384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Zamora vs. Caballero

*
G.R. No. 147767. January 14, 2004..

MANUEL E. ZAMORA, petitioner, vs.

GOVERNOR JOSE R. CA-BALLERO,
ANESIO M. RANARIO, in his capacity as
Provincial Administrator, MARIANO
KINTANAR, in his capacity as Provincial
Auditor, CARMEN R. RASUL, in his
capacity as Provincial Treasurer,
ROLANDO L. OSORIO, BELINDA G.
APAWAN, ARMANDO L. SERAS, RUWEL
PETER S. GONZAGA, ARMANDO C.
CODILLA, RAUL B. BASAÑES,
GRACIANO C. ARAFOL, JR., respondent.

Remedial Law; Injunctions; Although

Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits any court
from issuing injunctions in cases involving
infrastructure projects, the prohibition extends
only to the issuance of injunctions or restraining
orders against administrative acts in
controversies involving facts or the exercise of
discretion in technical cases.—Respondents’
other contention that the construction of the
capitol building cannot be enjoined in light of
Malaga v. Penachos,Jr.fails to convince. In
Malaga, this Court declared that although
Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits any
court from issuing injunctions in cases involving
infrastructure projects, the prohibition extends
only to the issuance of injunctions or
restraining or-

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

385

VOL. 419, JANUARY 14, 2004 385

Zamora vs. Caballero

ders against administrative acts in controversies

involving facts or the exercise of discretion in
technical cases. On issues clearly outside this
dimension and involving questions of law, this
Court declared that courts could not be
prevented from exercising their power to
restrain or prohibit administrative acts.
Administrative Law; Local Government
Code; Words and Phrases; Definition of Quorum
and Majority.—“Quorum” is defined as that
number of members of a body which, when
legally assembled in their proper places, will
enable the body to transact its proper business
or that number which makes a lawful body and
gives it power to pass upon a law or ordinance
or do any valid act. “Majority,” when required to
constitute a quorum, means the number greater
than half or more than half of any total. In fine,
the entire membership must be taken into
account in computing the quorum of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, for while the
constitution merely states that “majority of each
House shall constitute a quorum,” Section 53 of
the LGC is more exacting as it requires that the
“majority of all members of the sanggunian . . .
elected and qualified” shall constitute a
quorum.
Same; Same; Same; A temporary presiding
officer who merely steps into the shoes of the
presiding officer could not have greater power
than that possessed by the latter who can vote
only in case of a tie.—While acting as presiding
officer, Board Member Osorio may not, at the
same time, be allowed to exercise the rights of a
regular board member including that of voting
even when there is no tie to break. A temporary
presiding officer who merely steps into the
shoes of the presiding officer could not have
greater power than that possessed by the latter
who can vote only in case of a tie.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a

decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Nabunturan, Compostela Valley Province,
Br. 3.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the
Court.
       Danilo A. Basa and Noreen Minette
P. Manatad for petitioner.
          Batacanand Montejo Law Firm for
Jose R. Caballero.
          Graciano C. Arafol, Jr. for himself
and for R. Osorio and B. Apawan.

CARPIO-MORALES, J.:

Petitioner Manuel Zamora, a member of

the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Compostela Valley (the Sanggunian), seeks
to invalidate all acts executed and
resolutions issued by the Sanggunian

386

386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Zamora vs. Caballero

during its sessions held on February 8 and

26, 2001 for lack of quorum.
It appears that on February 6, 2001,
Vice-Governor Reynaldo Navarro sent a
written notice of 1 a special session on
February 7, 2001. Upon the request of
Governor Jose R. Caballero, however, the
scheduled special session was reset to
February 8, 2001
2
without the benefit of a
written notice.
 On February 8, 2001, the Sanggunian
thus held a special session to, among other
things, allow the Governor to deliver his
State of the Province Address. As only
seven members of the fourteen-member
3
Sanggunian were present, no resolution
was considered.
On February 26, 2001, the Sanggunian
held its 4th regular session4during which it
issued Resolution No. 05 declaring the
entire province of Compostela Valley under5
a state of calamity and Resolution No. 07
authorizing the Governor to, on behalf of
the province, enter into a construction
contract (Contract) with Allado
Construction Company, Inc. (the Allado
Company) for the completion of Phase II of
the construction of the capitol building.
During the same session, the Sanggunian
accepted the letter of irrevocable
resignation submitted by6 Board Member
Gemma Theresa M. Sotto.

_______________

1 Rollo at p. 43.
2Id., at p. 6.
3Id., at pp. 45-46. In attendance were:

Rolando Osorio Regular Member

Graciano Arafol Regular Member
Belinda Apawan Regular Member
Armando Seras Regular Member
Ruwel Peter Regular Member
Gonzaga
Armando Codilla PCL Federation Representative
Raul S. Basañes LNMB Federation
Representative

4 Rolloat pp. 59-60; “A Resolution Declaring the

Entire Province of Compostela Valley Under a State
of Calamity.”
5 Rolloat pp. 62-63; “A Resolution Authorizing Hon.
Jose R. Caballero, Governor, to Sign for and in Behalf
of the Province, the Corrected/Amended General
Construction Agreement, to be Executed Between the
Allado Construction Company, Inc., and the Province
of Compostela Valley, for the Construction of a Four-
Storey Provincial Capitol Building Phase II.”
6 Rollo at pp. 109-110.

387

VOL. 419, JANUARY 14, 2004 387

Zamora vs. Caballero

While only eight members of the

Sanggunian were present at the
commencement of the session on February
26, 2001, the Journal of the Proceedings
(Journal) and Resolution Nos. 05 and 07
showed that 7
a total of thirteen members
attended it. 8
Petitioner thus filed a petition before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Nabunturan, Compostela Valley against
the Governor, et al., challenging the
validity of the acts of the Sanggunian on
February 26, 2001, alleging that while the
Journal and Resolutions indicated the
presence of 13 members, the Sanggunian
nonetheless “conducted
9
official business
without a quorum” as only seven of its
fourteen members were actually present
when the irrevocable letter of resignation
10
of Board Member Sotto was noted, and
the motions to declare the entire province
of Compostela
11
Valley under a state of
calamity and to authorize the Governor to
enter into12 the Contract 13with the Allado
Company were approved.

_______________

7Id., at p. 64. The Journal shows that the following

members were present:

Hon. Reynaldo B. Vice Governor (Presiding

Navarro Officer)
Hon. Manuel E. Zamora SP Member (late)
Hon. Manolo T. Yanong SP Member
Hon. Rolando L. Osorio SP Member (late)
Hon. Reynaldo Q. SP Member
Castillo
Hon. William S. Andres SP Member (late)
Hon. Graciano C. Arafol SP Member
Hon. Belinda G. Apawan SP Member (late)
Hon. Armando L. Seras SP Member
Hon. Ruwel Peter S. SP Member (late)
Gonzaga
Hon. Armando C. Codilla SP Member
Hon. Raul S. Basañes SP Member
Hon. Ramil L. SP Member
Gentugaya
 Absent:  
Hon. Gemma Theresa M. SP Member
Sotto

8 Rollo at pp. 31-123.

9Id., at pp. 34-36.
10Id., at p. 57.
11Id., at p. 58.
12Id., at p. 61.
13 Per certification of the Sanggunian Secretary,
the following were present:
Hon. Rolando Osorio
Hon. Graciano C. Arafol, Jr.
Hon. Belinda G. Apawan

388

388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Zamora vs. Caballero

Petitioner additionally alleged that when

the vote respecting Resolution No. 05 was
taken, only the remaining six members
voted for the adoption thereof, the then
presiding officer Board Member 14
Rolando
Osorio not having cast his vote; that when
Resolution No. 07 was taken 15up, however,
then presiding officer Osorio, relinquished
his seat to Board Member Graciano Arafol
after the six members present
unanimously voted on the said resolution
in the affirmative, following which Osorio
cast his vote as amember also in the
affirmative, thereby authorizing the
Governor to enter into the Contract with
Allado Company; and that Board Member
Arafol thereafter relinquished his seat as
presiding officer to Board Member Osorio
who once again 16assumed the duties of a
presiding officer.
Petitioner furthermore challenged the
validity of the special session of February
8, 2001 for lack of quorum, there being only
seven members of the Sanggunian in
attendance, and for lack of written notice
sent to all members at least 24 hours
before the holding of the special session
17
in
accordance with Section 52 (d) of the
Local

_______________

Hon. Armando L. Seras

Hon. Ruwel Peter S. Gonzaga
Hon. Armando C. Codilla
Hon. Raul S. Basanes
It appears from the minutes that Vice Governor
Reynaldo B. Navarro left the session before
adjournment and Rolando Osorio was appointed to
preside in the session. Manolo T. Yanong, Reynaldo Q.
Castillo and Ramil L. Gentugaya who were present at
the commencement of the session were not present
when the actions were taken. Manuel E. Zamora and
William S. Andres, who arrived late for the session,
were likewise not present.
14 Rolloat pp. 112-113.
15 Vice Governor Reynaldo B. Navarro relinquished
the chair to Board Member Osorio to attend to official
business.
16 Rolloat pp. 120-121.
17 Section 52. Sessions.—x x x
xxx
(d) In the case of special sessions of the
sanggunian, a written notice to the members shall be
served personally at the member’s usual place of
residence at least twenty-four (24) hours before the
special session is held.
Unless otherwise concurred in by two-thirds (2/3)
vote of the sanggunian members present, there being
a quorum, no other mat

389

VOL. 419, JANUARY 14, 2004 389

Zamora vs. Caballero

18
Government Code of 1991 (LGC).
Respondents, on the other hand,
contended that since Board
19
Member Sotto
was in the United States at the time the
questioned acts were executed and
resolutions adopted, the actual number of
Board Members then in the country was
thirteen which should be the basis of the
determination of a quorum.
Branch 3 of the RTC of Nabunturan,
20
at
Compostela Valley, by Order of April 24,
2001, dismissed the petition upon the
following ratiocination:

. . . Gemma Theresa M. Sotto should not be

counted as member for the purpose of
determining the number to constitute a quorum
because she is in the United States of America.
However, sub-paragraph (b) [of section 53 of the
Local Government Code] states and provides for
compulsion of any member absent without any
justifiable cause.
This is interpreted by the Supreme Court in
the case of Jose Avelino, petitioner vs. Mariano
J. Cuenco, respondent, G.R. No. L-2821, March
4, 1949.
Gemma Theresa M. Sotto is beyond the reach
of the legal processes of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan and could not be arrested to
compel her to attend its session. Quorum should
be determined on the basis of the actual number
of members of the body concerned rather than
upon its full membership which is fourteen (14).
Therefore, in this case, with seven (7) members
of the thirteen (13) members present in
constitutive of a quorum. x x x 21
Moreover, Presidential Decree 1818
prohibits the issuance of a restraining order or
injunction in any case 22
involving government
infrastructure projects. (Emphases omitted)

_______________

ters may be considered at a special session except

those; stated in the notice.
     x x x
18 Republic Act 7160.
19 Rollo at pp. 128-131.
20Id., at pp. 152-158.
21 (“Prohibiting Courts from Issuing Restraining
Orders or Preliminary Injunctions in Cases Involving
Infrastructure and Natural Resource Development
Projects of, and Public Utilities Operated by, the
Government.”
22 Rollo at pp. 156-157.

390

390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Zamora vs. Caballero

Hence, the present petition for Certiorari

under Rule 45, faulting the trial court for
erroneously23
(1) applying the case of Avelino
v. Cuenco to a controversy involving a local
government unit; (2) taking judicial notice
of Board Member Sotto’s being in the
United States without proof thereof; and
(3) ruling that to grant a Temporary
Restraining 24
Order would be in violation of
P.D. 1818.
Respondents question the authority of
the Court to look beyond the 25 Journal and
Resolutions of the Sanggunian and assert
that the26
construction of the capitol
building cannot be enjoined. And they too
assert that the presence of thirteen
members at the February 26, 2001 session
should be conclusive on 27the strength of
Arroyo
28
v. De Venecia and U.S. v.
Pons. Citation of these cases is misplaced,
however.
InArroyo v. De Venecia, this Court
refused to inquire into allegations that the
House of Representatives failed to comply
with the rules of procedures which the
House itself promulgated absent any
showing that there was a violation of a
constitutional provision or of the rights of
private individuals.
InU.S. v. Pons, this Court did not go
beyond the legislative journals which it
found clear and explicit, it holding that to
disprove the entries in the journals,
evidence must be adduced based merely
upon the memory or recollection of
witnesses in contrast to journals which are
the acts
29
of the Government or sovereign
itself.
In the instant case, this Court is not
called upon to inquire into the
Sanggunian’s compliance with its own
rules. Rather, it is called upon to
determine whether the Sanggunian
complied with the LGC, a law enacted by
Congress, and its Implementing Rules.
Moreover, the Journal of the
Sanggunian is far from clear and explicit
as to the presence of a quorum when the
questioned acts were taken. It does not
indicate how many members were actually
present when the body voted on the
motions leading to the adoption of
Resolution Nos. 05 and 07. While the
Journal and the

_______________

23 83 Phil. 17 (1949).
 24 Rollo at p. 13.
25Id., at pp. 164, 169-170.
26Id., at pp. 164, 170-172.
27 277 SCRA 268 (1997).
28 34 Phil. 729 (1916).
29Id., at p. 733.

391

VOL. 419, JANUARY 14, 2004 391

Zamora vs. Caballero

Resolutions show 30that 13 members

attended the session, the Journal shows
that only six members were called by the 31
presiding officer to vote on the motions.
Six members whose names appear in
attendance, namely: Vice Governor
Navarro and Board Members Zamora,
Yanong, Castillo, Andres and Gentugaya,
were not called32
and, save for the absent
Vice Governor, no explanation was given
therefor.
Coincidentally, in Resolutions 05 and
07, the names of the Board Members who
were not called upon to vote, including
petitioner as he had in the meantime left,
are followed by two asterisks (**).
Additionally, it was clearly noted by
petitioner, when he asked permission to
leave the session, that only seven members
were left:
SP Member ZAMORA : Mr. President, I
move to adjourn, Mr. President.
SP Member ARAFOL : Objection Mr.
President.
SP Member ZAMORA : Mr. President,
before the objection, before objection Mr.
President, I would like to invite
everybody to go at my service I have a
patient nga gi-pagawas na sa hospital
nga i-uli na sa Awao, it’s been there for
one hour so I really have to go I have to
carry that patient to Awao Mr.
President.
SP Member OSORIO : You are excused
Honorable . . .
SP Member ZAMORA : Okay, then
remember that you’re only seven Mr.
President.
SP Member ARAFOL : No problem.
SP Member ZAMORA : Okay so it’s alright
for you to decide. The seven of you. I
would like to manifest in the record that
before further discussion that . . .
SP Member GONZAGA: Mr. President he
is already excused Mr. President.
SP Member ZAMORA : Yes but I would
like to make statement first for the
record, for the record. That I do not
want Mr. President that the incident of
the of the State of the Province

_______________

30 Rollo at p. 64.
 31Id.,at pp. 112-113, 120-121. Those who voted
were Armando C. Codilla, Raul S. Basañes, Armando
L. Seras, Ruwel Peter S. Gonzaga, Belinda G. Apawan
and Graciano C. Arafol with Rolando Osorio as
presiding officer.
32 Rollo at pp. 59, 62, 106-107.

392

392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Zamora vs. Caballero

Address will be repeated Mr. President,

wherein there are only seven members
present and the quorum was declared Mr.
President. x x x
SP Member GONZAGA:
33
That’s only your
opinion . . . (Italics supplied)

Respondents themselves admit that there

were only seven members present when
the motions were voted upon:

26. Nevertheless, even if that remark

constituted a proper question on quorum, it is a
matter of fact that there were still seven (7)
members present, x x x [T]here is a quorum 34
since seven is a majority of thirteen (13). x x x
(Emphasis supplied.)

Clearly, this Court is constrained to look

into the proceedings of the Sanggunian as
recorded in the Journal and not just rely
on Resolution Nos. 05 and 07 to determine
who and how many participated in the
consideration thereof. The placing of the
asterisks after the names of five members
in the Resolutions is highly irregular and
suspicious especially since both resolutions
indicate that petitioner, whose name is
also followed by asterisks, was present
even if it is clear from the Journal that he
had already left the session before the
Sanggunian took note of the resignation of
Board Member Sotto and voted on the
motions.
Respondents’ other contention that the
construction of the capitol building cannot
be enjoined35 in light of Malaga v.
Penachos,Jr. fails to convince. In Malaga,
this Court declared that although
Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits any
court from issuing injunctions in cases
involving infrastructure projects, the
prohibition extends only to the issuance of
injunctions or restraining orders against
administrative acts in controversies
involving facts or the exercise of discretion
in technical cases. On issues clearly outside
this dimension and involving questions of
law, this Court declared that courts could
not be prevented from exercising their
power to restrain
36
or prohibit
administrative acts.

_______________

33Id., at pp. 104-105.

 34Id., at p. 169.
35 213 SCRA 516 (1992).
36Id., at pp. 523-524.

393

VOL. 419, JANUARY 14, 2004 393

Zamora vs. Caballero

Respondents maintain that the exception

in Malagaas indicated above should not be
applied in the instant case because there
was therein a defect in the compliance with
procedural rules on bidding. In contrast,
respondents stress, the bidding for the
construction of the capital building in
which the winner was the Allado Company
was not defective, they adding that
Resolution 07 simply authorized the
Governor to formalize the Contract
necessary for
37
the full implementation of
the project.
This Court fails to see the essential
difference between Malaga and the instant
case.
In both cases, the defect in the Contract
relates to the noncompliance with the
mandate of a law respecting requirements
before validly entering into a contract. In
Malaga, the defect pertained to bidding. In
the present case, the alleged defect
pertains to the required number of votes
necessary to authorize the Governor to
enter into a construction contract.
 Clearly then, what is at issue in this
case is not the propriety or the wisdom of
entering into the Contract for the
construction of the capital building, which
is beyond the power of this Court to enjoin,
but the Sanggunian’s compliance with the
requirements prescribed under the LGC
before it may grant the Governor authority
to enter into the Contract, which issue falls
under the exception to the proscription
against injunctions in cases involving
infrastructure projects, as held in Malaga.
38
On the applicability of Avelino to the
present case: The issue in said case was
whether there was a quorum in a meeting
attended by only 12 of 24 senators, one
having been in the hospital while another
was out of the country. This Court held
that although the total membership of the
Senate was 24, the presence of 12 members
already constituted a quorum since the
24th member was outside the country and 39
beyond the coercive power of the Senate.
In the instant case, there is nothing on
record, save for respondents’ allegation, to
show that Board Member Sotto was out of
the country and to thereby conclude that
she was outside the coercive power of the
Sanggunian when the February 8 and 26,
2001 sessions were held. In fact it is
undisputed that the leave form filed by

_______________

37 Rollo at p. 171.
 38Supra.

39Id., at pp. 21-22.

394

394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Zamora vs. Caballero

said Board Member before the Department

of Interior and Local Government (DILG)
did not mention
40
that she was going out of
the country. Petitioner’s contention that
the trial court cannot take judicial notice of
Board Member Sotto’s whereabouts is thus
well taken. On this score, the instant case
is outside the application of the doctrine in
Avelino.
A court may take judicial notice of
matters of public knowledge, or those
which are capable of unquestionable
determination or ought to be known to 41
judges because of their judicial functions.
With respect to disputed facts, however,
the court must receive 42evidence thereof,
with notice to the parties.
Also, in Avelino, the legislative body
involved was the Senate and the applicable
rule on quorum was that embodied in
Article VI, Section 10 of the 1935
Constitution which reads:

Section 10. x x x
 (2) A majority of each House shall constitute
a quorum to do business, but a smaller number
may adjourn from day to day and may compel
the attendance of absent Members in such
manner and under43 such penalties as such
House may provide. (Emphasis supplied)

The present case, however, involves a local

legislative body, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Compostela Valley
Province, and the applicable rule
respecting quorum is found in Section 53(a)
of the LGC which provides:

Section 53. Quorum.—

(a) A majority of all members of the
sanggunian who have been elected and qualified
shall constitute a quorum to transact official
business. Should a question of quorum be raised
during a session, the presiding officer shall
immediately proceed to call the roll of the
members and thereafter announce the results.
(Emphasis supplied)

“Quorum” is defined as that number of

members of a body which, when legally
assembled in their proper places, will
enable the body to transact its proper
business or that number which

_______________

40 Rollo at p. 19.
41 Section 2, Rule 129, Rules of Court.
 42 Salamera v. Sandiganbayan, 303 SCRA 217, 229
(1999).
43 The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains a
similarly worded provision in Article VI, Section
16(2).

395

VOL. 419, JANUARY 14, 2004 395

Zamora vs. Caballero

makes a lawful body and gives it power to

pass upon44 a law or ordinance or do any
valid act. “Majority,” when required to
constitute a quorum, means the number
greater
45
than half or more than half of any
total. In fine, the entire membership must
be taken into account in computing the
quorum of the sangguniang panlalawigan,
for while the constitution merely states
that “majority of each House shall
constitute a quorum,” Section 53 of the
LGC is more exacting as it requires that
the “majority of all members of the
sanggunian. . . elected and qualified”
shall constitute a quorum.
The difference in the wordings of the
Constitution and the LGC is not merely “a
matter of style and writing” as respondents
would argue, but is actually a matter
46
of
“meaning and intention.” The
qualification in the LGC that the majority
be based on those “elected and qualified”
was meant to allow sangguniansto function
even when not all 47
members thereof have
been proclaimed. And, while the intent of
the legislature in qualifying the quorum
requirement was to allow sangguniansto
function even when not all members
thereof have been proclaimed and have
assumed office, the provision necessarily
applies when, after all the members of the
sanggunianhave assumed office, one or
some of its members file for leave. What
should be important then is the
concurrence of election to and qualification
for the office. And election to, and
qualification as member of, a local
legislative body are not altered by the
simple expedient of filing a leave of
absence.
The trial court should thus have based
its determination of the existence of a
quorum on the total number of members of
the Sanggunian without regard to the
filing of a leave of absence by Board

_______________

44 Javellana v. Tayo, 6 SCRA 1042, 1048-1049

(1962).
45 Perez v. Dela Cruz, 27 SCRA 587, 603 (1969).
46 Rollo at p. 166.
47 A.Q. PIMENTEL, JR.,THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991 THE KEY TO
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT162 (1993). The
proponent of the Local Government Code explains:
This section was meant to cover situations when less than
all the members of the Sanggunian have been elected and
qualified. For example, it can happen that out of ten
members of a Sanggunian, only five have been elected and
qualified, that is, they have been proclaimed and have
assumed office. The other five members may be facing
electoral protests of some kind as the others have not,
therefore, been elected and qualified.

396

396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Zamora vs. Caballero

Member Sotto. The feat that a majority

may, for reasons of political affiliation, file
leaves of absence in order to cripple the
functioning of the sanggunianis already
addressed by the grant of coercive power to
a mere majority of sanggunianmembers48
present when there is no quorum.
Asanggunianis a collegial body.
Legislation, which is the principal function
and duty of the sanggunian,requires the
participation of all its members so that
they may not only represent the interests
of their respective constituents but also
help in the making of decisions by voting
upon every question put upon the body.
The acts of only a part of the Sanggunian
done outside the parameters of the legal
provisions aforementioned are legally
infirm, highly questionable and are, more
importantly, null and void. And all such
acts cannot be given binding force and
effect for they are considered unofficial acts
done during an unauthorized session.
Board Member Sotto is then deemed not
resigned because there was no quorum
when her letter of irrevocable resignation
was noted by the Sanggunian. For the
same reason, Resolution Nos. 05 and 07
are of no legal effect.
Even assuming arguendo that there
were indeed thirteen members present
during the questioned February 26, 2001
session, Resolution No. 05 declaring the
entire province of Compostela Valley under
state of calamity is still null and void
because the motion for its approval 49
was
approved by only six members. When
there are thirteen members present at a
session, the vote of only six members can
not, at any instance, be deemed50to be in
compliance with Section 107(g) of the
Rules and Regulations Imple-

_______________

48 Section 53 (b), Local Government Code.

Section 53. Quorum—x x x

(b) Where there is no quorum, x x x a majority of the
members present may adjourned from day to day and may
compel the immediate attendance of any member absent
without justifiable cause by designating a member of the
sanggunian, to be assisted by a member or members of the
police force assigned in the territorial jurisdiction of the
local government unit concerned, to arrest the absent
member and present him at the session.

49 Rollo at pp. 112-113.

50 Article 107. Ordinances and Resolutions.—The
following rules shall govern the enactment of
ordinances and resolutions: x x x

397

VOL. 419, JANUARY 14, 2004 397

Zamora vs. Caballero

menting the LGC which requires the

concurrence of the approval by the
majority of the members present and the
existence of a quorum in order to validly
enact a resolution.
The motion to grant the Governor
authority to enter into the construction
contract is also deemed not approved in
accordance with the law even if it received
seven affirmative votes, which is already
the majority of thirteen, due to the defect
in the seventh vote. For as priorly stated,
as the Journal confirms, after all six
members voted in the affirmative, Board
Member Osorio, as acting presiding officer,
relinquished his seat to Board Member
Arafol and thereafter cast his vote as a
member in favor
51
of granting authority to
the Governor.
This Court is faced with an act clearly
intended to circumvent an express,
prohibition under the law—a
52
situation that
will not be condoned. The LGC clearly
limits the power of presiding officers to
vote only in case of a tie, to wit:

Section 49. Presiding Officer.—(a) The vice-

governor shall be the presiding officer of the
sangguniang panlalawigan x x x. The presiding
officer shall vote only to break a tie.
(b) In the event of inability of the regular
presiding officer to preside at a sanggunian
session, the members present and constituting a
quorum shall elect from among themselves a
temporary presiding officer, x x x (Italics in the
original. Emphasis supplied.)

While acting as presiding officer, Board

Member Osorio may not, at the same time,
be allowed to exercise the rights of a
regular board member including that of
voting even when there is no tie to break. A
temporary presiding officer who merely
steps into the shoes of the presiding officer
could not have greater 53
power than that
possessed by the latter who can vote only
in case of a tie.
Lastly, for a resolution authorizing the
governor to enter into a construction
contract to be valid, the vote of the
majority of all

_______________

(g) No ordinance of resolution passed by the

sanggunian in a regular or special session duly tailed
for the purpose shall be valid unless approved by a
majority of the members present, there being quorum.
x x x (Italics in the original. Emphasis supplied)
51 Rollo at pp. 120-121.
52 Vide Perez v. Dela Cruz, 27 SCRA 587 (1969).
53Ibid, at p. 602.

398

398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Zamora vs. Caballero

members of the Sanggunian, and not only

of those present during the session, is 54
required in accordance with Section55 468
of the LGC in relation to Article 107 of its
Implementing Rules.
Even including the vote of Board
Member Osorio, who was then the Acting
Presiding Officer, Resolution No. 07 is still
invalid. Applying Section 468 of the LGC
and Article 107 of its Implementing Rules,
there being fourteen members in the
Sanggunian, the approval of eight
members is required to authorize the
governor to enter into the Contract with
the Allado Company since it involves the
creation of liability for payment on the part
of the local government unit.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby
GRANTED. The assailed Order of the
Regional Trial Court of Nabunturan,
Compostela Valley dated April 24, 2001 is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Resolution Nos. 05 and 07 of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Compostela
Valley approved on February 26, 2001
declaring the entire Province of
Compostela Valley under a state of
calamity and granting authority to the
Provincial Governor to enter into a general
construction agreement, respectively, are
hereby declared null and void.

_______________

54 Section 468. Powers, Duties, Functions and

Compensation.—(a) x x x

(iii) Subject to the provisions of Book II of this Code and

applicable laws and upon majority vote of all members of
the sangguniang panlalawigan, authorize the provincial
governor to negotiate and contract loans and other forms of
indebtedness; (Italics in the original. Emphases supplied)
xxx

55 Article 107. Ordinances and Resolutions.—The

following rules shall govern the enactment of
ordinances and resolutions:
xxx
(g) x x x Any ordinance or resolution authorizing or
directing the payment of money or creating liability,
shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of
all the sanggunian members for its passage.
(Italics in the original. Emphasis supplied)
xxx

399
 VOL. 419, JANUARY 14, 2004 399
Rugas vs. People

SO ORDERED.

          Vitug (Chairman), Sandoval-

Gutierrez and Corona, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment reversed and

set aside.

Note.—Presidential Decree No. 1818

prohibits the issuance of injunctive writs
not only against government entities, but
against any person or entity involved in
the election, implementation and operation
of government infrastructure projects.
(Caguioa vs. Laviña, 345 SCRA 49 [2000])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.