to
the NAPOLCOM as proof of Congress' intention to abolish the body office. It is of no moment that there are now new appointees to the
created under RA 6975 in order to replace it with a new NAPOLCOM NAPOLCOM. It is a well-entrenched principle that when a regular
which is more civilian in nature, in compliance with the constitutional government employee is illegally dismissed, his position never becomes
mandate. vacant under the law and he is considered as not having left his office.
The new appointments made in order to replace petitioners are not
Issues: valid.
The question that must first be resolved is whether or not
petitioners were removed by virtue of a valid abolition of their office by
Congress. More specifically, whether the changes effected by RA 8551
in reference to the NAPOLCOM were so substantial as to effectively
create a completely new office in contemplation of the law.
Held:
NONE. R.A. 8551 did not expressly abolish petitioners' positions.
In order to determine whether there has been an implied abolition, it
becomes necessary to examine the changes introduced by the new law
in the nature, composition and functions of the NAPOLCOM.