ALINSUG v RTC FACTS: Zonsayda L.

Alinsug, had been a regular employee of the municipal government of Escalante, Negros Occidental, when she received a permanent appointment as Clerk III in the office of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator of the same municipality. She absented herself from work to attend to family matters. She had asked permission from the personnel officer but not from the mayor. Mayor Ponsica issued Office Order No. 31, suspending Zonsayda for one month and one day commencing on 24 June 1992 for "a simple misconduct which can also be categorized as an act of insubordination." The order also stated that the suspension "carries with it forfeiture of . . . benefits such as . . . salary and PERA and leave credits during the duration of its effectivity." Zonsayda filed with the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental, in San Carlos City, a petition, for "injunction with damages and prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction" against Mayor Ponsica and the municipal treasurer. Mayor Ponsica and the municipal treasurer filed an answer to the petition, through private practitioner Samuel SM Lezama, alleging that the petitioner had not exhausted administrative remedies and that her suspension was in accordance with law. ISSUE: WON a private counsel may represent municipal officials sued in their official capacities? HELD: The appointment of a legal officer shall be mandatory for the provincial and city governments and optional for the municipal government. Section 481, Article 11 of Title V of the Local Government Code, paragraph (i) states one of the functions of the legal officer :

(i)

Represent the local government unit in all civil actions and special proceedings wherein the local government unit or any official thereof, in his official capacity, is a party: Provided, that in actions or proceedings where a component city or municipality is a party adverse to the provincial government or to another component city or municipality, a special legal officer may be employed to represent the adverse party.

Indeed, it appears that the law allows a private counsel to be hired by a municipality only when the municipality is an adverse party in a case involving the provincial government or another municipality or city within the province. This provision has its apparent origin in the ruling in De Guia v. The Auditor General where the Court held that the municipality's authority to employ a private attorney is expressly limited only to situations where the provincial fiscal would be disqualified to serve and represent it. With Sec. 1683 of the old Administrative Code as legal basis, the Court therein cited Enriquez, Sr. v. Gimenez which enumerated instances when the provincial fiscal is disqualified to represent in court a particular municipality; if and when original jurisdiction of case involving the municipality is vested in the Supreme Court, when the municipality is a party adverse to the provincial government or to some other municipality in the same province, and when, in a case involving the municipality, he, or his wife, or child, is pecuniarily involved, as heir legatee, creditor or otherwise.

CLU v Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991) FACTS: The petitioner challenged EO No. 284 which in effect allowed Cabinet members, their undersecretaries and asst. secretaries and other appointive officials of the Executive Department to hold other positions in the govt., albeit, subject of the limitations imposed therein. The respondents, in refuting the petitioner’s argument that the measure was violative of Art. VIII, Sec. 13, invoked Art. IX-B, Sec. 7, allowing the holding of multiple positions by the appointive official if allowed by law or by the pressing functions of his positions. ISSUE: WON EO 284 is valid? HELD: By ostensibly restricting the number of positions that Cabinet members, undersecretaries or asst. secretaries may hold in addition to their primary position to not more than 2 positions in the govt. and GOCCs, EO 284 actually allows them to hold multiple offices or employment in direct contravention of the express mandate of Art. VIII, Sec. 13 prohibiting them from doing so, unless otherwise provided in the 1987 Constitution itself. If maximum benefits are to be derived from a dept. head's ability and expertise, he should be allowed to attend to his duties and responsibilities without the distraction of other govt. offices or employment. The stricter prohibition applied to the Pres. and his official family under Sec. 13, Art. VII as compared to the prohibition applicable to appointive officials in general under Art. IX, B, Sec. 7, par. 2 are proof of the intent of the 1987 Consti. to treat them as a class by itself and to impose upon said class stricter prohibitions. Thus, while all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office or employment in the govt during their tenure when such is allowed by law or by the primary functions of their positions, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants may do so only when expressly authorized by the Consti. itself. However, the prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices or employment under Art. VII, Sec. 13 must not be construed as applying to posts occupied by the Executive officials specified therein w/o addition compensation in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of said official's office. The reason is that these posts do not comprise "any other office" w/in the contemplation of the constitutional prohibition but are properly an imposition of additional duties and function on said officials.

the view that an elective official may be appointed to another post if allowed by law or by the primary functions of his office. But. Zambales.. While the second paragraph authorizes holding of multiple offices by an appointive official when allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position." 2 Paragraph (d) reads -(d) Chairman administrator — The President shall appoint a professional manager as administrator of the Subic Authority with a compensation to be determined by the Board subject to the approval of the Secretary of Budget. par. . Because of the broad coverage of felony and breach of the peace. he has the duty to perform the functions of a Congressman.FLORES v DRILON FACTS : The constitutionality of Sec. The accused-appellant filed this motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a Congressman. of the Constitution. the exemption applied only to civil arrests.S. 7. and breach of the peace be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of Congress. 7227. and officers and members of the Filipino Civilian Employees Association in U. for no legislative act can prevail over the fundamental law of the land. par. Art. Romeo F. A congressman like the accusedappellant. Since this is precisely what the constitutional proscription seeks to prevent. Gordon of Olongapo City was appointed Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA). except as are particularly recognized in the Constitution itself. The 1935 Constitution provided in its Article VI on the Legislative Department. 94 of the Local Government Code (LGC) permits the appointment of a local elective official to another post if so allowed by law or by the primary functions of his office.A. the mayor of the City of Olongapo shall be appointed as the chairman and chief executive officer of the Subic Authority. the first paragraph appears to be more stringent by not providing any exception to the rule against appointment or designation of an elective official to the government post. the contention is fallacious. is challenged in this petition "to prevent useless and unnecessary expenditures of public funds by way of salaries and other operational expenses attached to the office .A.IX-B. For offenses punishable by more than six years imprisonment. He calls this a covenant with his constituents made possible by the intervention of the State." because the City Mayor of Olongapo City is an elective official and the subject posts are public offices. (d). PEOPLE v JALOSJOS FACTS: The accused-appellant. e. including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his having been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense. He was subject to the same general laws governing all persons still to be tried or whose convictions were pending appeal. That for the first year of its operations from the effectivity of this Act. Here. convicted under Title Eleven of the Revised Penal Code could not claim parliamentary immunity from arrest. In any case. a member of Congress who may be designated ex officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council." under which respondent Mayor Richard J. of the Constitution. which states that "no elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public officer or position during his tenure. who claim to be taxpayers. the President as head of the economic and planning agency.. first par. and thus neglect his constituents. (d). 13. 7. Having been re-elected by his constituents. ignores the clear-cut difference in the wording of the two (2) paragraphs of Sec. Art. ISSUE: WON questioned proviso is valid? NOT VALID HELD: The basic idea really is to prevent a situation where a local elective official will work for his appointment in an executive position in government. The primary argument of the movant is the "mandate of sovereign will.. the fact that the expertise of an elective official may be most beneficial to the higher interest of the body politic is of no moment. however. it needs no stretching of the imagination to conclude that the proviso contravenes Sec. Art. Jaloslos is a full-pledged member of Congress who is now confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape on two counts and acts of lasciviousness on six counts is pending appeal. Petitioners. who may be appointed Member of the Cabinet. Section 94 of the LGC is not determinative of the constitutionality of Sec. who shall be the ex oficio chairman of the Board and who shall serve as the chief executive officer of the Subic Authority: Provided. Sec 15. and. The subject proviso directs the President to appoint an elective official (the Mayor of Olongapo City) to other government posts (as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of SBMA). of R.S." He states that the sovereign electorate of the First District of Zamboanga del Norte chose him as their representative in Congress. and in going to and returning from the same. Facility at the Subic. He adds that it cannot be defeated by insuperable procedural restraints arising from pending criminal cases. The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases except treason. employees of the U. IX-B.. felony. of R. 1 otherwise known as the "Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992. ISSUE: Does membership in Congress exempt an accused from statutes and rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons in general? NO HELD: The privileges and rights arising from having been elected may be enlarged or restricted by law. It is argued that Sec. IX-B of the Constitution. first par. the Vice-President.. Facilities in the Philippines. maintain that the proviso infringes (a) Sec. there was no immunity from arrest. 7227.g. 7. 13.

. The services of private counsel may also be availed of. ISSUE: WON Delsa Flores is guilty of Dishonesty? YES HELD: Flores returned the money only after receipt of the Court's Resolution dated January 17. and lead modest lives. He may appear in his own defense in his private capacity in the action for damages against him. That respondent had a stall in the market was undoubtedly a business interest which should have been reported in her Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities. 1996. Her failure to do so exposes her to administrative sanction. and that if an information is eventually filed against the said public official. integrity. She returned the amount only upon receipt of the Court Resolution dated January 17. The rationale behind this rule is that the said Office may no longer represent him considering that its position as counsel for the accused will be in direct conflict with its responsibilities as the appellate counsel of the People of the Philippines in all criminal cases. the appearance of the Office of the Solicitor General on behalf of the said respondents during the preliminary investigation will be in conflict with its role as the appellate counsel of the People of the Philippines. Panabo. the Office of the Solicitor General can not assume a responsibility in defense of such public officials beyond its statutory authority. Respondent's malfeasance is a clear contravention of the constitutional dictum that the State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption. She posited that her overriding need for money from the municipal government. Respondent herself admitted that she "had a stall in the market. Under the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO No. The said petitioners submit that in the event that the corresponding information is filed against the said respondents with the Sandiganbayan and a judgment of conviction is rendered by the said court. The complaint against them was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. Aside from dishonesty. aggravated by the alleged delay in the processing of her initial salary from the Court caused the delay of the delivery of the money because it was in the month of June and she needed the money to enroll her children to school. She knew that she was no longer entitled to a salary from the municipal government. Branch IV. respondent is also guilty of failure to perform her legal obligation to disclose her business interests. The Office of the Solicitor General has no authority to represent Solicitor General Chavez in the civil suit for damages filed against him in the Regional Trial Court arising from allegedly defamatory remarks uttered by him. URBANO v CHAVEZ FACTS: Sometime in 1988. 1996. The said petitioners seek to enjoin the Solicitor General and his associates from acting as counsel for the said respondents in the course of the preliminary investigation. It is well to stress once again the constitutional declaration that a public office is a public trust." The Office of the Court Administrator also found that she had been receiving rental payments from one Rodolfo Luay for the use of the market stall. Respondent further averred that she did not divulge any business interest in her Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure for the years 1991-1994 because she was never engaged in business during said period although she had a stall in the market. loyalty and efficiency. act with patriotism and justice. for alleged violation of the provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Accordingly. for respondent's dishonesty in receiving and keeping what she was not lawfully entitled to. Davao. the said Office may no longer represent him in the litigation. Certainly. through Solicitor General Francisco Chavez entered his appearance as counsel for the said respondents as far as the preliminary investigation of the case is concerned. ISSUE: Can the Office of the Solicitor General represent a public officer or employee in the preliminary investigation of a criminal action against him or in a civil action for damages against him? YES HELD: The Court held that the Office of the Solicitor General can represent the public official at the preliminary investigation of his case. but she took it just the same. The Office of the Solicitor General. 292 known as the "Administrative Code of 1987" and other pertinent Civil Service Laws. serve them with utmost responsibility. RTC. however.RABE V FLORES FACTS: Respondent had collected her salary from the Municipality of Panabo for the period of May 16-31. the petitioners Urbano and Acapulco. even for the first offense. of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tangub City. the penalty for dishonesty is dismissal. this Court has the duty to impose on her the penalty prescribed by law: dismissal. Jr. when she was already working at the RTC as Interpreter III. 1991. Forgetfulness or failure to remember is never a rational or acceptable explanation. instituted a criminal case against Secretary Luis Santos of the Department of Local Government as well as Sectoral Representatives Pacifico Conol and Jason Ocampos. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people. or more than five (5) years later. saying that she forgot all about it.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful