LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAW ON PUBLIC
OFFICERS
By
CESO lll
Ateneo de Davao Law School
Public Office
Definition
Distinguished from contract
Elements of a public office
Basic precept underlying public office:
Art. Xl, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution
Meaning of principle
Cases
office or not (Laurel vs. Desierto, 381
SCRA 48)
incentives for BIR and BOC officials and employees (Abakada Guro Party List vs.
Purisima, 562 SCRA 251)
Membership in the market committee
(Figueroa vs. People, 498 SCRA 298)
Private sector membership in NBDB under
RA 8047 (Javier vs. Sandiganbayan, 599
SCRA 325)
Classifying Public Officers of GOCCs under RA 3019
PNCC Assistant Manager (Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan, 376 SCRA 452)
President and COO of Phil. Postal
Savings Bank (People vs.
Sandiganbayan, 16 February 2005)
Philhealth Manager (Geduspan vs.
People, 451 SCRA 187)
VPs and AVP of AFP RSBS (Alzaga vs.
Sandiganbayan, 505 SCRA 849)
`
Characteristics of Public Office
No express provision depriving incumbent of his office (Segovia vs.
Noel, 47 Phil. 543)
passes to heirs; exception (Abeja vs.
Tanada & Mayor Radovan, 236 SCRA
62)
Election protest continues despite death of public officer; VM a real party in interest (De Castro vs. Comelec &
Jamilla, 267 SCRA 806)
Oath of Office
A qualifying requirement for public office; a prerequisite to full investiture w/ the office; right to enter into office becomes plenary and complete (Mendoza vs. Laxina,
Sr. 406 SCRA 156)
In taking oath, he binds to perform faithfully and act primarily for benefit of public (Ombudsman vs. Jurado,
561 SCRA 137)
General rule: Individual cannot be forced to accept public office
Exceptions:
1.
Sec. 4, Art. ll, 1987 Constitution
2.
Art. 234, RPC
3.
Posse comitatus
De Facto Officer
Definition
Requisites
Distinguish from a de jure officer and a usurper
Can an officer de jure recover from the government salary paid to de facto officer?
Can a de jure officer recover the salary from the de facto officer?
Cases
Arimao vs. Taher, 498 SCRA 76
Menzon vs. Petilla, 197 SCRA 251
Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive
Secretary, 194 SCRA 317
Malaluan vs. Comelec, 254 SCRA 400
(2000 BQ)
Tarrosa vs. Singson, 232 SCRA 553
Mendoza vs. Allas, 302 SCRA 623
Cases
Engano vs. CA, 493 SCRA 324
Gaminde vs. COA, 13 December
2000
National Amnesty Commission vs.
COA, 437 SCRA 670
Civil Service
Art. lX-B, Sec. 2(3) Const.; Sec. 36,
PD807; Sec. 46, EO 292 (1999 BQ)
Purpose of the civil service system
*Meram vs. Edralin, 154 SCRA 238)
Scope: Art. lX-B, Sec. 2(1) Const.
Civil Service Commission is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil service; exercises exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving personnel actions xxx
*Corsiga vs. Defensor, 391 SCRA 267
Law on Administrative Jurisdiction vs. public school teachers
Sec. 9 of the Magna Carta for Public
School Teachers (RA 4670)
Coverage of term “teacher”: all persons engaged in classroom teaching on full time basis including guidance counselors, school librarians, industrial arts or vocational instructors and all other persons performing supervisory or administrative functions
Exclusions to the term “teacher”
Public school teacher in the professional staff of state colleges or universities
School nurses, physicians, dentists and other school employees in the category of medical and dental personnel
Cases
CSC does not have original administrative jurisdiction vs. a public school teacher
(Emin vs. De Leon, 378 SCRA 143)
Admin supervision over court employee belongs to S.C. whether offense was committed before or after employment in judiciary, but estoppel applies (Ampong vs. CSC, 563 SCRA 293)
Jurisdiction not lost upon instance of parties (Omb vs. Estandarte, 13 April
2007)
Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997 (RA 8282)
Power of university’s Board of Regents under RA 8282 to discipline its officials and employees not exclusive but concurrent with CSC.
Academic freedom cannot be invoked where there are allegations of CS law and rules violations (CSC vs. Sojor, 22
May 2008)
GOCCs not covered by Civil Service Law a. PNOC-EDC vs. Leogardo, 175 SCRA 26 b. Bliss Development Corp. Employees Union vs. Calleja, 237 SCRA 271 (EO 180 not applicable to BDC) c. Lumanta vs. NLRC, 170 SCRA 79 re: Food Terminal Inc. (1999 BQ) d. PVBEU vs. PVB, 24 August 1990
~PVB not a GOCC although w/a Charter under RA 3518 e. Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan, 376 SCRA
452 re: Phil. National Construction Corp.
GOCCs covered by Civil Service Law a. BSP vs. NLRC, 22 April 1991 b. Baluyot vs. Holganza, 9 Feb 2000
*PNRC under RA 95 c. DFP vs. Mojica, 471 SCRA 776
*Duty Free Phil. under EO 46 d. Alzaga vs. Sandiganbayan, 505
SCRA 848
*AFP-RSBS under RA 9182 (Special
Purpose Vehicle Act of ’02)
PD 198 as amended by PD 1479 and RA 9286
Local water districts subject to Civil
Service Law. Sec. 25 of PD 198 already removed by PD 1479
(Hagonoy Water District vs. NLRC,
165 SCRA 272)
Local Sanggunian resolution, although necessary for final creation of WD, is not its charter (DCWD vs.
CSC, 201 SCRA 605)
Constitution mandates COA to audit
GOCCs with original charter like water districts (De Jesus vs. COA,
403 SCRA 666).
’01 BQ: Effect of privatization of PNB on audit jurisdiction of COA
An employee of a GOCC, even if organized under the general law, considered resigned upon filing certificate of candidacy (PNOC-EDC vs.
NLRC, 222 SCRA 831)
Hiring and firing of employees of
GOCCs with original charter governed by CS law
*ZCWD vs. Buat, 232 SCRA 587
*DOH Dr. Rodriguez Hospital vs.
NLRC, 251 SCRA 700)
Civil Service Law applies to Philippine
Postal Corp. as regards personnel matters, but its BoD is authorized under RA 7354 to formulate its own compensation structure and position classification (Intia,
Jr. vs. COA, 306 SCRA 610)
DBM has sole power/discretion to administer CPCS of national gov’t
Compensation and benefits received by
PRA officials w/o DBM approval are unauthorized and irregular (PRA vs.
Bunag, 397 SCRA 27)
Abolition of Career Executive Service
Board (CESB) by CSC is an ultra vires act
(Eugenio vs. CSC, 31 March 1995)
Abolition of Merit System and Protection
Board (MSPB as created under PD 1409) by CSC is valid; CSC authority under Sec.
17, Book V, EO 292 (Rubenicia vs. CSC,
31 May 1995)
CSC could rule on administrative decisions on appeal before MSPB (Fernando vs. Sto.
Tomas, 234 SCRA 548)
Classification of Civil Service
I.
Under PD 807 and EO 292 a. Career service b. Non-career service ll.
Under Art. lX-B, Sec. 2(2), 1987
Constitution a. Competitive positions b. Non-competitive positions
Career Service
(’99 BQ)
What is included in the career service?
(’99 BQ)
1. Open career
2. Closed Career
3. Positions in CES
4. Career officers other than CES
5. Commissioned officers/enlisted men in
AFP
6. Personnel of GOCC
Importance of security of tenure
Three major levels/classes of positions in the Career Service
1) First level includes clerical, trades, crafts and custodial services positions
2) Second level includes professional, technical and scientific positions
3) Third level covers positions in the
Career Executive Service
Qualification in an appropriate exam is required for appointment to positions in the first and second levels in the career service; provided that whenever there is a civil service eligible actually available for appointment, no person who is not an eligible shall be appointed even in a temporary capacity xxx
Exceptions: when immediate filling of vacancy is urgently required … or when vacancy is not permanent …
Cases on Career Service
Palmera vs. CSC, 235 SCRA 87
Astraquillo vs. Manglapus & Melchor vs. Saez, 190 SCRA 281
Pagcor vs. Salas, 274 SCRA 414
Non-Career Service
What characterizes the non-career service?
What is included in the non-career service?
1. Elective officials and their personal or confidential staff
2. Department heads and other officials of
Cabinet rank xxx
3. Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office and their personal or confidential staff
4. Contractual personnel
5. Emergency and casual personnel
Cases on non-career service
A non-career service employee is protected from removal without just cause (Jocom vs. Regalado, 201
SCRA 73)
Chair of the Commission on Filipino
Language is a non-career official whose tenure of 7 years is fixed by
RA 7104; her removal is not at pleasure of appointing authority
(Office of President vs. Buenaobra,
501 SCRA 303)
Art. lX-B, Sec. 2 (2)
Competitive positions: appointments made according to merit and fitness
Non-competitive positions
1. Primarily confidential
2. Policy determining
3. Highly technical
Executive has power to declare classification of non-competitive position
(Sec. 12, Bk. V, EO 292)
Term of office vs. Tenure of
Incumbent
Term – the time during w/c officer may claim to hold office as of right and fixes the interval after w/c the incumbents shall succeed one another.
Tenure – the term during which the incumbent actually holds office.
Importance of distinction: Constitutional principle of non-removal without due process of law would be negated if
Congress could legally make tenure of officials dependent on pleasure of the
President.
Cases
Term of office Chair & Members of CHR under EO
163 to comply with Sec. 17(2), Art. Xlll (Bautista vs. Salonga, 172 SCRA 164)
Members of HRET have security of tenure; disloyalty to party not a valid ground for expulsion (Bondoc vs. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792)
Requisites for effective operation of rotational scheme for Constitutional Commissioners
(Republic vs. Imperial, 96 Phil. 770; ’99BQ;
’10BQ)
Start and end of 7-year term of office of CSC
Commissioner (Gaminde vs. COA, 13 Dec. 2000)
Primarily Confidential Positions
Rule: Tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence xxx cessation not a removal but expiration of term.
City Legal Officer (Cadiente vs. Santos,
142 SCRA 280)
Prov’l Attorney (Grino vs. CSC, 26 Feb.
1991)
Permanent Representative to UN (De Perio
Santos vs. Macaraig, 10 April 1992)
Eligibility to Public Office
Qualifications generally required of public officers
* Citizenship, residence, age, education and civil service qualifications
Qualification Standards
Religious qualifications prohibited (Sec.
5, Art. lll, Constitution)
Ruling in Pamil vs. Teleron on basis of
Sec. 2175 of old Admin. Code (20 Nov.
1978) superseded by ’87 Const.
Property qualifications may not be imposed for the exercise of right to run for public office. Law requiring candidates for public office to post surety bond held unconstitutional
(Maquera vs. Borra, 07 Sept. 1965)
Qualifications of local elective officials (Sec. 39, RA 7160)
Disqualifications for local elective position (Sec. 40, RA 7160; ’99BQ)
Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude …
Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case
Those convicted by final judgment for violating oath of allegiance
Those with dual citizenship
Fugitives from justice …
Permanent residents in a foreign country
The insane or feeble-minded
Cases
Punong Barangay convicted of arbitrary detention but has not served his sentence because of the grant of probation is not disqualified to seek ’02 local elective office
(Moreno vs. Comelec, 498 SCRA 49)
Conviction for an offense involving moral turpitude (Anti-Fencing Law) stands even if candidate was granted probation; perfection of an appeal is relinquishment of alternative remedy of availing of
Probation Law (Dela Torre vs. Comelec,
258 SCRA 483)
A local elective official who is removed before the expiration of his term is disqualified from being a candidate for local elective position (Reyes vs. Comelec,
254 SCRA 514)
Where the decision has not become final by reason of his filing a MR, respondent local elective official is not disqualified to run (Lingating vs. Sulong, 391 SCRA 629)
“Dual citizenship” refers to “dual allegiance”; dual citizenship not a disqualification (Mercado vs. Manzano, 26
May 1999)(note: ruling now modified by
RA 9225)
Dual Citizenship Act (RA 9225)
Those who retain or re-acquire Phil. citizenship under this Act and seek elective public office shall meet the qualifications xxx and at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal & sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before public officer authorized to administer an oath [Sec. 5 (2)].
Affiant must state in clear and unequivocal terms that he is renouncing all foreign citizenship for it to be effective (Eusebio
Lopez vs. Comelec, 23 July 2008)
Candidate Merito Miguel who is a green card holder must waive his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country, as manifested by some act(s) independent of and done prior to filing his candidacy for elective office of Mayor of Bolinao, Quezon (Caasi vs. CA, 191 SCRA 229)
Under Sec. 2 of RA 8171, repatriation is effected by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to RP and registration of Certificate of Repatriation in proper civil registry and the Immigration Bureau.
Petitioner, a candidate for post of Mayor of San
Jacinto, Masbate in May ’04 elections, took his oath in Dec. ’97 but registered his Certificate w/the Civil Registry and the Immigration Bureau only after 6 years. He completed all requirements for repatriation only after he filed his cert. of candidacy, hence he is disqualified (Alterejos vs.
Comelec, 441 SCRA 655).
Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. Since the candidate for elective office was a natural born Filipino before he became a naturalized American citizen, he was restored to his former status as a natural born Filipino upon repatriation (Bengson vs. HRET, 357
SCRA 545)
Designation
Distinguished from appointment
Cases:
*National Amnesty Commission vs.
COA, 437 SCRA 657
*Binamira vs. Garrucho, 188 SCRA
154
Appointment
Kinds of appointment: permanent and temporary
Different steps in process of appointment
Acceptance of appointment not essential to its validity but necessary to the full possession of the office
One who holds a temporary appointment has no fixed tenure of office (Achacoso vs.
Macaraig, 195 SCRA 237)
Acceptance of a temporary appointment without intention to abandon permanent position (Palmera vs. CSC, 235 SCRA 87)
Acceptance of a temporary appointment on his own volition and in exchange of a permanent appointment (Romualdez vs.
CSC, 197 SCRA 168)
Resident physician position is not permanent (Felix vs. Buenaseda, 240
SCRA 139)
Power to Appoint
14
An exercise of discretion (Patagoc vs.
CSC, 14 May 1990)
“next-in-rank” rule (Umoso vs. CSC,
234 SCRA 819)
Appointment required to be submitted to CSC (Tomali vs. CSC,
238 SCRA 527)
Power of CSC to approve or disapprove (Orbos vs. CSC, 189
SCRA 459)
Nepotism rule
Sec. 59, EO 292: prohibition within 3 rd degree of consanguinity or affinity
Sec. 67, EO 292: penalty of fine of not more than P1,000 or not more than 6 years imprisonment or both
Sec. 79, RA 7160: prohibition within 4 th degree of consanguinity or affinity
A promotional appointment violative of nepotism rule is null and void (Debulgado vs. CSC, 237 SCRA 184)
Where CSC disapproves appointment, appointee need not be previously heard
(Debulgado vs. CSC, 237 SCRA 186)
Passage of CS exam does not transform temporary appointment to permanent;
(Prov. of Camarines vs. CA, 246 SCRA
283; Gloria vs. de Guzman, 06 Oct. ’95)
Appointing authority & appointee are real parties … to challenge CSC disapproval
(Abella vs. CSC, 442 SCRA 507)
No violation of CSC resolution prohibiting midnight appointment where the filling up resulted from deliberate action and careful consideration of qualifications
(Quirog vs. Aumentado, 570 SCRA
582) 15
Prohibition on “midnight appointments” under Art. Vll, Sec. 15 of Constitution applies only to presidential appointments and not to local chief executives (De
Rama vs. CA, 353 SCRA 94) 15a
When appointee may be reassigned/transferred
12
Where appointment indicates no specific station, employee may be transferred or reassigned provided … no substantial change in title, rank or salary.
5 year term Dean of College of Education
(Sta. Maria vs. Lopez, 31 SCRA 637)
Reassignment of Gloria Navarro appointed as Principal in Division of City Schools,
Quezon City (DECS vs. CA, 183 SCRA
555)
Reassignment that is indefinite violates security of tenure and is in effect constructive dismissal (Gloria vs. CA & Icasiano, 338 SCRA 10)
Appointments to staff of CSC are not appointments to a specified public office but appointments to particular positions or ranks (Fernandez vs.
Sto. Tomas, 242 SCRA 193)
16
A reassignment which removes from the officer power of supervision over employees is a diminution of her status
(Padolina vs. Fernandez, 343 SCRA 442).
Mayor has power to devolve national
DSWD employees to CSSDO in line w/ devolution under RA 7160 (Plaza vs.
Cassion, 435 SCRA 295).
BIR Commissioner is authorized to assign or reassign revenue officers (Vinzons-
Chato vs. Martinez, 344 SCRA 18).
Bad faith is evident by the fact that the reassignment was issued days after the reassigned officials filed a graft case vs. petitioner and that the authority to reassign officers of the
LWUA lies with the Board and not with petitioner (Reyes, Jr. vs.
Belisario, 596 SCRA 35).
12a
Career Executive Service (CES)
Security of tenure in CES is acquired w/respect to rank and not to position; within CES, personnel can be shifted to another position w/o violating their rights to security of tenure.
13
Petitioner’s appointment not permanent as she does not have the rank appropriate for position of Chief Public Attorney
(Cuevas vs. Bacal, 347 SCRA 339)
Passing CES exam entitles examinee to conferment of CES eligibility. Upon conferment, incumbent of CES position may qualify for appointment to a CES rank. W/o CES eligibility, his appointment may be withdrawn anytime w/o violating right to security of tenure (Caringal vs.
PCSO, 472 SCRA 577)
Appointment of non-CES eligible to CES position; Petitioner’s separation from the service w/o cause as Dep. Director for
Hospital Support Services is valid as her position belongs to the CES (Amores vs.
CSC, 29 April ’09)
Unless and until an employee in the CES is appointed to the appropriate CES rank, he acquires no security of tenure even if he is a CES eligible (General vs. LTO RD Roco,
350 SCRA 528)
Rank of CESO deactivated upon resignation (Collantes vs. CA, 03/06/07)
Justification of transfer/reassignment of
CESO to other positions: mobility and flexibility (De Leon vs. CA & Jacob
Montesa, 371 SCRA 413)
Persons Excluded from CES
(CESB Res. 799,May ’09)
1. Managerial and executive positions w/fixed term of office as provided in charter or law
2. Managerial and executive positions in non-career service w/c include the ff: a. Elective officials & their personal/confi staff b. Secretaries and other officials of cabinet rank and their personal/confi staff c. Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office & their personal/confi staff d. Contractual personnel & emergency/seasonal staff
Positions excluded from CES
3. Managerial and executive positions in the national government belonging to the closed career systems w/c are administered by special bodies such as the Foreign Service, PNP, State colleges and universities unless provided in their respective charters, the Scientific Career
Service and the like
4. Position of Head Executive Assistant
Presidential Appointments
ad interim and regular (Art. Vll, Sec.
16 Const.); Distinction
Distinction between ad interim appointments from appointments in an acting capacity; President’s issuance of appointments in an acting capacity not impairment of power of Congress (Pimentel vs.
Ermita, 472 SCRA 589)
Ad interim appointment is permanent, and not a temporary appointment that can be withdrawn or revoked anytime; President can renew ad interim appointment of a by-passed appointee (Matibag vs.
Benipayo, 380 SCRA 49)
Appointments solely for President to make (Bautista vs. Salonga, 172
SCRA 160)
3 stages in regular appointments
4 groups of officers whom the
President shall appoint
The “other officers” referred to whose appointments are vested in the President under the Const.
Cases
Quintos Deles vs. Commission on
Appointments, 177 SCRA 259
(Art. XVlll, Sec. 7 on Sectoral Rep.)
Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549
Tarrosa vs. Singson, 232 SCRA 555
Calderon vs. Carale, 208 SCRA 254
Manalo vs. Sistoza, 312 SCRA 239
(’02 BQ)
Prohibition on midnight appointment under Sec.
15, Art. Vll does not apply to appointment in the Supreme Court (De Castro vs. JBC, 17
March 2010)
President prohibited from making appointments
2 months before the next presidential elections and up to end of his term (In re: Mateo
Valenzuela, 298 SCRA 408)
Appointments of fourth group of lower-ranked officers may by law be vested in the head of the board; Chair of CCP vested with power under
PD 15 to appoint lower-ranked officers but not the co-trustees of the board (Rufino vs.
Endriga, 496 SCRA 16)
Modes of Terminating Official
Relations
Abolition: neither means removal or separation
*constitutionality of RA 6656 (Dario vs.
Mison, 176 SCRA 84)
*must be done in good faith (Gingson vs.
Murcia, 08 Feb. 1988)
*abolished office and offices created have similar functions (Guerrero vs. Arizabal,
186 SCRA 109)
*RA 6715 which declared vacant NLRC positions did not expressly or impliedly abolish petitioners’ offices (Mayor vs.
Macaraeg, 194 SCRA 672)
*Implied abolition of NAPOLCOM under
Sec. 8 of RA 8551, unconstitutional
(Canonizado vs. Aguirre, 323 SCRA 313)
Acceptance of Incompatible Office
*Positions of Inspector General of IAS and
NAPOLCOM Commissioner
*Positions of PCGG Chair and Chief
Presidential Legal Counsel (PICI vs.
Elma, 494 SCRA 54)
*Positions of Senator and PNRC Chair
(Liban vs. Gordon, 593 SCRA 68)
Abandonment
*No abandonment if office is vacated in deference to requirement of law
(Canonizado case)
*Failure to take steps to reassume office (SB of San Andres vs. CA, 284
SCRA 276; ’00BQ)
Resignation
*Intention to relinquish office and acceptance by competent authority (Ortiz vs. Comelec, 28 June ’88)
*Abandonment of office before acceptance of resignation punishable under Art. 238
RPC
*Submission of resignation of SB Member to the Mayor (SB of San Andres case)
*Acceptance of courtesy resignation
(Collantes vs. DND, 517 SCRA 561)
*Resignation to evade administrative liability (Gonzales vs. Escalona, 566
SCRA 4)
*Hasty filing of certificate of candidacy to avoid administrative charge (Pagano vs. Nazarro, 533
SCRA 622)
*Whether resigned or not to be determined by totality test; nonissue as Congress has declared de jure President; Sec. 12 of RA 3019 prohibiting resignation of officer during pendency of charges cannot be invoked by petitioner (Estrada vs.
Desierto, 02 March ’01)
Removal
*Cause for dismissal must be as provided by law (Adiong vs. CA, 371
SCRA 374)
*Summary dismissal repealed by RA
6654
*Illegally dismissed officer entitled to reinstatement and back salaries
*Official cannot be removed for misconduct during a prior term (Aguinaldo vs. Comelec, 212 SCRA 768)
*Aguinaldo inapplicable to criminal case.
Reelection to the post of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal enforcement (Pp vs. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA
692)
*Prisoners cannot hold office while in detention. No disenfranchisement as people’s mandate yields to Constitution
(Trillanes vs. Judge Pimentel, 27 June ’08)
*As a necessary consequence of arrest and detention, all prisoners cannot practice their profession nor engage in business or occupation or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention (Pp vs. Hon.
Maceda, 380 Phil. 1)
*Disloyalty not ground for expulsion from
HRET (Bondoc vs. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792;
’02 BQ)
*2 categories of administrative actions vs. government employees
*To warrant removal from office of an officer, the misconduct, misfeasance or malfeasance must be directly related to performance of official duties
*Rule: Where crime is not office related, officer may not be charged administratively based thereon until a final judgment of conviction of the crime involving moral turpitude or disqualification to hold office.
Exception: Act or offense also constitutes violation of admin. Rules
*Grave misconduct distinguished from simple misconduct. Respondent’s act(s) of stealing a kiss and demanding for a date, as an unlawful consideration for issuance of a permit, constitute grave misconduct
(CSC vs. Belagan, 440 SCRA 578)
* Dishonesty need not be dutyconnected
*Willful failure to pay just debts
*If found guilty of 2 or more charges, penalty corresponding to most serious charge xxx
*Effects of dismissal
*entitlement of dismissed employee to leave credits
*action dropping officer from the rolls is non-disciplinary (CSC Circular No. 12, s.
1994
*Mental incapacity due to immoral or vicious habits under Sec. 46 EO 292 is different from mental incapacity under
Sec. 26 EO 292 (Romagos vs. Metro Cebu
Water, 533 SCRA 50)
*Mayor has right to contest reversal of his order sanctioning mun. employee; reasons
(Mayor Dagadag vs.Tongnawa, 450 SCRA
446)
Impeachment under Sec. 2, Art. Xl
*Observance of fundamental procedural requirement (Cuenco vs. Fernan, 17 Feb.
’88)
*Cronyism as a legal ground (’00BQ)
*Once impeachable officer retires, Court may proceed vs. him and impose sanction for misconduct during his tenure (Re:
Justice Ruben Reyes, 580 SCRA 106)
*Deputy Ombudsman not impeachable officer (Ombudsman vs. Mojica, 452 SCRA
714)
*An impeachable officer who is a member of the Bar cannot be disbarred without first being impeached (Marcoleta vs.
Borra, 582 SCRA 474; In re: Raul
Gonzalez, 160 SCRA 771)
*Whether offenses in the impeachment complaint constitute valid impeachable offenses is a non-justiciable political question (Francisco vs. NMMP, 425 SCRA
44)
Recall: formal withdrawal by electorate of their trust in elective official’s ability to discharge his office
*loss of confidence as ground is a political question (Evardone vs. Comelec, 204
SCRA 464)
*No recall within 1 yr. from date of official’s assumption to office or 1 yr.
immediately preceding a regular local election (Sec. 74 RA 7160)
Preventive Suspension
2 kinds of preventive suspension
Teachers exonerated of the original charges and found guilty only of violation of reasonable office rules are entitled to compensation xxx
(Gloria vs. CA, 306 SCRA 287; ’01BQ)
Postmaster originally dismissed from service but penalty reduced to 6 mos. suspension on appeal (Sales vs. Mathay,
129 SCRA 321)
Modification on appeal of penalty of dismissal from service for gross neglect to
3 mos. suspension for simple neglect is not exoneration; reinstatement but no payment of backwages (CSC vs. Rabang,
14 March ’08)
Grounds for preventive suspension under
Sec. 51 EO 292
Preventive suspension under Secs. 63 &
64, LGC
Sec. 24 RA 6770
Sec. 13 RA 3019
Cases:
*Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 383
*Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan, 173 SCRA 409
*Libanan vs. Sandiganbayan, 233 SCRA
163
*Berona vs. Sandiganbayan, 435 SCRA 306
Purpose of pre-suspension hearing
Cases
*Talaga vs. Sandiganbayan, 570
SCRA 622
*Juan vs. Pp, 322 SCRA 126
*Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, 356
SCRA 637 (’02BQ)
*Flores vs. Layosa, 436 SCRA 339
Rights, Duties & Privileges
Salary not subject to garnishment or assignment.
Agreement affecting compensation is vs. public policy
Additional or double compensation
(Sec. 8 par. 1, Art. lX B)
Pensions: an act of liberality; not a salary (Sec. 8 par. 2, Art. lX B)
Only full-time services with compensation are credited for retirement purposes (Valdez vs.
GSIS, 30 June ’08)
Retirement pay may not be applied to indebtedness to the government
(Cruz vs. Tantuico, 166 SCRA 671;
Tantuico vs. Domingo, 230 SCRA
391)
Benefits granted under GSIS Act (RA
8291) not subject to judicial & admin processes, including COA disallowances ;
Exception (GSIS vs. COA, 441 SCRA 534)
Loss of retirement benefits if public officer is convicted xxx (Sec. 13, RA 3019)
COA can direct withholding of salary pending litigation of public officer’s liability
(Santiago vs. COA, 537 SCRA 740)
Payment of per diem only & no other compensation under Sec. 13, PD 198
(BWD vs. COA, 374 SCRA 482; De Jesus vs. COA, 403 SCRA 667)
LWUA Reso granting compensation to BOD of LWDs illegal (Querubin vs. COA, 433
SCRA 773); No refund of benefits received in good faith (De Jesus vs. CSC, 471 SCRA
626; Barbo vs. COA, 568 SCRA 304)
Sec. 13 PD 198 now amended by RA
9286 as approved on 04/02/04
*Apart from per diem, each director shall receive allowances & benefits as the Board may prescribe subject to
LWUA approval
Alternates of ex-officio members of
NHA Board not entitled to extra compensation (Dela Cruz vs. COA,
371 SCRA 158)
RA 7916 authorizing DOLE Sec. or representative to receive per diem as
PEZA Board member violates
Constitution (Bitonio vs. COA, 425
SCRA 437)
Retirement benefits under RA 8551 applicable to INP members retired prior to effectivity of RA 6975 (PNP vs. Manila’s Finest, 09 May ’07)
Constitutional right to self-organization
Sec. 8 Art. lll, Sec. 2(5) Art. lXB,
Sec. 3 Art. Xlll 1987 Constitution
Scope under EO 180 (Arizala vs. CA,
14 Sept. ’90)
Gov’t employees do not have right to strike xxx (SSS vs. CA, 175 SCRA
686; Manila PSTA vs. Educ. Sec.,
200 SCRA 323; Gesite vs. CA, 444
SCRA 52)
Exercise of rights to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances must be w/in reasonable limits xxx without work stoppage (Bangalisan vs.
CA, 276 SCRA 619; Jacinto vs. CA, 281
SCRA 657; Alipat vs. CA, 308 SCRA 781;
Dela Cruz vs. CA, 305 SCRA 303)
What are excluded from (included in) negotiation by government employees
Right to Information
Guarantees right of people to demand information on matters of public concern (Sec. 28 Art.ll Const.)
Can be invoked by any citizen
(Gonzales vs. Narvasa, 337 SCRA
736)
A duty of officialdom even if nobody demands (North Cotabato vs. GRP,
568 SCRA 410)
Exemptions from compulsory disclosure of information (Chavez vs. PCGG, 09 Dec.
’98)
Right to information does not extend to
‘privileged information’ (Neri vs. Senate,
564 SCRA 153)
Doctrine of executive privilege which includes matters of diplomatic character under negotiation is only presumptive; exception (Senate vs. Ermita, 488 SCRA
1)
Executive Privilege
Documents on proposed JPEPA and text subject to legal review (Akbayan vs. Aquino, 16 July ’08)
On-going negotiations of the RP-US
Military Bases Agreement (PMPF vs.
Manglapus)
Liability of Public Officers
An impeachable officer cannot be charged during his incumbency with any offense w/c carries with it penalty of removal (In re Gonzales,
160 SCRA 771)
Sections 2 & 3, Art. Xl Constitution
Sec. 3 RA 3019
Sec. 7 RA 6713
RA 6713
Sec. 4: Norms (code: CPJPRNCS)
Sec. 5: Duties
Sec. 8: Submission of SALN (in re
Sec. 7 RA 3019)
Sec. 9: Divestment (avoid conflict of interest at all times)
Unexplained Wealth of
Public Officers
Basis of Lifestyle Check:
*Sec. 1 Art. Xl Constitution
*Sec. 8 RA 3019 in re to RA 1379
Cases
*PNB vs. Gancayco, 15 SCRA 91
*Banco Filipino vs. Purisima, 161 SCRA
576
*Marquez vs. Desierto, 359 SCRA 773
Exceptions to the rule vs. disclosure of bank deposits (UBP vs. CA, 321 SCRA
563)
Liability of Head of Office
Sec. 102 PD 1405
Head of office as final approving authority of disallowed transaction not necessarily personally liable (Albert vs. Gangan, 353
SCRA 680; Peralta vs. Desierto, 473 SCRA
323)
Heads have to rely on their subordinates and on good faith of those who prepared documents (Arias vs. Sandiganbayan, 180
SCRA 309)
Administrative liability could not be based on the principle of command responsibility
(Principe vs. OMB, 374 SCRA 460).
Negligence of subordinates cannot always be ascribed to their superior (De Jesus vs.
Guerrero, 598 SCRA 342)
General Rule: Superiors cannot be held liable for acts of their subordinates
Exceptions
No recovery of damages by official for falsehood charge related to his official conduct unless statement was with actual malice (Banas vs. CA, 325 SCRA 263)
‘state immunity from suit’ doctrine applies to complaints vs. officials for acts in performance of their duties; rule not applicable if sued in his personal capacity
(Lansang CA, 23 Feb. ’00)
State immunity doctrine affording protection to public officers applies only to activities within the scope of their authority done in good faith (Calub vs. CA,
331 SCRA 55)
Public officer cannot invoke immunity if complaints vs. her do not impose financial liability vs. the State but merely nullification of state action (Phil. Agila
Satellite vs. Lichauco, 489 SCRA 160)
Disabilities and Inhibitions of
Public Officers
Under ’87 Constitution
* Sec. 13 Art. Vl (Incompatible Office
& Forbidden Office)
*Sec. 14 Art. Vl
*Sec. 7 Art. lX-B
*Sec. 13 Art. Vll
`
Sec. 7 Art. lX-B lays down the general rule while Sec. 13 Art. Vll is the exception applicable only to the Pres., VP, Cabinet members xxx (NAC vs. COA, 437 SCRA
655)
Sec. 13 Art. Vll is not applicable to the
PCGG Chairman nor to the Chief
Presidential Legal Counsel (Public Interest
Center vs. Elma, 494 SCRA 62)
Prohibition vs. holding dual or multiple offices under Sec. 13 Art. Vll not applicable to posts occupied by Exec.
Officials without additional compensation in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law… (Civil Liberties vs. Exec. Sec., 22
Feb. ’91)
Alternates of ex-officio members in gov’t boards, like their principals, cannot receive additional compensation (Dela
Cruz vs. COA, 371 SCRA 157; Bitonio vs.
COA, 425 SCRA 437)
1.
2.
3.
Official may hold any other office or employment only when specifically authorized by Constitution, to wit:
Vice Pres. as Cabinet Sec. [Sec.
3(2) Art. Vll]
Justice Sec. as ex-officio JBC member (Sec. 8 Art. Vlll)
Pres. as head of economic and planning agency (Sec. 9 Art. Xll)
Cases
Gordon as SBMA Chairman and
Mayor of Olongapo City (Flores vs.
Drilon, 223 SCRA 568)
Practice of law and acceptance of employment as PLEB member and
Lupon member by government lawyer (Lorenzana vs. Fajardo, 462
SCRA 1)
Sec. 7(b)(2) of RA 6713
Government lawyers cannot handle private cases (Ramos vs. Imbang, 530
SCRA 759)
As an exception, public officer can engage in private practice under the ff. conditions:
1 st , it is authorized by Constitution or law;
2 nd , it will not conflict with her public functions (Query of Atty. Buffe, 596 SCRA
379)
end
