Loc Gov Reviewer, 1st Sem, 2005-2006 Reviewer on the Law on Local Governments I.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE PHILIPPINES II. NATURE AND STATUS Municipal Corporation- A body politic and corporate constituted by the incorporation of the inhabitants for the purpose of local government thereof. Established by law partly as an agency of the state to assist in the civil government of the country but chiefly to regulate and administer the local or internal affairs of the city, town, or district which is incorporated. Elements: 1. Legal corporation or incorporation; 2. A corporate name by which the artificial personality is known and in which all corporate acts are done; 3. Inhabitants constituting the population; 4. Territory within which local civil government/ corporate functions are exercised. Nature/ status 1. Subordinate branch of the government of the state; 2. Exercises delegated branches of government 1. 2. Municipal Corporation Proper- Refers to incorporated cities, towns, or villages invested with the power of local legislation; Quasi-Municipal Corporation- Quasi-corporation, operates directly as an agency of the state to help in the administration of public functions. Voluntary/ involuntary nature of the corporation Existence/ nonexistence of a charter Whether the purpose of the corporation is solely as a governmental agency or one for self-government Vilas v City of Manila


FACTS: 1571: A municipal corporation was established and known as the Ayuntamiento de Manila. 1894: The city government was reorganized, it had the power to incur debts for municipal purposes, to sue and be sued. 1901: The present incorporating act was passed, Act 183 of the Philippine Commission. The petitioners in this case were creditors of the City of Manila prior to the American occupation. The City of Manila argued that its charter has no reference to obligations/ contracts of the old city; that their case is analogous to a principal and agent, where the sovereign gets changed, the city, as agent of the State, could no longer be held accountable for debts of the previous sovereign. ISSUE: WON notwithstanding the cession of the Philippines to the US, followed by a reincorporation of the city, the present municipality is liable for the obligations of the city incurred prior to the cession to the US. YES. RATIO: A municipal corporation has two powers: Governmental and Private. Municipal laws that regulate private and domestic rights continue in force until abrogated/ changed by the new ruler. Only laws of a political character are totally abrogated/ changed by the new ruler. The property rights relinquished by Spain are limited to those which belong to the public domain. It did not affect property which belonged to the City of Manila as a municipal corporation. Absent any express legislative declaration, there is no reason to suppose that reincorporation intended to permit an escape from the obligations of the old city. Lidasan v COMELEC

Tests: 1. 2. 3.

Purposes of municipal corporations: 1. Serve as an agency/ instrument of the state in carrying on the functions of government which the state cannot conveniently exercise. 2. Act as an agency of the inhabitants of the community in the regulation of municipal franchises and public utilities promotion, management, of local affairs, maintenance of water system, ferries, wharves, etc. Municipal Corporation- Applies to incorporated villages, towns and cities; with power of local administration. Public Corporation- Broader term, established for purposes connected with the administration of civil/ local government Sec. 15. Every local government unit created or recognized under this Code is a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity with law. As such, it shall exercise powers as a political subdivision of the National Government and as a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory. Dual Nature of Municipal Corporations 1. Public/ Governmental- Acts as an agent of the State for the government of the territory and the people within the municipal limits. Exercises a part of the sovereignty of the state by delegation. 2. Private aspect- Acts in a similar category as a business corporation, doing functions not strictly governmental or political. Stands for the community in the administration of local affairs, beyond the sphere of the public purposes for which its government powers are conferred. Quasi- Municipal Corporations Public corporations created as agencies of the state for a narrow/ limited purpose. Not possessed of powers/ liabilities of self-governing corporations. Generally relate to matters of state as distinguished from municipal concerns.

FACTS: 18 June 1966: President signed HB 1247 into law—RA 4790. It created the Municipality of Dianaton, Province of Lanao del Sur. The officials were elected in 1967. However, 12 barrios were in Cotabato and not in Lanao del Sur. COMELEC adopted a resolution that Dianaton shall be composed of the areas enumerated in RA 4790. The Office of the President recommended to the COMELEC that the statute be suspended pending correcting legislation. COMELEC issued another resolution that only an declaration of unconstitutionality could it stop implementing the law. Lidasan argued that it is unconstitutional for violating the one bill one subject rule. ISSUE: WON RA 4790 is unconstitutional for violating the one-bill onesubject rule. YES. RATIO: No bill may be enacted into law should include more than one subject. Congress must refrain from conglomeration of different subjects. The title of a bill must be couched in such a language sufficient to notify the public of the import of the single subject. A change in the boundaries of 2 provinces may be made without necessarily creating a new municipality. The principle that only the unconstitutional portion of a statute should be invalidated and the constitutional part must remain does not apply here. The explanatory note of the bill from which this statute originated expressed that the envisioned municipality would be self-sufficient. This of course includes the 21 barangays, and not the 9 barangays that would be left if the valid portion would be allowed to continue. Factors affecting the independence of a municipality include population, territory, and income. III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES Constitution, Article X Sec. 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided. Sec. 3 The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local


Loc Gov Reviewer, 1st Sem, 2005-2006 government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the qualifications, elections, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers, and functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of said local units. Sec. 11. The Congress may, by law, create special metropolitan and political subdivisions, subject to a plebiscite as set forth in Section 10 hereof. The component cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local executives and legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will thereby be created shall be limited to basic services requiring coordination. Sec. 12. Cities that are highly urbanized, as determined by law, and component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials, shall be independent of the province. The voters of component cities within a province, whose charters contain no such prohibition, shall not be deprived of their right to vote for elective provincial officials. Tan v COMELEC FACTS: BP 885 was passed or “An Act Creating the Province of Negros del Norte.” The petitioners in this case wanted to stop COMELEC from conducting a plebiscite. The petitioners were residents of Negros Occidental. The BP provided that the plebiscite was to be conducted 120 days from the approval of the Act and that the President was to appoint the first officials. The petitioners argued that the law was unconstitutional and contrary to statute. The Constitution states that no province, city, municipality, or barrio may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundaries substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code, subject to approval by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite. The LGC set as a standard that a province must have at least 3,500 square kilometers as its territory. The Solicitor General argued that BP 885 enjoys a presumption of legality and that the question is moot since the province of Negros del Norte had already been proclaimed. ISSUE: WON Negros del Norte was validly created. NO. RATIO: Two political units would be affected in case of a division of a province—the parent and the proposed province. The Constitution commands that “affected units” be considered in a plebiscite. The Court noted that the case of Paredes v Executive Secretary, which involved the creation of a new municipality where the parent unit was not involved, could not be considered as a precedent. That case involved a barangay while this case involves a province. Almost half of the sugar plantations would be dismembered form the parent province and some of its most important cities. The SC also considered the new province as lacking in the territory requirement since the land mass of the new territory was only 2,856 square kilometers. The Court rejected the suggestion of the Solicitor General that even the area of the EEZ should be considered in determining the territorial requirement. San Juan v Civil Service Commission FACTS: 28 March 1988: The position of Provincial Budget Officer was vacated. 18 April 1988: Governor informed Director Abella of DBM that he has appointed Dalisay Santos as acting Provincial Budget Officer. Director Abella then recommended that private respondent, Cecilia Almajose be appointed as PBO given that she is a Certified Public Accountant. The Governor protested on the ground that the DBM Undersecretary is not authorized to appoint the PBO. According to EO 112, the governor has the power to recommend nominees to the position of PBO. ISSUE: If the governor appoints an unqualified person to the position of Provincial Budget Officer, can the DBM Secretary appoint another one? NO.

ABG RATIO: The phrase “upon recommendation of the local chief executive concerned” must be given a mandatory application pursuant to the State policy of local autonomy. Where a law is capable of two interpretations, one in favor of centralized power in Malacañang, and the other beneficial to local autonomy, the scales must be weighed in favor of autonomy. The contention of the CSC that the recommendatory power of the governor is merely directory is wrong. The Local Budget Circular No. 31 which states that the DBM has the right to fill the vacancies if none of the nominees meets the requirements is baseless. Pimentel v Aguirre FACTS: The petitioners in this case seek to annul section 1 of Administrative Order No. 372. It requires local government units to reduce their expenditures by 25% of their authorized regular appropriations for non personnel expenditures. They also seek to stop Section 4 which withholds a portion of their Internal Revenue Allotment by 10%. AO 43 was issued by Pres. Estrada when he assumed office. This reduced the amount withheld to 5%. The petitioners argued that the president would in effect exercise the power of control over LGUs. The Solicitor General contended that this was issued to alleviate economic difficulties, that the AO merely “directs” LGUs to reduce their expenditures and that the 10% withholding is only temporary. ISSUE: WON the sections of the AO are unconstitutional. HELD: The “request” for a reduction in expenditures is legal. The withholding of the IRA is illegal. RATIO: Decentralization involves the devolution of national administration, not power, to LGUs. The decentralization of power involves the abdication of political power in favor of LGUs declared to be autonomous. The policy setting in our country still lies with the president and with congress. The LGUs, however, still have fiscal autonomy. They have the power to create their own sources of revenue in addition to their share in the national tax. The withholding is equivalent to a holdback, no matter how temporary. The wordings of the law is clear that it shall be “automatically released.” The formulation/ implementation is subject to consultation with the appropriate public agencies, private sectors, and LGUs. Before the President can interfere with fiscal matters of LGUs, the following must be present: 1. Unmanaged public sector deficit; 2. Consultation with presiding officers of the Senate and the House, and the various local leagues; 3. Recommendation of the secretaries of the DOF, DILG, and DBM;


Must not be lower than 30% of the collection of the national IR taxes of 3rd fiscal year preceding the current one.

IV. CREATION OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS Nature 1. 2. 3. Essentially legislative Exclusive/ unlimited Can’t be delegated

Essential Requisites 1. Territory- contiguous 2. Population 3. Charter- invests people with power of local government By prescription- Existence presumed if exercised powers claimed by a community, with knowledge and acquiescence of legislature, without interruption. De Facto Municipal Corporations Corporation that exists in fact although not in point of law as there is a certain defect in some essential feature of its organization. 1. Valid law authorizing incorporation; 2. Attempt in good faith to organize it; 3. Colorable compliance with the law;


Loc Gov Reviewer, 1st Sem, 2005-2006 4. Assumption of corporate powers. 2. 3.

ABG It violates Sec. 450 (a) of the LGC which requires that only “a municipality or a cluster of barangays may be converted into a component city;” It contains two subjects: Creation of the City of Sorsogon and the abolition of the two municipalities.

Attack against validity- May not be attacked collaterally, it may be challenged by state in a direct quo warranto proceeding. However, if it is an absolute nullity, it is subject to collateral attack. De Jure corporations cannot be attacked. Alvarez v Guingona (1996) FACTS: -

ISSUE: WON RA 8806 violated the Constitution and the LGC. NO. RATIO: HB 8817 entitled “An Act Converting the Municipality of Santiago into an Independent Component City to be known as the City of Santiago” was filed in the lower house. A counterpart of the bill was filed in the Senate, SB 1243. The Senate conducted public hearings after HB No. 8817 was transmitted to the Senate. Petitioners contend that RA 7720 is unconstitutional since: o The Act did not originate exclusively from in the House as mandated by Sec. 24, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution. o Santiago has not met the minimum average annual income required under Sec. 450 of the LGC for it to be converted into a component city. The petitioners argued that the income of an LGU does not include the IRA. The average annual income of Santiago was more than P20M. It is reduced to only P13M, however, if the IRA is excluded from the computation. The phrase “A municipality or a cluster…” is not a criterion but just one of the modes by which a city may be created. Sec. 10 Art. X of the Constitution allows the merger of LGUs to create a province, city, municipality, or barangay in accordance with LGC standards. The creation of an entirely new LGU through a division or a merger of existing LGUs is recognized under the Consti so long as it complies with the standards set by the LGC. In response to Cawaling’s argument that there is no “compelling reason” merge the two municipalities, the Court stated that it could not pass upon the wisdom of RA 8806; The word “approval” in Sec. 54 of RA 8806, which should be read together with Sec. 65 thereof, could only mean “effectivity” as used and contemplated in Sec. 10 of the Code. The law was first published in 25 Aug 2000 issue of TODAY. The publication of the law was completed on 1 Sept 2000, which should be the reckoning point in determining the 120day period within which to conduct the plebiscite. COMELEC: Since publication is indispensable for the effectivity of a law, it could only schedule the plebiscite after the Act took effect. As to the failure of the COMELEC to conduct an intensive info campaign, the Court said that no proof was presented by the petitioner to substantiate his claim. There is the presumption that COMELEC regularly performed its duty under the law in conducting the plebiscite.




ISSUE: WON RA 7720 should be declared unconstitutional for the two reasons cited. HELD: NO. RA 7720 is constitutional. The acquisition of resources necessary to discharge its powers and effectively carry out its functions is effected through the vesting in every LGU of: 1. The right to create and broaden its own source of revenue; 2. The right to be allocated a just share in national taxes, such share being in the form of Internal Revenue Allotments (IRAs); and 3. the right to be given its equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth, if any, within its territorial boundaries. - The funds generated from local taxes, IRAs and National wealth utilization proceeds accrue to the general fund of the LGU and are used to finance its operations subject to specified modes of spending the same as provided for in the LGC and its implementing rules and regulations. Income- all revenues and receipts collected or received forming the gross accretions of funds of the LGU. DOF certified that the municipality had an average annual income of at least 20M for the last 2 consecutive years based on 1991 constant prices.

Pelaez v Auditor General FACTS: From 4 Sept to 29 Oct 1964, the Prez, purporting to act pursuant to Sec 68 of the Rev. Admin Code, issued Exec. Order Nos. 93 to 121, 124 and 126 to 129, creating 33 municipalities; On 10 Nov 1964, Pelaez filed this prohibition proceeding against the Auditor General to restrain him from passing in audit any expenditure of public funds in implementation of said Eos and/ or any disbursement by said municipalities.



Sec. 450 (c) of the LGC provides that “the average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general fund, exclusive of special funds, transfers, and non-recurring income.” IRAs are a regular, recurring item of income. Cawaling, Jr. v COMELEC FACTS: 16 Aug 2000: Pres. Estrada signed into law RA 8806: An Act Creating the City of Sorsogon by Merging the Municipalities of Bacon and Sorsogon in the Province of Sorsogon…16 Dec 2000: COMELEC conducted a plebiscite in the municipalities 17 Dec 2000: Plebiscite City Board of Canvassers proclaimed the creation of the City of Sorsogon Cawaling filed this petition for certiorari, which challenged the law on the ff grounds: 1. The plebiscite was conducted beyond the 120-day period from the approval of RA 8806, violating Sec. 54 of the LGC;

Pelaez argued that the EOs are void since Sec. 68 has been impliedly repealed by RA 23701 and constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. Pelaez contended that since 1 Jan 1960, barrios may not be created except upon Act of Congress or of the corresponding provincial board upon petition of a majority of the voters in the areas affected Since the Prez, under the new law, cannot even create a barrio, can he even create a municipality which is composed of several barrios? Gov’t: new municipalities can be created without creating new barrios, by placing old barrios under the jurisdiction of the new municipality.

ISSUE: WON the EOs should be declared null and void ab initio. YES. RATIO: Where the power to fix such common boundary, in order to fix such common boundary, in order to avoid or settle conflicts of jurisdiction between adjoining municipalities, may partake of an administrative nature—involving, as it does, the adoption of means and ways to carry into effect the law creating said municipalities, the authority to create municipal corporations is essentially legislative in nature. Although Congress may delegate to another branch the power to fill in the details in the execution, enforcement or administration of a law, it is essential that the law be:

Sec. 3 of RA 2370: Barrios shall not be created or their boundaries altered nor their names changed except under the provisions of this Act or by Act of Congress.


Loc Gov Reviewer, 1st Sem, 2005-2006 o o Complete in itself—set forth the policy to be executed Fix a standard—the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable Municipality of Jimenez v Baz



Sec. 68 of the RAC does not meet these requirements of a valid delegation of the power to fix the details in the enforcement of a law. The creation of municipalities is not an administrative function, but one eminently legislative in character. The power of control of the President over executive departments, bureaus or offices implies no more than the authority to assume directly the functions thereof or to interfere in the exercise of discretion by its officials. Such control does not include the authority either to abolish one executive department or bureau or to create a new one. The alleged power of the Prez to create municipal corporations would necessarily connote the exercise by him of an authority even greater than that of control which he has over the executive departments, bureaus, or offices.

FACTS: The Municipality of Sinacaban was created by EO 258 of then Pres. Quirino pursuant to Sec. 68 of the Revised Admin. Code. Sinacaban laid claim to several barrios based on the technical description in EO 258. The Municipality of Jimenez asserted jurisdiction based on an agreement with Sinacaban which was approved by the Provincial Board of Misamis Occidental which fixed the common boundary of Sinacaban and Jimenez. The Provincial Board declared the disputed area to be part of Sinacaban. It held that the earlier resolution approving the agreement between the municipalities was void since the Board had no power to alter the boundaries of Sinacaban as fixed in EO 258. Jimenez filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in the RTC of Oroquieta. Jimenez argued that the power to create municipalities is essentially legislative (as held in Pelaez v Auditor General), then Sinacaban, which was created thru and EO, had no legal personality and no right to assert a territorial claim. ISSUES: I. WON Sinacaban has juridical personality. YES. II. WON RA 7160 Sec. 442(d) is invalid since it does not conform to the constitutional and statutory requirements for the holding of plebiscites in the creation of new municipalities. NO. RATIO: I. Where a municipality created as such by EO is later impliedly recognized and its acts are accorded legal validity, its creation can no longer be questioned. In the case of Municipality of San Narciso v Mendez, the SC laid the factors to consider in validating the creation of a municipal corporation: 1. The fact that for 30 years, the validity of the corporation has not been challenged; 2. The fact that no quo warranto suit was filed to question the validity of the EO creating the municipality; and

Municipality of Candijay, Bohol v CA (1995) FACTS: The Municipality of Candijay claimed that the barrio of Pagahat is within its territorial jurisdiction and that it is not a part of the Municipality of Alicia. The trial court ruled for Candijay but this was reversed by the CA. The CA found that the plans submitted by the two municipalities are inadequate insofar as identifying the monuments of the boundary line between the petitioner and the Muncipality of Mabini. The CA ruled that in cases of equiponderance of evidence, the courts must find for the defendant. The petitioner raised the ff issues before the SC: 1. The CA improperly applied the rule on equiponderance of evidence; 2. The respondent municipality does not have a juridical personality since it was created under a void executive order; and 3. the challenged decision throws them back again to their controversy. ISSUE: WON a municipality, created under a void executive order, can be considered as not having a juridical personality in light of the passage of the Local Government Code of 1991. NO. RATIO: The petitioner commenced its collateral attack on the juridical personality of the respondent on 19 January 1984 (35 yrs after its creation in 1949) during the proceedings in this case. After presentation of evidence, Candijay asked the trial court to bar the respondent from presenting evidence on the ground that it had no juridical personality. Candijay argued that EO 265 issued by Pres. Quirino is null and void ab initio since Sec. 68 of the RAC constituted an undue delegation of legislative power to the Prez. The Municipality of Alicia was created by EO 265, or ten years ahead of the Municipality of San Andres, and had been in existence for 16 years when Pelaez was promulgated. Various governmental acts through the years all indicate the State’s recognition and acknowledgement of its existence. Alicia must benefit from the effects of Sec. 422 (d) of the LGC and should be considered a regular, de jure municipality. According to Sec. 442 (d) of the LGC, municipal districts “organized pursuant to presidential issuances or executive orders and which have their respective sets of elective municipal officials holding office at the time of the effectivity of the Code shall henceforth be considered as regular municipalities.” “Curative laws, which in essence are retrospective, and aimed at giving validity to acts done that would have been invalid under existing laws, as if existing laws have been complied with, are validly accepted in this jurisdiction, subject to the usual qualification against impairment of vested rights.”2


the fact that the municipality was later classified as a 5 th class municipality, organized as part of a municipal circuit court and considered part of a legislative district in the Constitution apportioning the seats in the House.

In this case, the following factors are present: 1. Sinacaban has been in existence for 16 years when Pelaez was decided in 1965 and yet the validity of EO 258 creating it had never been questioned. It was only 40 years later that its existence was questioned. The State and even Jimenez recognized Sinacaban’s corporate existence. Ex.: AO 33, Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, etc.


Moreover, the LGC of 1991, Sec. 442(d) provides that “municipal districts organized pursuant to presidential issuances or executive orders and which have their respective sets of elective officials holding office at the time of the effectivity of this Code shall henceforth be considered as regular municipalities.” Sinacaban has attained de jure status by virtue of the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution, apportioning legislative districts throughout the country, which considered Sinacaban as part of the 2nd District of Misamis Occidental. II. Sinacaban had attained de facto status at the time the 1987 Constitution took effect. It is not subject to the plebiscite requirement. It applies only to new municipalities created for the first time under the Constitution. The requirement of plebiscite was originally contained in Art. XI, Section 3 of the previous Constitution. It cannot be applied to municipal corporations created before, such as Sinacaban. V. ALTERATION CORPORATIONS AND DISSOLUTION OF MUNICIPAL


Municipality of San Narciso v Mendez, Sr.

Power to alter/ dissolve: 1. Fixing, altering, changing boundaries of municipal corporations 2. Dividing a municipal corporation- 2 or 1 separate municipality


Miranda v Aguirre (1999) FACTS: 5 May 1994: RA 7720 converted the municipality of Santiago. There is no reason why the same should not be done when RA 8528 downgrades the status of their city. 10 Art. It changed the status of Santiago from an independent component city to a component city. amending RA 7720. 15 Dec 1991: A plebiscite was held in the barangays comprising the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa and the remaining areas of the mother Municipality of Labo. Terminate official relation with offices. 2005-2006 3. The Sol Gen argued that the RA merely reclassified Santiago City from an independent component city to a component city. under its jurisdiction. 2. 3. Conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city. Maria. XI of the 1973 Constitution has not affected the ruling of the SC in Tan v COMELEC. Sec. 10 April 1994: A plebiscite was held in Mandaluyong where the “yes” votes won.” FACTS: RA 7657. It stands to reason that when the law states that the plebiscite shall be conducted “in the political units directly affected. Taxes that will be collected by the city will have to be shared with the province. 5 (1) of the Constitution. The contention that the people of San Juan should have been parties to the plebiscite is wrong since the principal subject involved in the plebiscite was the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city. Effects of division of municipal corporation: 1. ABG ISSUE: WON a reclassification of a city from an independent component city to a component city requires a plebiscite. But. mayor’s permit. NO. Bulacan. Right of officers/ employees of annexed consolidated territory to continue to hold their office. Property/ powers/ rights: Divided. There would be a reduction in their IRA. VI. Repealing its charter. The Governor of Camarines Norte sought to set aside the plebiscite on the ground that it should not have been conducted since the approval and ratification of the 1987 Constitution reverted to the ruling in Paredes v Executive Secretary and that Tan v COMELEC is no longer controlling. ISSUE: WON RA 7657 should be declared unconstitutional for the reasons given by the petitioners. Laws/ ordinances of annexed corporation subject to all laws/ ordinances by which annexing corporation is governed. Petitioners: The seconds subject is not germane to the subject matter of RA 7657.” It means that the present composition of Congress may be increased if Congress itself so mandates. 5. and obligations falling within its territorial limits. Title to property—Acquire title to property without compensation. 2. 7155 which created the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa. if it forms part of municipality. “An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be Known as the City of Mandaluyong” was signed into law on 9 Feb 1994. The resolutions and ordinances of the city council will have to be reviewed by the Provincial Board of Isabela. RATIO: The creation of a separate congressional district is but a natural and logical consequence of its conversion into a highly urbanized city. merger. the municipality itself must participate in the plebiscite because it is affected. The Consti clearly provides that the House shall be composed of not more than 250 members. the separation of the two units has resulted in an increase in the composition of the House beyond that provided in Article VI.890 favored the creation of the new municipality while 3. Sta. Tobias v Abalos Effects of annexation/ consolidation: 1. 5. If it is the creation of a barangay. Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of this RA since it lacked a provision submitting the law for ratification by the people of Santiago City in a plebiscite. into an independent component city. 4. NO. The changes are substantial. RATIO: The deletion of the phrase “unit or” in Sec. it must involve all the units affected. During the 1986 Con Com: Mr. the acting mayor of Sta. The consent of the people is required to serve as a checking mechanism to any exercise of legislative power. It would mean a loss of a territory. Only 2. ordered that it fully stop the operations of its plant located at Guyong.Loc Gov Reviewer. On the legal existence of territory annexed—Dissolves annexed territory. 4. VII. The phrase “political units directly affected” contemplates the plurality of political units which would participate in the exercise. or substantial alteration of boundaries of local government units. Camarines Norte. 2312 pursuant to RA No. PLEBISCITE REQUIREMENTS Padilla v COMELEC FACTS: COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. It allegedly did not involve any “creation. The respondents raised the defense of standing and the political question doctrine. The division was not made pursuant to any census. it required the approval of its people thru a plebiscite called for that purpose. rights. Pablo Cruz. Merging or consolidating 2 or more municipalities into 1. YES. Davide: “I precisely asked for the deletion of the words “unit or” because in the plebiscite to be conducted. provide for payment. RATIO: The wording of the constitution has a common denominator: the material change in the political and economic rights of the LGU directly affected. - 3 Building permit. abolition. whether upward or downward so long as they result in a material change in the LGU directly affected. Annexing one municipality to another.” it means that residents of the political entity who would be economically dislocated by the separation have a right to vote. The matter of separate district representation was only ancillary to it. The letter asked Mr. GENERAL POWERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Technology Developers v CA (1991) FACTS: Petitioner made and exported charcoal birquette. The present limit of 250 is not absolute. The city mayor will be placed under the administrative supervision of the provincial governor. 1st Sem. Region III Pollution of Environment and Nat Res Permit. “unless otherwise provided by law. Petitioners filed this case arguing that RA 7675 violated the “one subject-one bill” rule since the law allegedly contained two different subjects: 1. Manese (plant manager) to bring several documents3 with him to the mayor’s office. 6 April 1989: Cruz ordered that the plant be padlocked without any prior notice on the petitioner. 14 Feb 1998: RA 8528 was enacted. Division of the congressional district of San Juan/ Mandaluyong into two separate districts. ISSUE: WON the term “political units directly affected” only comprises those areas in the proposed LGU and not those from the mother LGU. The rules cover all conversions. Debt/ obligations—Assumed. Petitioner sought to secure the documents but its request to obtain a mayor’s permit was not entertained. Moreover. 5 . etc. Legal existence of original corporation extinguishes corporate existence of original municipality. Bulacan.439 voted against it. and 2. Isabela. When RA 7720 upgraded the status of Santiago City from a municipality to an independent component city. There should have been a plebiscite on RA 7657 on the part of the people of San Juan. Maria. powers.each municipality acquires title to the properties.

4 The power to condemn buildings in Manila falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Engineer. and 2) there is no appeal. The inferred powers are as much delegated powers as are those conferred in express terms. 243 which reaffirmed Res. health or safety. Condemnation Proceedings. Deterioration and Defects. The mayor shall hear the owner and his experts and decide the case on the evidence presented. and by virtue of his police power. 60. In the hearing of the MR. he may deny the application for a permit to operate a business or otherwise close the same unless appropriate measures are taken to control/ avoid injury to the health of the residents.00 for the implementation of the program. 215 of PD 1096 (Nat’l Bldg Code) also states that when any bldg is found dangerous or ruinous.power to prescribe regulations to promote the health. That decision was sustained by the CA. It will be funded by the unappropriated available funds in the municipal treasury. 17 Nov 1982: Officials issued notices of condemnation addressed to the petitioners. There is no grave abuse of discretion in this case. 6 . 1st Sem. The permit the petitioner obtained had already expired and it did not exert any effort to extend its permit. re-enacted under Resolution No. or be inferred from the mere fact of the creation of the corporation. If the owner of the bldg is unwilling to abide by the condemnation order. he may condemn the same. 22 April 1983: Gamboa. the resolution was disapproved. Pagdanganan complaining about the smoke. The orders were made after thorough ocular inspections which showed that the bldg had defects of up to 80%. and as a general rule. Petitioners also failed to exhaust administrative remedies since PD 1096 provided for an appeal to the Secretary of the Ministry of Public Works and a request for a reinspection of the bldg. The act of the Mayor in approving the condemnation was also done in accordance with law. or with grave abuse of discretion. If the mayor confirms the city engineer’s action. 276. Sec.. RATIO: The matter of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and its actions shall not be disturbed on appeal unless it can be shown that it acted with grave abuse of discretion.—Whenever in the judgment of the City Engineer any bldg has been damaged by any cause to such an extent as to be dangerous for use. Police power. YES. through its Council. morals. 60. 2005-2006 Petitioner asked for and obtained a writ of preliminary injunction against the acting mayor. Moreover. The lower court set aside the injunction it earlier issued. or if the deterioration be greater than fifty per centum of the value of the bldg. the 2nd of 2 cases in this decision): 14 Sept 1972: Manuel Uy & Sons. was informed of a demolition order for one of the structures. A valid delegation may arise from express delegation. Sec. or demolition. The action of the mayor was in response to complaints made by the residents of the area. Binay v Domingo (1991) FACTS: 27 Sept 1988: Petitioner Makati. Paco. as estimated by the city engineer. The orders were based on the inspection reports made by Evaluation Committee of the Office of the City Engineer.00) are bereaved families whose gross monthly income does not exceed 2 thousand per month. good order or safety and general welfare of the - ISSUE: WON the local executive may deny the application for a business permit by virtue of his police power. YES. of the Municipality of Makati is a valid exercise of police power under the general welfare clause. the bldg shall be removed at his expense and the city shall recover from him. and statutes conferring powers on public corporations have been construed as empowering them to do things essential to the enjoyment of life and desirable for the safety of the people. It stated that the bldgs were found to be in dangerous condition and are therefore condemned. 243. It only seeks to benefit a few individuals. 19 Jan 1983: Civil Engr Romulo Molas (pvt practitioner) certified that although old. The provincial prosecutor submitted the following evidence: o Investigation report of the petitioner made by Marivic Guina recommending that the manufacturing process and raw materials used by the factory produced fumes that are hazardous to health so the company must shut down until the proper air pollution device is installed.000. When it was referred to the COA.. Chua Huat v CA (1991) FACTS (GR 63863. depending on the degree of danger to life. No. the program has been stayed by COA Decision No. The closure was made after due investigation. 206. petitioner’s counsel failed to attend. 60 and the alleged public safety and general welfare of the people of Makati. ABG 275. o Signatures of residents complaining about the pollution. vacation. Inc. speedy. The Municipal Council passed Resolution No. COA: There is no relation between the objective sought to be attained under Res. who is at the same time the bldg official (Sec. 60. and 1553 to 1557 Paz St. 6 July 1983: Mayor confirmed the condemnation orders so demolition orders soon followed. o Letter addressed to Gov.” Concomitant with the need to promote investment and contribute to the growth of the economy is the equally essential imperative of protecting the health of the people from the deleterious effects of environmental pollution. something the petitioners failed to do. The municipal secretary certified a disbursement fund of P400. 275 and 276 of the Compilation of Ordinances of Manila provide: 4 1) A body that acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. 1159.Loc Gov Reviewer. the Building Official shall order its repair. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. However. Metro Manila Commission approved the resolution. Before a municipal corporation may exercise such power. there must be a valid delegation of such power by the legislature which is the repository of the inherent powers of the State. PD 1096). the bldgs are still structurally sound and have a remaining economic life of at least 8 years. Manila. NO. approved Resolution No. “No mayor’s permit was secured. requested Romulo del Rosario (city engineer of Manila) to condemn the dilapidated structures located at 1271 to 1277 Pedro Gil St. all occupied by petitioners. municipal corporations may exercise police powers within the fair intent and purpose of their creation which are reasonably proper to give effect to the powers expressly granted. one of the petitioners. education. No. contrary to the 7-day rule prescribed by the city ordinance. 22 Feb 1983: Petitioners formally protested against the notices. If the owner does not comply. it is not for a public purpose. peace. they shall be removed. nor any plain. the owner must remove the bldg w/in 15 days from date of notification. It also said that the notice is not a demolition order since it is still subject to the approval of the mayor. ISSUE: WON Resolution No. RATIO: Police power is inherent in the state but not in municipal corporations. it must be recognized that the mayor of a town has as much responsibility to protect its inhabitants from pollution. Although the matter of determining whether there is pollution that requires control/ prohibition is addressed to the Environmental Management Bureau of the DENR. ISSUE: WON the petitioners may avail of certiorari to question demolition orders issued by the City Engineer of Manila. RATIO: Petitioners failed to show the elements needed for certiorari to prosper. The petitioners submitted their protest 3 mos after notice. The resolution provided for a burial assistance program where qualified beneficiaries (to be given P500.—All buildings or parts of buildings which show defects in any essential parts shall be repaired and put in safe condition at once. he may formally object within 7 days.

must not prohibit but may regulate trade. according to the court. It is not confined within narrow circumstances of precedents resting on past conditions. The police power of a municipal corporation is broad. The petitioner judge granted a writ of possession with the ancillary writ of demolition. should not be considered a residential establishment since its lessee is engaged in the laundry business. and prejudice” to the municipality and its people who are expected to derive benefit from the accomplishment of the project. 13 meets these criteria. the duty to provide for the real needs of the people in their health. The complaint alleges factual circumstances of a complaint for abatement of a public nuisance. Tepoot) was only 8 INCHES to the south. The issuance of a writ of possession and writ of demolition by the petitioner judge in the ejectment proceedings was premature.Loc Gov Reviewer. YES. The Municipal Council of Virac appointed a committee to investigate. it must be within the corporate powers of the municipality to enact. It also stated that the defendants paid rentals until 1967. it must follow the legal progress of a democratic way of life. and 6. ISSUE: WON Ordinance No. Ordinance No. 2005-2006 people. but that they refused to pay after that period. Tatel due to the smoke. the land was the subject of cadastral proceedings before another branch of the RTC of Zamboanga del Sur. that it was reserved for a public plaza under Pres. TC ordered to require the petitioners to put up a bond to be determined after a hearing on the just compensation due to the private respondents in case the demolition of their buildings is adjudged illegal. Patalinhug v CA (1994) FACTS: 17 Nov 1982: Sangguinang Panlungsod of Davao enacted Ordinance No. 29 was passed by the Municipal Council of Virac.350 sq meters to the defendants subject to the condition that they should vacate the place in case it is needed for public purposes. It extends to all the public needs. In accord with the Constitution or any statute. But that is immaterial now since the buildings have already been demolished. RATIO: The legality of the occupation by the private respondents in this case is still to be resolved in the cadastral proceedings. It alleged that the petitioner municipality is the owner of a parcel of land with an area of 5. Tatel v Municipality of Virac (1992) FACTS: 18 March 1966: Residents of Barrio Sta. Tepoot’s place. justifying it by applying the rule on eminent domain. However. 4.. must be general and consistent with public policy. No. Tatel’s MR was denied. What the petitioner should have done was to stop the proceedings in this case and wait for the final outcome of the cadastral proceedings. 13. Elena complained against the disturbance caused by the operation of the abaca bailing machine inside the warehouse of Mr. It provided that funeral homes must be established not less than 50 meters from any residential structures. If Medina is declared the owner of the land. then he is entitled to just compensation for the precipitate demolition of their buildings. contrary to due process and equal protection clause of the Constitution. 3. No violation of equal protection clause in classifying paupers. ABG that during the incumbency of Mayor Isidro Real. The care for the poor is generally recognized as a public duty. 5. Ordinances are required to be: 1. the building officer issued a building permit in favor of Patalinghug for the construction of the Metropolitan Funera Parlor at Cabaguio Ave. Despite such findings. not be unfair or oppressive. and dust emitted by the machine. and other institutional buildings. 22 April 1966: Resolution No. Judge Tamin v CA (1992) FACTS: 24 September 1990: Municipality of Dumingag. The CA reversed the trial court and ruled that Tepoot’s land is a residential lot as reflected in the tax declaration. petitioner continued with his construction. 2. obnoxious odor. Proc. HELD: NO. represented by its mayor (Domiciano Real) filed a complaint denominated as “Ejectment with Preliminary Injunction and Damages” against respondents Medina and Rosellon. not be impartial or discriminatory. in prohibiting the construction of warehouses in densely populated communities. churches. It found that the neighborhood was crowded as there were narrow roads and that this showed that the warehouse was a fire hazard in the area. and convenience as consistently as may be with private rights. 13 which prohibited the construction of warehouses within 200 meters from a block of houses either in the poblacion or barrios. 363 (Expanded Zoning Ordinance of Davao City). and is commensurate with. that the national government had allotted funds for the construction of a municipal gym but that it could not continue due to the presence of the buildings of the defendants. No undue restraint is placed upon the petitioner or for anybody to engage in trade but merely a prohibition from storing inflammable products in the warehouse because of the danger of fire to the lives and properties of the people residing in the vicinity. 365. 7 . he then filed this petition for prohibition. A public plaza is outside the commerce of man and constructions thereon can be abated summarily by the municipality. Its authority emanates from the general welfare clause of the Admin Code. Residents of Barangay Agdao complained that it violated the ordinance since it was within a 50-meter radius from the Iglesia Chapel and several residential structures. The support for the poor has long been an accepted exercise of police power in the promotion of the common good. Zamboanga del Sur. The Sanggunian found out that the nearest residential structure (owned by Mr. ISSUE: WON the municipality may order the demolition of private property despite the pendency of cadastral proceedings that shall ultimately settle the question of ownership. Private respondents then filed a case for declaration of nullity of a building permit. declaring the warehouse a public nuisance within the purview of Article 694 of the Civil Code. there can be no better policy that what has been conceived by the municipal government. Tatel: The Ordinance is unconstitutional. Upon approval and certification of zoning compliance by the zoning administrator. They argued that the funds might revert back to the national government and such would result to “irreparable damage. safety. For an ordinance to be valid. but not to exceed. RATIO: Municipal Corporations are agencies of the State for the promotion and maintenance of local self-government and as such are endowed with police powers to carry out the objects of their creation. They may be reasonably classified. must not be unreasonable. 1st Sem. Mr. Petition dismissed.894 sq meters. As far as public policy is concerned. One of the claimants in this case is Medina who traced his ownership as far back as 1947 when he allegedly bought it from a Subanan native. injury. the municipality leased an area of 1. 365. The ordinance regulates the construction of warehouses located at a distance of 200 meters from a block of houses wherein inflammable materials are stored and not the construction of a warehouse per se. The trial court dismissed the complaint saying that the residential buildings and the church are more than 50 meters from the funeral parlor. Even before Proclamation No. Public purpose is not unconstitutional merely because it incidentally benefits a limited number of persons. the demolition of the buildings is now fait accompli. The purpose is to avoid the loss of life and property in case of fire. Sr. Council: Tatel’s warehouse violated Ordinance No. is a valid exercise of police power.

depriving all the fishermen. Vargas. The court must also distinguish between catching live fish and selling it live and those who have no intention at all of selling it live. RATIO: The question of whether Mr. and tidal waters within the municipality. The respondents implemented the ordinances. The declaration of an area as a commercial zone thru a municipal ordinance is an exercise of police power to promote the good order and general welfare of the people in a locality. The centerpiece of the LGC is decentralization. YES. ie. Tano v Socrates (1997) FACTS: 15 Dec 1992: Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa City enacted Ordinance No. the Caloocan City Flea Market Authority was established. Code. The purpose of the inspection is to check if the shipper had the required mayor’s permit issued by their office. It authorized officers to inspect cargoes containing live fish and lobster that are shipped out of Puerto Princesa. 3. 16 of the LGC).Loc Gov Reviewer. The Ordinance took away the right of the fishermen to earn their livelihood in lawful ways. alley. marine merchants. Tolentino. there is no reason for not applying the doctrine announced therein with respect to the closure of provincial roads. Cabrera v CA (1991) FACTS: 19 Sept 1969: Provincial Board of Catanduanes adopted Resolution No. 19 February 1993: Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan enacted Resolution No. Office Order No. Two principal objectives of the Ordinances: 1. etc. its use as a residence was not fully substantiated. lessening 5 Bagadiong. gathering. they argued. Establish a “closed season” for the species of fish covered therein for 5 years (This falls within the devolved power to enforce fishery laws in municipal waters). Indispensable to this is devolution. etc. The findings of the trial court is supported by the fact that the Sanggunian declared the area as commercial or C-2. Alcala. and shippers of the entire province of their only means of livelihood. street. that determination for zoning purposes must prevail. park. The respondents contended that it was a valid exercise of the Provincial Government’s power under the general welfare clause (Sec. RATIO: Resolution 158 clearly says that “it is hereby resolved to close the old road. 33 which prohibited the catching. The Ordinance. also in the same part of the road. the respondents have failed to substantiate their arguments that Cabaguio Avenue was still a residential zone. 1978: Part of the northern end of the old road fronting the petitioner’s house was planted to vegetables in 1977 by E. 22 Jan 1993: Acting Mayor Lucero issued Office Order No. 8 . The petitioners directly invoked the original jurisdiction of the SC arguing as follows: 1. The testimony of City Councilor Vergara shows that Mr. Tepoot’s bldg was used for a dual purpose: dwelling and for business. who bought Vargas’s share. This authority is inferable from the grant by congress of the funds to the province for the construction of provincial roads. While its commercial aspect has been established by the presence of machineries and laundry equipment. Once a local gov’t has reclassified an area as commercial. 10 Jan 1979: EO No. only covered live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms and excluded those not dwelling in the coral reefs and that it shall only last for 5 years. Article XII and Sections 2 and 7 of the 1987 Constitution. 2005-2006 ISSUE: WON the declaration of an LGU that an area is a commercial zone is a valid exercise of police power. 79-02 was enacted by the Commission. ISSUE: WON the questioned ordinances enacted in the exercise of powers under the LGC relative to the protection and preservation of the environment are a valid exercise of the police power of a municipal corporation. 1st Sem. 23. A public road could not be subject of a barter without a prior order of closure. 23 contained no regulation nor condition under which the Mayor’s permit could be granted or denied. One of the streets designated was “Heroes del ‘96” where the petitioner lives. 135 was issued by Acting MMC Mayor Virgilio Robles. Alejandro. YES. Mayor had absolute authority in issuing the permit. Dacanay v Asistio (1992) FACTS: 5 Jan 1979: MMC Ordinance No. The LGC grants municipalities the power to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters and to impose rentals. Latorre. 158 is not an order for a closure of the road but an authority to barter. RA 5185. The road was considered “the most viable and progressive. possession. 11 (II) (a): A municipal council may close any municipal road. ISSUE: WON the provincial board can order the closure of a road and use/ convey it for other purposes. Cabrera: Resolution No. and unduly restricted them from the practice of their trade. 158 which closed the old road leading to the new Capitol Bldg of the province and to give to the owners of the properties traversed by the new road equal area as per the survey of the Highway District Engineer. but also marine waters included between two lines drawn perpendicularly to the general coastline from points where the boundary lines of the municipality or city touch the sea at low tide and a third line parallel with the general coastline and 15 km from it (Sec. The term ABG “municipal waters” includes not only streams. lakes. designating certain city and municipal streets as sites for flea markets. 15-92 which banned the shipment of all live fish and lobster outside the city from 1993-1998. 2. YES. Sec. Protect the coral in the marine waters of the city and the province from further destruction due to illegal fishing activities (this falls within the general welfare clause of the LGC and the express mandate there to cities and provinces to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which harm the environment. Anselmo Peña. RATIO: Laws enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. The closure of the road has injured him since they can no longer use the old road in going to the old capitol bldg but must instead pass through a small passageway. The sanggunians are directed to enact ordinances for the general welfare of the LGU and its inhabitants. While the cases on this subject dealt with city councils and not provincial boards. 29 December 1978: The petitioner filed a complaint for “Restoration of Public Road and/ or Abatement of Nuisance…” He argued that the land fronting his house was a public road owned by the province in its governmental capacity and that it is therefore beyond the commerce of man. their livelihood. converted it into a piggery farm. Alejandro. violating Section 2.” The authority of the provincial board to close that road and use or convey it for other purposes is derived from RA 5185 in relation to Section 2246 of the Admin. The Caloocan City mayor opened 7 flea markets in their city. Tepoot’s bldg is residential or not is a factual determination which appellate courts should not disturb. One of these powers is the enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters including the conservation of mangroves. fees. 2. 131 [r] LGC). It deprived them of due process of law. Section 5 (c) of the LGC explicitly mandates that the general welfare provisions of the LGC “shall be liberally interpreted to give more powers to the LGUs in accelerating economic development and upgrading the quality of life for the people of the community. Property thus withdrawn from public servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which said other property belonging to the municipality might be lawfully used or conveyed. of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms for a period of 5 yrs. Persons may be subjected to certain kinds of restraints and burdens to secure the general welfare of the state. or charges for their use. Deeds of exchange were executed under which the province conveyed to several persons5 the portions of the closed road in exchange for their own respective properties on which was subsequently laid a new concrete road. While the commercial character of the vicinity was declared through ordinance. and Reyes.

Lt. Macasiano v Diokno (1992) FACTS: 13 July 1990: Municipality of Parañaque passed Ordinance No. ISSUE: WON public streets or thoroughfares may be leased or licensed to market stall holders by virtue of a city ordinance or resolution passed by the Metro Manila Commission. 424 Civil Code: Properties of public dominion devoted to public use and made available to the public in general is outside the commerce of man and cannot be disposed of or leased by the LGU to private persons. V. Such leases are null and void for being contrary to law. Stall owners filed an action for prohibition against the City. convenience and welfare of the general public. that the time of vending be designated. NO. 4. the City Government. to traffic since it is an agent of the state endowed with police power in the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila. Are of public dominion. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City did not pass any ordinance or resolution ordering the opening of Neptune St. Bayanihan. Gen. MMDA is not the same entity as the MMC in the Sangalang case. NO. and Opena Streets located at Baclaran and the establishment of a flea market thereon. As the stall holders pay fees to the City Government for the right to occupy portions of the public street. ordered the destruction/ confiscation of the stalls. Not subject to attachment and execution. that the 2 meter road to be used as a flea market be distinctly marked.. Trial Court: upheld the validity of the Ordinance. 3. Once withdrawn from public use. coordination. It is not even a “special metropolitan political subdivision” since it requires the approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected. endowed with legislative power. as OIC city mayor of Caloocan. Oreta (MMDA Chair): Wrote the BAVA president to ask for the voluntary opening of Neptune St. Dacanay then filed a complaint in the Ombudsman.” MMDA is not an LGU or a public corp. The authority given by the LGC to close roads should be read and interpreted in accordance with basic principles already established by law. They cannot be alienated or leased or otherwise be the subject matter of contracts. it then becomes patrimonial property. Macasiano. 6 ABG RATIO: The areas are local roads used for public service and are considered public properties of the municipality. PNP Superintendent. installation of a system and administration. MMDA v Bel Air Village Assn. Unlike the legislative bodies of LGUs.” 1987: Antonio Martinez.Loc Gov Reviewer. These properties are under the absolute control of Congress. It may not be the subject of lease or other contract. LGUs: Prez only exercises supervisory authority. operation. had the stalls demolished. 23 Oct 1990: Pque and Palanyag filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus. 1st Sem. Cannot be burdened by any voluntary easement. Only then can the LGU use or convey it for any purpose for which other property belonging to the LGU might be lawfully conveyed. 2005-2006 unemployment in the city and servicing the residents with affordable basic necessities. has been leasing portions of the streets to them. Garcia Ext. One of these is traffic management which involves the regulation of the use of thoroughfares to insure the safety. and management of the flea markets. RATIO: The powers of the MMDA are limited to the following acts: formulation. setting or policies. MMDA: claims to have authority to open Neptune St. (2000) FACTS: Bel Air Village Assn. 267 provides: "Cities and municipalities are authorized to contract loans from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. 9 . City of Manila v Arellano College (1950) FACTS: Section 1 of Republic Act No. in clear violation of RA 3019. The EO issued by Acting Mayor Robles authorizing the use of Heroes del ’96 Street as a vending area contravenes the general law that reserves city streets and roads for public use. GG Cruz. (BAVA) is the registered owner of Neptune St. He did not pursue Martinez’s policy of clearing the city streets. monitoring. Gabriel. regulation. 2 which authorized the use of certain streets within metro manila for vending areas under certain conditions. implementation. the Philippine National Bank. NO. Ombudsman: There is an omission of an act which ought to be performed. preparation. Cannot be acquired by prescription. the OIC Mayor. Closure: comply with due process. Inc.6 20 Jun 1990: Council authorized Mayor Ferrer to contract with any service cooperative for the establishment. an examination of PD 824 shows that the latter possessed greater powers which were not bestowed on the present MMDA. 8 Aug 1990: The municipality. The interests of a few should not prevail over the good of the greater number in the community. and the City Engineer. that it is not opposed by a majority of the residents in the areas. Trial Court: Heroes del ’96. ISSUE: WON the MMDA can order the opening of a subdivision road to public traffic absent an ordinance from the concerned LGU. The municipality also failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the MMA. 86 which authorized the closure of J. Petitioner and general public have a legal right to the relief demanded. 86 of the municipal council of Pque subject to some conditions. 13 Sept 1990: Brig. It was approved by the municipal council pursuant to MMC Ordinance No. Local governments have no authority whatsoever to control the use of public properties unless specific authority is given by Congress. Even the Metro Manila Council has not been given any legislative power. approve resolutions. 1. and Gonzales Sts. its proposed opening by MMDA is therefore illegal. LGC provides that the City Engineer shall “prevent the encroachment of private bldgs and fences on the streets and public places. 2.. Gozon. contrary to law. ISSUE: WON an ordinance or resolution issued by a municipal council authorizing the lease and use of public streets as sites for flea markets is valid. management. Although the MMC is the forerunner of the present MMDA. Mandamus is proper. Nothing in RA 7924 grants it police power.. must be for the sole purpose of withdrawing the road or other public property from public use when circumstances show that such property is no longer intended or necessary for public use or public service. The Charter of the City of Caloocan grants the City Engineer similar powers. The exercise of the powers of LGUs should be subservient to paramount considerations of health and well-being of the members of the community. and appropriate funds for the general welfare. and/or any other entity or person at a rate of interest not exceeding eight per cent per annum for the purpose of purchasing or expropriating That the streets are not used for vehicular traffic. MMDA Chair: appointed by the president. Asistio then became the mayor. nothing in RA 7924 empowers the MMDA to “enact ordinances. and respondent Palanyag entered into an agreement for the management of the vending areas. A public street is property for public use hence outside the commerce of man. in Makati. and that the use shall be temporary. 20 July 1990: MMA approved Ordinance No. Respondents have the corresponding duty to clear the streets and restore them to their specific public purpose. RATIO: The disputed areas from which the market stalls are sought to be evicted are public streets.

190 to ascertain how the said authority may be exercised. to the procedure marked out by Act No. the courts have ample authority. . the development of a university that has a present enrollment of 9. or of any province or department thereof. etc. and that the same should not be converted into a street for public purposes. ISSUE: WON the courts can inquire and hear proof as to the existence of the prerequisites needed in eminent domain proceedings initiated by LGUs. or that either one of them fails. RATIO: The right of expropriation is not an inherent power in a municipal corporation. that the necessity for the expropriation is a legislative and not a judicial question. and was covered with sepulchers and monuments. for some public use. 190. finds that neither of said condition exists. Lastly. and to hear proof upon an-issue properly presented. If the property is taken in the 10 . If the court. Necessity within the rule that the particular property to be expropriated must be necessary. When the courts come to determine the question. the Arellano Colleges' land is situated in a highly commercial section of the city and is occupied by persons who are not bona fide tenants. RATIO: Although courts are not in agreement as to the tests to be applied in determining whether the use is public or not. that the only function of the court in such proceedings is to ascertain the value of the land in question. The land in question has cost the owner P140. the land must be private. The plaintiff alleged that the expropriation was necessary. the right to condemn private property for public use. that neither the court nor the owners of the land can inquire into the advisable purpose of the expropriation or ask any questions concerning the necessities therefor. the purpose must be public. Sections 244. Any good that would accrue to the public from providing homes to a few families fades into insignificance in comparison with the preparation of young men and young women for useful citizenship and for service to the government and the community. NO. clothes the expropriation with public interest and public use. by law. 1st Sem. then the courts have no other function than to authorize the expropriation and to proceed to ascertain the value of the land involved. it shall remand the cause to the Court of First Instance with a mandate that the defendant be replaced in the possession of the property and that he recover whatever damages he may have sustained by reason of the possession of the plaintiff. second. when the value of the land is fixed by the method adopted by the law. it may expropriate any land it may desire. necessity for the condemnation has not been shown. etc: each alleged (a) that no necessity existed for said expropriation and (b) that the land in question was a cemetery. or public advantage. or a large section of a town or city. which had been used as such for many years." The Charter of the city of Manila contains no procedure by which the said authority may be carried into effect. The expropriation in such cases tends to abolish economic slavery. In the second place. The right of expropriation is not inherent power in a municipal corporation and before it can exercise the right some law must exist conferring the power upon it. Section 2429 of Act No. It is contended on the part of the plaintiff that the phrase in said section. In the present case there are two conditions imposed upon the authority conceded to the City of Manila: First.Loc Gov Reviewer. certainly it cannot be contended that the right is being exercised in accordance with law When a municipal corporation attempts to expropriate private property and an objection is made thereto by the owner. expropriation of large estates. the land that is the subject of the present expropriation is only one-third of the land sought to be taken in the Guido case. 245 and 246 provide the method of procedure and duty of the commissioners. In the first place. Said section 241 provides that. enhances the physical and moral value of the surrounding communities. Comunidad de Chinos de Manila. The size of the land expropriated." Section 243 provides that if the court shall find upon trial that the right to expropriate the land in question exists. and to authorize the exercise of the power of eminent domain to promote such public benefit. City of Manila. but (b) also that the right or authority is being exercised in accordance with the law. The underlying reasons for these decisions are that the destruction of congested areas and unsanitary dwellings diminishes the potentialities of epidemics. public utility. in this jurisdiction. endless conflicts between landlords and tenants. and. this land was bought by the defendant for a university site to take the place of rented buildings that are unsuitable for schools of higher learning. "The Government of the Philippine Islands. the case at bar is weaker for the condemnor. crime and waste. shall exercise that right in the manner hereinafter prescribed. The land to be expropriated must be private. that it has authority to expropriate land.000. finds that neither of these conditions exists or that either one of them fails." CFI: This provision empowers cities to purchase but not to expropriate lands for the purpose of subdivision and resale. . does not mean an absolute but only a reasonable or practical necessity. the right to expropriate does not exist. it shall then appoint commissioners. upon trial. ISSUE: WON the expropriation of the area is proper. and before it can exercise the right some law must exist conferring the power upon it. in fact.000 students would be sacrificed. which seeks to condemn several parcels of land having a combined area of 7. Section 248 provides for an appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance to the Supreme Court. under the law.. therefore. to make inquiry. 2005-2006 homesites within their respective territorial jurisdiction and reselling them at cost to residents of the said cities and municipalities. that the courts are mere appraisers of the land involved in expropriation proceedings. "In a broad sense. concerning the question whether or not the purpose of the appropriation is. City of Manila v Chinese Community of Manila (1920) FACTS: 11 December 1916: City of Manila presented a petition in the CFI asking for the expropriation of certain lands for it to construct a public improvement (extension of Rizal Avenue). We are driven." means simply that. and promotes the safety and welfare of the public in general. and the extent of social and economic reform secured by the condemnation. or public or private corporation having. to render a judgment in favor of the defendant for its value. the large number of people benefited. and. some go so far in the direction of a liberal construction as to hold that public use is synonymous with public benefit. That the city of Manila has authority to expropriate private lands for public purposes. and other evils inimical to community prosperity and contentment and public peace and order. in its section 241. and forgetting for a moment the private character of the intended use. prevents the spread of crime and diseases to unaffected areas. Said section 248 gives the Supreme Court authority to inquire into the right of expropriation on the part of the plaintiff. is not denied. if the court finds that there is some law authorizing the plaintiff to expropriate. But measured even by this standard. and about two-thirds of that involved in the Borja condemnation proceeding. trusts in perpetuity. may condemn private property for public use. and so dismissed the present action. ABG City of Manila: Once it has established the fact. and land that embraces a whole town. If the Supreme Court on appeal shall determine that no right of expropriation existed. they must not only find (a) that a law or authority exists for the exercise of the right of eminent domain. While a handful of people stand to profit by the expropriation. a task which the government alone is not in a position to undertake.270 square meters and situated on Legarda Street. we find how the right of eminent domain may be exercised. upon trial. or of any municipality. and any person. and the purpose of the expropriation must be public. "and if the court shall find that the right to expropriate exists. bears direct relation to the public welfare. feudalistic practices. such as would combine the greatest benefit to the public with the least inconvenience and expense to the condemning party and property owner consistent with such benefit. especially where the interests involved are of considerable magnitude. From an examination of Act No. Viewed from another angle. If the court. Tambunting. 2711 (Charter of the city of Manila) provides that "the city (Manila) . A municipal corporation in this jurisdiction cannot expropriate public property.

etc. The general power to exercise the right of eminent domain must not be confused with the right to exercise it in a particular case. if the Legislature should grant general authority to a municipal corporation to expropriate private land for public purposes.” Camarines Sur filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession.00. The establishment of a pilot development center would inure to the direct benefit and advantage of the people of the Province of Camarines Sur. It cannot be denied. It also ordered the trial court to suspend the expropriation proceedings until after the Province of Camarines Sur shall have submitted the requisite approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform to convert the classification of the property of the private respondents from agricultural to non-agricultural land. the livelihood of the farmers. and not follow. small scale products of plaster of paris. The taking of private property for any use which is not required by the necessities or convenience of the inhabitants of a state. 11 . It is also true that in delegating the power to expropriate. upon an issue properly presented. it is being taken for a use not public. 15 small scale technology soap making. 129. it is a public use and no part of the ground can be taken for other public uses under a general authority. which tends to contribute to the general welfare and the prosperity of the whole community. 2005-2006 ostensible behalf of a public improvement which it can never by any possibility serve. Blg. Solicitor General: Under Section 9 of the Local Government Code (B. and the owner's constitutional rights call for protection by the courts. it is complete within its limits. to make inquiry and to hear proof. Blg. It is true that local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise it only when expressly authorized by the legislature. when the Court of Appeals ordered the suspension of the proceedings until the Province of Camarines Sur shall have obtained the authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform to change the classification of the lands sought to be expropriated from agricultural to non-agricultural use. and the rule in that case is that the authority must be strictly construed. hospitals. it assumed that the resolution is valid and that the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use. No species of property is held by individuals with greater tenacity and none is guarded by the constitution and laws more sedulously. either in the law conferring the power or in other legislations. Province of Camarines Sur: claimed that it has the authority to initiate the expropriation proceedings under Sections 4 and 7 of Local Government Code (B. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and authorized the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of the property upon the deposit with the Clerk of Court of the amount of P5. the amount provisionally fixed by the trial court to answer for damages that private respondents may suffer in the event that the expropriation cases do not prosper. 1st Sem. Province of Camarines Sur v CA (1993) FACTS: 22 December 1988: Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur passed Resolution No. The old concept was that the condemned property must actually be used by the general public (e. without first applying for conversion of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform. 337) and that the expropriations are for a public purpose. schools. The San Joaquins failed to appear at the hearing of the motion. Moreover. "WHEREAS. bridges. public plazas. The city of Manila is not authorized to expropriate public property. public. roads. marine biological and sea farming research center. The housing project also satisfies the public purpose requirement of the Constitution. While such delegated power may be a limited authority. The Court of Appeals set aside the order of the trial court. the courts have ample authority in this jurisdiction. To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units can no longer expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads. In effect. some of the vital components of which includes the establishment of model and pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops. Since the city of Manila is only permitted to condemn private property for public use and since the Chinese Cemetery in the city of Manila is a public cemetery already devoted to a public use.g. the limitations on the exercise of the delegated power must be clearly expressed.P.P. Under the new concept. the Solicitor General expressed the view that the Province of Camarines Sur must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform of the plan to expropriate the lands of petitioners for use as a housing project. There is a wide distinction between a legislative declaration that a municipality is given authority to exercise the right of eminent domain and a decision by the municipality that there exists a necessity for the exercise of that right in a particular case. "public use" means public advantage. the plain meaning of the law should not be enlarged by doubtful interpretation. Ultimately. like a resort complex for tourists or housing project The expropriation of the property authorized by the questioned resolution is for a public purpose. 337). there was no need for the approval by the Office of the President of the exercise by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the right of eminent domain. When the legislature interferes with that right. because all of these projects would naturally involve a change in the land use.Loc Gov Reviewer. However. Series of 1988.714. if the legislature under proper authority should grant the expropriation of a certain or particular parcel of land for some specified public purpose. Where a cemetery is open to the public. is an unreasonable exercise of the right of eminent domain The exercise of the right of eminent domain is necessarily in derogation of private rights.) before the taking thereof could satisfy the constitutional requirement of "public use". NO. it would then be the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use. allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of private respondents' lands and the order denying the admission of the amended motion to dismiss. The ascertainment of the necessity must precede. in fact. concerning whether or not the lands were private and whether the purpose was. convenience or benefit. authorizing the Provincial Governor to purchase or expropriate property contiguous to the provincial capitol site. ISSUE: WON the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units is subject to the prior approval of the Secretary of the Agrarian Reform. fishermen and craftsmen would be enhanced. the city of Manila cannot condemn a portion of the cemetery for a public street. However. there has been a shift from the literal to a broader interpretation of "public purpose" or "public use" for which the power of eminent domain may be exercised. RATIO: Modernly. than the right to the freehold of inhabitants. as the implementor of the agrarian reform program. ABG The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the price offered for their property. under the provisions above quoted.. bridges. in order to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial government employees. and other progressive feasibility concepts objective of which is to provide the necessary scientific and technology know-how to farmers and fishermen in Camarines Sur and to establish a housing project for provincial government employees. However. soil testing and tissue culture laboratory centers. the legislature may retain certain control or impose certain restraints on the exercise thereof by the local governments. that the courts would be without jurisdiction to inquire into the purpose of that legislation. the taking of the property. etc. the province of Camarines Sur has adopted a five-year Comprehensive Development plan.

Besides. 7160. An LGU may exercise the power to expropriate private property only when authorized by Congress and subject to the latter’s control and restraints.50. the Municipality of Pque filed on 20 Sept 1993 a complaint for expropriation against VM Realty Corporation over 2 parcels of land. The total area sought to be expropriated is 1.A law. 23 August 1994: Petitioner filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession pursuant to Section 19 of R. This right should be absolute and unfettered even by prior judgment or res judicata. whichever was lower.Merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. the same being an expression of legislative policy. are unfounded. Petitioner could simply buy directly from them the property at its fair market value if it wanted to. The lots are the most suitable site for the purpose. City of Cebu v Spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo (2002) FACTS: 17 September 1993: City of Cebu filed a complaint for eminent domain against respondents spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo. Exercised for public use. or for the benefit of the poor and the landless. More specifically. the Cebu Holdings.786.824.000 per square meter. NO. Parañaque: A resolution substantially complies with the requirements of the law since the terms “ordinance” and “resolution” are synonymous for the “purpose of bestowing authority on the LGU through its chief executive to initiate the expropriation proceedings in court in the exercise of the power of eminent domain. Complaint does not state a cause of action—In a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.826. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the commissioners' report was inaccurate since it included an area which was not subject to expropriation. There is payment of just compensation. On 16 August 1996. No.156 representing 15% of the fair market value of the property to enable the petitioner to take immediate possession of the property pursuant to Section 19 of R.e. III of the Constitution and other pertinent laws. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. then pending before Branch 9 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. respondents maintain that the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the decision of the trial court because (1) the trial court decided the case on the basis of the agreement of the parties that just compensation shall be fixed by commissioners appointed by the 12 . (1998) FACTS: Pursuant to SB Res. it is the legislative branch of the local government unit that shall determine whether the use of the property sought to be expropriated shall be public. WON those allegations are true is beside the point. It has a general and permanent character. 93-95. for their truth is hypothetically admitted by the motion. 3. There is also an ancient rule that restrictive statutes. Respondents: The purpose for which their property was to be expropriated was not for a public purpose but for a single private entity. Rule VU of the IRR which requires only a resolution could not prevail over the law. the commissioners submitted an amended assessment for the 478 square meters of Lot No.624 square meters with an assessed value of P1.339. An ordinance enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings. 19 of RA 7160 which provides that an LGU through its chief executive may exercise the power of eminent domain through an ordinance) Requisites for the exercise of the power of eminent domain: 1. 1528 and fixed it at P12. just like what it did with the neighboring lots. No. The purpose was to alleviate the living conditions of the poor by providing homes through socialized housing projects. The ruling in this case that Pque could not exercise eminent domain through a mere resolution will not bar it from reinstituting similar proceedings once the legal requirements are complied with. Municipality of Parañaque v VM Realty Corp. imposed “through the law conferring the power or in other legislations.50. 2. Inc. respondents alleged that they have no other land in Cebu City. The remaining 315 square meters is the subject of a separate expropriation proceeding in Civil Case No. purpose. Temporary.339. This Court has declared as unconstitutional the Presidential Decrees fixing the just compensation in expropriation cases to be the value given to the condemned property either by the owners or the assessor. The petitioner alleged therein that it needed the parcels of land of respondents for a public purpose.” (See Sec. Resolution. Finally. The principle of res judicata cannot bar the right of the State or its agent to expropriate private property.826. The RTC of Makati issued an order giving it due course. The assessment was approved as the just compensation thereof by the trial court in its Order of 27 December 1996. i. 9 Art. 2005-2006 Ordinarily. Res judicata is present in this case since VM Realty is a successor in interest of Limpan Investment Corp. 4. Article 36. no matter how broad their terms are. No. which petitioner paid to the neighboring lots. or in the amount of P20. it would have said so.A. Petitioner deposited with the Philippine National Bank the amount of P51. or welfare. 1st Sem. The fears of private respondents that they will be paid on the basis of the valuation declared in the tax declarations of their property.Loc Gov Reviewer.A. it contended that Lot No. 7160. The just compensation should be based on the prevailing market price of the property at the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. VM Realty: It failed to state a cause of action since it was filed pursuant to a resolution and not to an ordinance as required by RA 7160. ISSUE: WON just compensation in eminent domain cases commenced by an LGU should be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint. It authorized the petitioner to take possession of the property upon deposit of an amount equivalent to 15% of its fair market value based on its current tax declaration. the question submitted before the court is the sufficiency of the ABG allegations in the complaint itself. Valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated but that it was rejected. RATIO: In their Comment. RATIO: The power of eminent domain is lodged in Congress. as required under Sec. do not embrace the sovereign unless the sovereign is specially mentioned as subject thereto. If Congress intended to allow LGUs to exercise the power through a resolution.. the dispositive portion of the decision was amended to reflect the new valuation. the price offered was very low in light of the consideration of P20. 6 Accordingly. 1528 contains 793 square meters but the actual area to be expropriated is only 478 square meters. more or less. The motion was granted by the trial court on 21 September 1994. The courts defer to such legislative determination and will intervene only when a particular undertaking has no real or substantial relation to the public use.10 per square meter. Petitioner alleged that the lower court erred in fixing the amount of just compensation at P20. CEB-8348. 14 December 1994: The parties executed and submitted to the trial court an Agreement wherein they declared that they have partially settled the case and in consideration thereof they agreed.” ISSUE: WON a resolution duly approved by the municipal council has the same force and effect as an ordinance so as not to deprive an expropriation case of a valid cause of action.400. for the construction of a public road which shall serve as an access/relief road of Gorordo Avenue to extend to the General Maxilum Avenue and the back of Magellan International Hotel Roads in Cebu City. NO. Ordinance.

Court of Appeals. 1996. and/or bottled within the city.624-square meter lot at P20. Estoppel in pais arises when one. In contrast. made over a year later. Eminent domain is the Government's right to appropriate. Costales (1991) FACTS: 13 January 1982: Sanggunian of Zamboanga City passed Ordinance No. Finally. during the hearing on 22 November 1996. 23 of the LTC: A city may impose. We explicitly stated therein that although the general rule in determining just compensation in eminent domain is the value of the property as of the date of the filing of the complaint. The agreement is a contract between the parties. Records show that petitioner consented to conform with the valuation recommended by the commissioners.e.826. which expressly provides that just compensation shall be determined as of the time of actual taking. pursuant to Section 3 of said ordinance. It is therefore too late for petitioner to question the valuation now without violating the principle of equitable estoppel.01 tax per liter of softdrinks produced. the Government must pay the owner thereof just compensation as consideration therefor. a percentage tax on the gross sales for the preceding calendar year of non-essential 13 . There is no evidence to prove petitioner's negative allegation that the subject ordinance was not posted as required by law. The applicable law is Section 187 of the 1991 Local Government Code which provides: “That any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the appeal: Provided. 7160. the applicable law as to the point of reckoning for the determination of just compensation is Section 19 of R. and (3) the determined just compensation fixed is even lower than the actual value of the property at the time of the actual taking in 1994. Rule 67 of the Rules of Court provides that just compensation shall be determined at the time of the filing of the complaint for expropriation. it enumerated the various objections raised by its members before the passage of the ordinance in several meetings called by the Sanggunian for the purpose." More than anything else. beyond thirty (30) days from the effectivity of the Ordinance on October 1. 28 is a revenue measure adopted by the municipality of Hagonoy to fix and collect public market stall rentals. the approved ordinance was not posted. Finance Secretary appealed. The funds for the operation of its agencies and provision of basic services to its inhabitants are largely derived from its revenues and collections. private property for public use or purpose. The periods stated in Section 187 of the Local Government Code are mandatory.A. It has the force of law between them and should be complied with in good faith. In the case at bar. induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief. it imposed a P0. 44. was already time-barred. In petitioner's two (2) communications with the Secretary of Justice. Ordinance No. The date of effectivity of the subject ordinance retroacted to the date of its approval in October 1996. RATIO: The appeal with the Secretary of Justice is already time-barred. However. ISSUE: WON an ordinance that imposes a tax on the output or production of a business is valid. intentionally or through culpable negligence. representations or admissions. It was posted from November 4-25. in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State. Petitioner claimed it was unaware of the posting of the ordinance. Furthermore. by a solemn document freely and voluntarily agreed upon by them. 5 December 1990: Lower court found that the tax imposed by the Ordinance is not among those that the Sanggunian may impose under the Local Tax Code. which is a substantive law. 2005-2006 court. 19. In the case at bar. 28 which increased the stall rentals of the market vendors in Hagonoy. or by his own silence when he ought to speak out. agreed to be bound by the report of the commission and approved by the trial court. enacted Kautusan Blg. as prescribed under Section 187 of the 1991 Local Government Code. finally. It insists that it was unaware of the approval and effectivity of the subject ordinance in 1996 on two (2) grounds: first. Being its lifeblood. but upheld its validity. the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings. Petitioner contends that its period to appeal should be counted not from the time the ordinance took effect in 1996 but from the time its members were personally given copies of the approved ordinance in November 1997. after the ABG required publication or posting has been complied with. RATIO: The authority of the City is limited to the imposition of a percentage tax on the gross sales or receipts of said product which. Municipality: The ordinance took effect on 6 October 1996 and that the ordinance. NO. in lieu of the graduated fixed tax prescribed under Sec. 7160.339. so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts. however.. the effectivity of the assailed ordinance shall not be suspended. YES. Estanislao v. the parties. It cannot detract from its agreement now and assail correctness of the commissioner's assessment. was posted as required by law. collection of revenues by the government is of paramount importance. as approved. We did not categorically rule in that case that just compensation should be determined as of the filing of the complaint. According to Sec. ISSUE: WON the appeal in this case is already time-barred. second.” An appeal of a tax ordinance or revenue measure should be made to the Secretary of Justice within thirty (30) days from effectivity of the ordinance and even during its pendency. shall be at the rate of not exceeding 2% of the gross sales or receipts of the softdrinks for the preceding calendar year. more than a year after the effectivity of the ordinance in 1996. 8 December 1997: Petitioner's President filed an appeal with the Secretary of Justice assailing the constitutionality of the tax ordinance. 19 (a) of the Local Tax Code. 1st Sem. 19 and Sec. November 1997: Petitioner's members were given copies of the approved Ordinance and were informed that it shall be enforced in January. by his acts.A. being non-essential. the rule "admits of an exception: where this Court fixed the value of the property as of the date it was taken and not at the date of the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. The tax imposed is based on the output or production and not on the gross sales or receipts as authorized by the Local Tax Code. 3 December 1982: Finance Minister sent a letter to the Sanggunian suspending the effectivity of the Ordinance as it allegedly contravened Sec. Bulacan. manufactured. i.50. it was estopped from attacking the report on which the decision was based. No. Hence.Loc Gov Reviewer. (2) petitioner did not interpose any serious objection to the commissioners' report of 12 August 1996 fixing the just compensation of the 1. The petitioner has misread our ruling in The National Power Corp. presented evidence which clearly shows that the procedure for the enactment of the assailed ordinance was complied with. 1996. the respondent Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Hagonoy. it was pointed out that petitioner's appeal. That such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and accrual and payment of the tax. Hagonoy Market Vendors Assn v Municipality of Hagonoy Bulacan (2002) FACTS: 1 October 1996: Sangguniang Bayan of Hagonoy. petitioner did not interpose a serious objection. fee or charge levied therein: Provided. 1998. such law cannot prevail over R. Municipal Ordinance No. saying that the Finance Minister did not act on it w/in 120 days from receipt of the petition. Article 3 provided that it shall take effect upon approval. Secretary of Justice: Dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time. Petitioner filed its appeal only in December 1997. Bulacan. 28 took effect in October 1996. vs. That within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal. hence. no public hearing was conducted prior to the passage of the ordinance and. while Section 4.

52 of PD 463. Art. Its minerals had already undergone a chemical change before cement reaches its saleable form. 10. Rizal. 52 of PD 463 only refers to machineries. Sec. It only remains in effect if the minister did not comply with what is due him. 9: solicited 1% donation of the palay threshed from the thresher operators who will apply for a permit to thresh. 19 of PD 231: Municipality may impose a tax on business except those for which fixed taxes are provided for in this Code. Municipality of Pililia.30 Sept 1975 amounting to P161. 53 of the same decree.00 plus 25% surcharge. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources granted us a certificate of tax exemption for a period of 5 years. the Local Autonomy Act. RTC of Tanay upheld the legality of the ordinance. Action for obligation created by law prescribes within ten years from time right of action accrues. subject to such limitation as may be provided by law. and other contributions from private agencies and individuals. The power of taxation is a high prerogative of sovereignty.Loc Gov Reviewer. ISSUE: WON Ordinance Nos. etc. distillers. ISSUE: WON PPC whose oil products are subject to specific tax under the NIRC. ISSUE: WON a resolution imposing a 1% donation is a valid exercise of the taxing power of an LGU. Cagayan. rectifiers. Jurado filed for an action for mandamus with the RTC to compel the issuance of the mayor’s permit and license. and mayor’s permit and sanitary inspection fee unto the respondent Pililia. it must be shown to have been enacted in accordance with the requirements of the Local Tax Code. 52 of PD 463. RATIO (some comments): The Court did not concern itself with the validity of the Resolution since the issue was not raised in the petition as an assigned error of the CA. 6-77. Floro: Not liable since the plaintiff’s powers to levy fees on “Mines. The exemptions mentioned in Sec. Floro Cement Corporation v. HELD: Pililia can only enforce collection from 1976 to 1986 and not those before 1976. is still liable to pay (a) tax on business and (b) storage fees considering Prov. Pililia filed a complaint against PPC for collection of several taxes from 1979 to 1986. except those for which fixed taxes are provided on manufacturers. If it is to be considered as a tax ordinance. PD 231: The barrio council may solicit money. 2005-2006 commodities at the rate of not exceeding two percent and on the gross sales of essential commodities at the rate of not exceeding one percent. 1st Sem.. Local tax code does not provide for prescriptive period for collection of local taxes. Philippine Petroleum Corporation v. As for the Resolution.875. It would include the holding of a public hearing on the measure. Circular No. 26-73: It directed all LGU treasurers to refrain from collecting any local tax imposed in old or new ordinances in the business of manufacturing. 29. ABG They based it on Municipal Ordinance No. Circular No. Drilon v. PPC: Prov. 2. To allow the continuous effectivity of the prohibition would amount to restricting their power to tax by mere admin issuances. it imposed specific tax on refined/ manufactured mineral oils and motor fluids. mixing. and Provincial Circular No. and compounders of liquors. Tanauan: Inapplicable here since it involved a different law. CA: Mayor Tuzon and Treasurer Mapagu are liable to pay P20T as actual damages and P5T as moral damages. distilled spirits. Lim (1994) 14 . in addition to the requisites for publication of ordinances in general. tools. The exercise of LGUs of the power to tax is ordained in the present Constitution. Court of Appeals (1992) FACTS: 14 March 1977: Sangguniang Bayan of Camalaniugan. 1 (Pililia Tax Code) 3 June 1977L PD 1158 was enacted. The Ordinance did not become valid by the inaction of the Finance Minister. Municipality of Pililia imposed Municipal Tax Ordinance No. for production. passed pursuant to PD 231. 5 and 10 apply to petitioner Floro Corporation notwithstanding the limitation provided for in Sec. In enforcing the Ordinance. No Ruling. He filed another petition for declaratory judgment against the resolution for being illegal either as a donation or as a tax measure. importers or producers of any article of commerce of whatever kind or nature. based on the Ordinance. The framers of PD 426 intended to terminate the effectivity of the provincial circulars. wholesaling. Pililia. The taxes are “manufacturers” and “exporter’s” taxes for 1 Jan 1974. it was passed by the Sanggunian in the lawful exercise of its legislative powers granted by the 1973 Constitution which provided that each LGU shall have the power to create its own source revenue and to levy taxes.00 license fee for thresher operators but it was refused on the ground that he did not sign the agreement to give 1% of the palay he produced. The proceeds will fund the construction of the Sports and Nutrition Center Bldg of the municipality. The measures have been sustained in the challenged decision. Tuzon and Mapagu v. 26-73 declared as contrary to national economic policy the imposition of local taxes on the manufacture of petroleum products as they are already subject to specific tax under the NIRC and that it also covers all ordinances. The implementing agency made the “donation” obligatory. NO. PD 231: Local Tax Code: Municipality may impose taxes on business. from which the respondent has not appealed. It is the result of a definite process—crushing of minerals. RATIO: Municipality’s power to levy taxes on manufacturers and importers is provided in Art. Private respondent Jurado tried to pay the P285. 5. Mining Corporations and Mineral Products” was limited by Sec. and Ordinance No. Cement is not a mineral product but rather a manufactured product. Mayor may not waive the payment of the mayor’s permit and sanitary inspection fees. The manufacture and export of cement do not fall under it since it is not a mineral product. 1143 of the Civil Code governs. adopted Resolution No. Rizal (1991) FACTS: Petitioner PPC manufactured lubricated oil basestock which is a petroleum product with its refinery plant in Malaya. 142 (NIRC of 1939): Manufactured oils and other fuels are subject to specific tax. 26 A-73: Instructed treasurers to stop collecting any local tax imposed in tax ordinance enacted before or after the effectivity of the Local Tax Code on 1 July 1973. materials. Its relinquishment is never presumed. etc. including brewers. Gorospe (1991) FACTS: Municipality of Lugait (Misamis Oriental) filed a complaint for collection of taxes against Floro Cement Corporation. grinding. its subsequent approval by the Secretary of Finance. Sec. equipment. as provided in Sec. Petitioner Lope Mapagu (treasurer) prepared a document for signature of all thresher/ owner/ operators who applied for a mayor’s permit. 5(m) of PD 231 and Sec. Sec. retailing or dealing in petroleum products subject to specific tax under the NIRC. RATIO: Admin regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law. Pepsi Cola v. and/ or wines… Finance Secretary: Issued Provincial Circular No.

whether for proprietary or government purposes. Although the text was not translated and disseminated. 1940: A warehouse with a floor area of 1. The delegation of taxing power is not even involved since the tax has already been imposed and the LGUs are just mandated to enforce it. and there would be no need for congress to specify “Real Property Tax Code. homesteaders and other claimants. 8471 (1985) and 10454 (1986). RATIO: To come under the exemption in Article 3. YES. Benguet: LGUs don’t have any authority to levy realty taxes on mines pursuant to Sec. industrial. Justice Secretary: It is constitutional and the procedural requirements for the enactment of tax ordinances as specified in the LGC had indeed not been observed. Secretary Drilon did not set aside the Manila Revenue Code. Benguet Corporation v.: Appealed the decision to the LBAA of Benguet. he is not also permitted to substitute his own judgment for the judgment of the local government that enacted the measure. the warehouse constructed on the reserved land by NWC. NO. ice drop factory. When LGUs are required to fix the rates. they are not pertinent to the issue before the SC. mining. for collection of real property tax. Sol Gen: Benguet is estopped from raising the question of lack of authority as it was never raised before. CTA & NWSA: Properties of NWSA. a different rule should apply since the exemption of public property from taxation does not extend to improvements on the public lands made by preemptioners. 187 authorizes the Secretary to review only the constitutionality or legality of the tax ordinances and to revoke them if it does not pass the set standards. Benguet Corp. In Manila’s petition for certiorari. 1st Sem. Notices of the pubic hearings were sent to the interested parties. or occupants. The SC has also used the standard of “use” of property rather than “ownership” as basis for real estate taxability. 5 (m) of the Local Tax Code are mere limitations on the taxing power of LGUs. becomes immaterial. (2) If the SC were to sanction the interpretation of Benguet. It also declared Section 187 of the LGC as unconstitutional since it vests in the Justice Secretary the power of control over LGUs in violation of the policy of local autonomy mandated in the Constitution. WON the real tax exemption granted under PD 745 was withdrawn by PD 1955. Cebu City (1992) FACTS: NDC is authorized to engage in commercial. as recipient of the land reserved by the President. CBAA held the exemption was withdrawn so petitioner should have applied for restoration of the exemption with the Fiscal Incentives Review Board. RATIO: Sec. 187 of the LGC is unconstitutional for granting the Justice Secretary the power of control over LGUs. 7794 (Manila Revenue Code) null and void for non-compliance with the procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances and for containing certain provisions contrary to law and public policy. consisting of 4. As regards the warehouse constructed. this requirement applies to the approval of local dev’t plans and public investment programs and not to tax ordinances. The tax exemptions of bunkhouses under Sec.435. and these are taxable by the state. NDC: The Assessment Law exempts properties owned by the Republic from real estate tax.599 square meters. considering that its publication in three successive issues of a newspaper of general circulation will satisfy due process. of Cebu City. It set the auction sale of the private respondent’s properties to satisfy the real estate taxes due. they are merely constituted as agents of the national government in the enforcement of the real property tax code. LBAA: affirmed taxability of the bunkhouses. the Manila RTC sustained the ordinance. they have all been observed as correctly found by the trial court. Central Board of Assessment Appeals (1992) FACTS: Benguet Provincial Assessor: Assessed real property tax on the bunkhouses of petitioner Benguet Corporation occupied for residential purposes by its rank and file employees under Tax Declaration Nos. Cebu: Taxable since no law grants NDC exemption from real estate taxes. for warehousing purposes under the administration of NWC. 40 par. it does not follow that they also have the authority to determine WON they can impose the tax. When he alters or modifies or sets aside a tax ordinance. All he said is that it is illegal. 2005-2006 FACTS: Justice Secretary: declared Ordinance No. etc. ABG It is the national government that levies real property tax. YES. Although LGUs are charged with fixing the rates of real property tax. RTC of Tarlac: dismissed the complaint filed by the Province against Tarlac Enterprises.55. NWC was succeeded by NDC.940 square meters was constructed on it. ISSUE: WON a public land reserved by the president for warehousing purposes in favor of a GOCC. indeed. RATIO: (1) The provisions of Sec. Tarlac Enterprises admitted the demands for the payment but refused to pay it on the ground that it was exempted under Sec. but he did not replace it with his own version of what the Code should be. National Development Corporation v. agricultural and other enterprises needed for economic development. If they are not followed. 4. as well as a warehouse subsequently erected thereon are exempt from real property tax. The Municipality of Tarlac assessed taxes in the amount of P532. in his discretion . Inc. the minutes are there. He did not pronounce it as unwise or unreasonable. The intention is to limit the application of the “exception clause” only to those given by the Real Property Tax Code. machinery shed. order that the act be undone or redone by his subordinate or even decide to do it himself. is liable for payment of ordinary taxes. NDC paid under protest. They have ceased to be exempt under the Assessment Law when the government disposed of them in favor of NDC. as amended” instead of stating clearly realty tax exemption laws. They cannot affect the imposition of the real property tax by the national government. the erroneous tax payments collected by Cebu should be refunded to NDC. On appeal. ISSUE: WON respondent assessors may validly assess real property tax on the properties of petitioner considering the proscription in the Local Tax Code and the Mineral Resources Development Decree of 1974 against imposition of taxes on mines by local governments. Board of Assessment Appeals v. 4. then necessarily all real properties exempt by any law would be covered. CBAA: held that the bldgs of petitioner used as dwellings were exempt from real property tax pursuant to PD 745. Consequently. and they were published. Province of Tarlac v. Since the reservation is exempt from realty tax. sets. a GOCC. Reclamation Area No. 430 which reserved Block No. As regards the procedural requirements. 1948: Cebu City assessed and collected from NDC real estate taxes on the land and the warehouse. Respondent must just pay the 2% franchise tax. 3 of PD 745 was withdrawn by PD 1955. 52 of PD 463 and Sec. NDC. An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. 15 . the nature of the use of the property. 52 of the Mineral Resources Dev’t Decree of 1974 (PD 463) and Sec. ISSUE: WON Sec. it is important to establish that the property is owned by the government or by its unincorporated agency. Judge Alcantara (1992) FACTS: Tarlac Enterprises owned certain properties: parcel of land. at their own expense. The only exceptions are the posting of the ordinances as approved but this omission does not affect its validity. 10 August 1939: President issued Proclamation No. should properly be assessed real estate tax as such improvement does not appear to belong to the Republic. 5 (m) of the Local Tax Code. machinery of diesel elect. (g) of PD 464 in relation to PD 551. are exempt from real estate tax since the law applies to all government properties whether held in a proprietary or governmental capacity. he may. YES as regards public land.Loc Gov Reviewer. and once government ownership is determined.

and the general statement must be taken to affect only such cases within its language as are not within the provisions of the particular enactment. RATIO: The Constitution clearly includes not only ordinances but resolutions as appropriate subject of a local initiative.1. he shall automatically exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the Governor. the Court answered with a NO. No cockpit shall be allowed to operate without the proper registration certificate being secured annually. 378 failed to comply with the votes needed for its validity. RATIO: Resolution No. He was the licensee of a cockpit. wrote the COMELEC requesting a denial of the petition for local initiative as the exercise “will just promote divisiveness. Said enumerated items have no relation to. WON the mayor’s permits are null and void for not obtaining the ¾ votes in passing Resolution No.” 6 July 1993: COMELEC denied the petition for local initiative since its subject is merely a resolution and not an ordinance. Respondent Gingoog Gallera. In case of a temporary vacancy. The mayor’s permits are null and void for violating the PGC rules. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Gingoog City passed Resolution No. A Vice-Governor who is concurrently an Acting Governor is actually a quasi-Governor. the new Code delineated the union of the executivelegislative powers in the provincial. v. it intended resolutions to 8 7 Rules and Regulations of the PGC state that: Sec. 24 May 1993: Petition was filed with the SB to annul PK 10. (a) “Initiative” is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an election called for the purpose. The classification led to the cancellation of Casiño’s license to operate. 1981. Thus. without any action. in case of “permanent vacancy” therein. and are entirely different from. The lower court erred in exempting the private respondents from paying real property tax on its properties enumerated in the complaint. that for the purposes of exercising his legislative prerogatives and powers. ISSUE: WON an incumbent Vice-Governor. There are three (3) systems of initiative. the machinery for the generation and distribution of electric power. This means. HELD: Although the issue is already moot given the expiration of the terms of office of the parties. while concurrently the Acting Governor. 6. are necessary for the operation of its business of generation. under Sec. Jr. When it was transmitted to the mayor. The constitutional command to include acts (i. Sec. PGC did not grant such ABG certificate because the cockpit was not constructed within the appropriate areas of the city as prescribed in its zoning laws. resolutions) as appropriate subjects of initiative was implemented by Congress when it enacted RA 6735. 378 is invalid.3. FACTS: August 1995: Negros Occidental Governor designated petitioner as Acting Governor for the duration of the former’s trip abroad.44 of the ordinance. It is true that in this case. Ordinance No. 16 . In addition to that. city and municipal levels except in the Barangay. soliciting the number of signatures needed to repeal the resolution. stating that his approval was not needed since it did not involve a disposition of city funds. 40 (g) of PD 464 in relation to PD 551 as amended. Not being included in the enumeration.. section 3(a) includes resolutions as subjects of initiatives on local legislation. 22 Sept 1995: Respondents filed a petition for declaratory relief and prohibition. Jr. counter productive and futility. the location of the Coliseum). income and privilege of generation.8 When Congress enacted RA 6735. distribution and sale of electric current and should be exempt from taxation. However. COMELEC FACTS: Sangguniang Bayan of Morong passed Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. the bldg housing said machinery. Morong did not take any action on the petition within 30 days after its submission. No registration certificate was issued by the PGC. ISSUE: WON the PGC controls the Coliseum with respect to cockfights. Being the Acting Governor. the Vice Governor only “acts” and does not “become” the governor. This was renewed a year later. In the enactment of ordinances in general. Petitioners resorted to their power of initiative under the LGC of 1991. 49 was therefore not amended. he becomes the Governor and assumes the higher office for the unexpired term of his predecessor. distribution and sale” which specifies the kinds of taxes and assessments which shall not be collected in view of the imposition of the franchise tax. 378 reclassified Block 125 as within the recreational zone. respondents questioned the authority of petitioner to preside in view of his designationas Acting Governor. de Leon. E. Seven members of the SP voted to allow the petitioner to continue presiding while 4 voted against it. RATIO: The SC did not agree with the lower court that the phrase “in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatever nature” in the second paragraph of Sec. Gamefowl Commission. When the SP held its regular session.Loc Gov Reviewer. Mayor Lugod (succeeding mayor) issued to petitioner the permit to operate a cockpit dated 2 April 1986. RATIO: Sections 49(a) and 466(a)(1) of RA 7160 provide that the Vice Governor shall be the presiding officer of the SP. not later than January 31. 378. 49. Garcia v. Court of Appeals (1991) FACTS: Casiño owned the Don Romulo Rodriguez Coliseum. the particular enactment must be operative. thus allegedly amending Resolution No. 2005-2006 ISSUE: WON Tarlac Enterprises is exempt from the payment of real property tax under Sec. Definitions. The Vice Mayor and Presiding Officer of the SB. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the Constitution.e. the application of the LGC is undisputed. Said proviso is modified and delimited by the phrase “on earnings. it is specific regarding amendments. ISSUE: WON a resolution can be the subject of a local initiative. YES.7 It was a condition precedent to the granting of a mayor’s permit. Aguirre. When there is in the same statute a particular enactment and also a general one which in its most comprehensive sense would include what is embraced in the former. real properties subject to tax. Gamboa. The PGC did not issue any certificate of registration! PGC OIC: Suspend the operation of the cockpit. YES. YES. the Vice Governor cannot continue to simultaneously exercise the duties of the latter office since the nature of the duties of the provincial Governor call for a full-time occupant to discharge them. Pvt. Unlike the old Code where the Governor is not only the provincial Chief Executive but also the presiding officer of the local executive body. Cockpits shall be constructed and operated within the appropriate areas as prescribed in zoning laws or ordinances. Casiño v. 12. the Governor is deemed excluded. receipts. 13 August 1985: Res. 1 of PD 551 expressly exempts private respondent from paying real property taxes. NO. namely: a. Sec. may continue to preside over the sessions of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Petitioner: The ¾ requirement is ultra vires and was just a formal requirement. The Governor is no longer a member of the SP. and the land on which said bldg is constructed. 49 which classified certain areas of the city as residential zones (it included Block 125. 10 (1993): It agreed to the inclusion of the municipality as part of the Subic Special Economic Zone in accord with RA 7227. No. he returned it within 10 days. he is deemed as a non-member of the SP for the time being. There is also no merit in the respondent’s contention that the real properties being taxed. Inc: Protested the operation of the Coliseum before the Phil. GGI: Resolution No. Block 125 remains classified as a residential area. All cockpits in the Philippines shall register with the Philippine Gamefowl Commission not later than September 30. 6. 1st Sem.

5 March 1968: Liberal councilors passed an amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Naga municipal board granting the chairman thereof the right to vote as a member. Bataan. or act that they desire or because they want to amend or modify one already existing. 3. Referendum is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation through an election called for that purpose. 10. 122 par. On the other issue. RATIO: The law is clear. ISSUE: WON COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in scheduling a local initiative which seeks to annul Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. Calimbas. requesting Congress to amend certain provisions of RA 7227. the COMELEC shall state a date for the initiative at which the proposition shall be submitted to the registered voters in the LGU. 25 is void.Loc Gov Reviewer. of the municipal council of Tabaco. April 1993: Sangguniang Bayan of Morong. It included a referendum day. The LGC of 1991 dealt with local initiative and did not change or limit its scope. passed Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg 10. For the passage of (1) any ordinance or (2) any proposition creating indebtedness. Under Sec. referendum is begun and consented to by the lawmaking body. The SB acted on it by promulgating PK 18. 2. the Municipal Resolution still in the proposal stage. to create a tie vote and to then exercise her power to break such deadlock. with 7 councilors and the vice-mayor of Naga present. as required by Sec. 1 Feb 1995: President issued Proclamation No. 2848 which provided the rules and guidelines to govern the conduct of the referendum proposing to annul or repeal KB 19 of the SB of Morong. vice-mayor Perez expressed her intention to vote. al. it needs only application. Should the proponents collect the required number within the period granted by the statute. 27 June 1996: COMELEC promulgated the Res. resolution. Perez reiterated the same intention to vote twice. and 6 members voted against the ordinance. or amend any ordinance. COMELEC Ortiz v. 2845: Adopting a calendar of activities for local referendum on certain municipal ordinances passed by the SB of Morong. Perez v. Indirect initiative. Other measures prevail upon the majority vote of the members present. whether or not an ordinance creating an indebtedness. It cannot be argued that the subject matter of the resolution merely temporarily affects the people of Morong for it directs a permanent rule of conduct or government. Premature. The vice mayor is not a member of the board but only its presiding officer. ABG presentation. expressing its concurrence. It does not. deal with subjects that can be taken up in a local initiative. 120. ISSUE: WON an ordinance passed by a majority of the members present and not by a majority of all the members is valid.2. Ordinance No. The debates confirm this intent. however. 12 of RA 7227. giving notice thereof to the local legislative body concerned. 2005-2006 be the proper subjects of local initiatives. 24 May 1993: Respondents Garcia. Not once was the term “initiative used in the resolution. the proponents through their duly authorized and registered representatives may invoke their power of initiative. 25. et. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. 6 July 1993: COMELEC denied the petition for local initiative on the ground that the subject was merely a resolution and not an ordinance. Congress differentiated the two: 1. city. provincial. The basic idea of the legislative body is to make impossible the approval of ordinances or of propositions creating indebtedness by minority votes of municipal councils at meetings hastily called. filed a petition with the SB of Morong to annul Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg 10 and asked for several conditions precedent before Morong joins the SSEZ. 10 July 1996: SBMA filed this action contesting the validity of Sec. Albay. municipal. The inclusion of Morong in SSEZ has far reaching implications. defining the metes and bounds of the SSEZ 18 June 1996: COMELEC issued Resolution No. While initiative is entirely the work of the electorate. (2) all propositions to create any liability against the municipality. At the indication by the 4 Nacionalista Party councilors of their desire to vote for a particular person as secretary of the board and to hold the chairmanship of the committee on markets for one of them.3 Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional. and as presiding officer the right to vote again in case of a tie. The ayes and noes are taken upon (1) the passage of all ordinances. It is not yet an approved law. It is contended that only ordinances creating indebtedness require the approval of a majority of all the members of the council. or barangay law. upon the request of any member. The process and voting in an initiative are more complex than in a referendum where the voters simply write either “yes” or “no” in a ballot. Chapter 2. 10 Jan 1968: in another conference. Sec. resolution. 24 Nov 1992: US Navy turned over the military reservation to the government. and (3) any other proposition. De la Cruz FACTS: 8 Jan 1968: During a private conference held at the office of the petitioner Perez. Respondents: We are entitled to relief of restraining the vice-mayor from voting on legislative matters and acts/ proceedings of the board. Book I merely defines the concept of local initiative as the legal process whereby the registered voters of a local government unit may directly propose. ordinance. Initiative is resorted to by the people directly either because the lawmaking body fails or refuses to enact a law. the respondents resorted to their power of initiative under Sec. The same idea is carried into the next sentence. YES. concerning cockpits. in the deliberation of such matters. 2224 of the Administrative Code. It was then submitted to the OP. or ordinance. requiring in mandatory language the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the municipal council for the passage of any ordinance. WON the local initiative seeks the amendment of a national law. V. the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the municipal council shall be necessary. Title IX. to join the SSEZ. If it refuses to do so within 30 days from its a. and a. 2848 on the argument that COMELEC is intent on proceeding with a local initiative that proposes an amendment of a national law. the matter of selecting the secretary of the municipal board of the city as well as the chairmen of the various standing committees came up for discussion. The petitioners were also denied their right to due process.power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an election called for the purpose. Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact a national legislation. Unsatisfied. he cannot vote except in case of a tie. There is a need for the COMELEC to supervise an initiative more closely especially if the proposal is lengthy and complicated. RATIO: The process started by private respondents was an initiative but COMELEC made preparations for a referendum only. Initiative. Sec. 1st Sem. an ordinance passed by less than that majority is invalid. including the president. UNANSWERED. voted in favor of Ordinance No. FACTS: 7 out of the 13 members present. No.Exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition sent to Congress or the local legislative body for action. Posadas FACTS: 13 March 1992: RA 7227 was enacted (Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992). 532. 17 . with 3 members absent. it provided for the creation of the Subic Special Economic Zone. B of the LGC of 1991. 13 of RA 6735: local legislative body is given the opportunity to enact the proposal. that as such. enact.

the accused already waived his right to a reconciliation proceeding before the barangay given that the two parties are residents of different barangays. petitions. the vice mayor of CDO city was made a member of the board. Section 6 of PD 1508 is clear: Conciliation is a precondition to the filing of a complaint. Fernando: Implementation of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law: Judges were directed to desist from receiving complaints. Petitioner: filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that they didn’t comply with PD 1508 (prior referral to Lupon) Judge: At this stage. WON the Lupon has the authority to settle amicably all types of disputes involving parties who actually reside in the same city or municipality. The powers of municipal corporations delegated thereto by the National Government cannot escape the inherent limitations to which the latter—as the source of said powers—is subject. RATIO: There is nothing in RA 305 (Charter of Naga City) that provides that the vice mayor is a member of the municipal board. the proportionate value of the leased premises shall be the basis for determining the maximum rental to which the same may be increased. There is no longer a state of emergency which justifies the regulation of house rentals. as the city treasurer was designated as the “acting mayor” in case of the absence of the mayor. By explicit statutory command. If it was the intention of the law to restrict its coverage only to cases cognizable by the inferior courts. besides being a presiding officer of a municipal board. It limits the use of private properties.00. 21 April 1993: Respondents were examined for alleged injuries inflicted by petitioner. Contreras FACTS: Petitioner subleased from respondent Susanna Atayde the other half of the 2nd F of a bldg located in Makati. as well the absence of a certification by the Lupon or Pangkat Secretary that no conciliation or settlement had been reached by the parties. Uy v. Circular No. 9 ABG Petitioners: It must be dismissed because of the failure of the complainants to allege prior availment by the plaintiffs of the barangay conciliation process required by PD 1508. Quiem v. By compelling the disputants to settle their differences through the intervention of the barangay leader and other respected leaders of the barangay. 4841. the length of which must be “reasonable. then it would have said so. It is designed to discourage the indiscriminate filing of cases in court.400. If only a portion of the land is leased or subleased. prescribed by PD 1508 as a precondition for filing a complaint in court. An Ordinance Regulating Rentals of Lots and Building for Residential Purposes: It prohibited lessors and sublessors from increasing the rental to an amount in excess of the proportion. 1st Sem. If the demands of the public welfare are brought about by a state of emergency. in the increase of the assessed value of the land leased or subleased. Municipal Board of Manila FACTS: 21 Dec 1963: City of Manila approved Ordinance No. A law or ordinance affecting the rights of individuals. NO. NO. in addition to being the presiding officer thereof. as a means t tide over a critical condition. to create a deadlock and then to break it? NO. Go FACTS: 5 August 1982: Victor Go and Flora Go filed in the CFI of Cebu a complaint against petitioners for recovery of a sum of money plus damages amounting to P49. 17 April 1993: Argument between petitioner and Atayde when the former sough to withdraw her remaining movable properties from the premises. She operated a beauty parlor. but for actions cognizable by the regional trial courts as well. 18 . is avoided. The complainant may go directly to court where the complaint is about to prescribe and be barred by the statute of limitations. Makati. CFI: The power to declare a state of emergency exclusively pertains to Congress. It must be reasonable. 23 April 1993: Respondents filed a complaint with the brgy captain of Valenzuela. Inc. The judge denied the motion to dismiss. a disruptive factor toward unity and cooperation. but it did not provide that he shall be considered a member of the city council or municipal board. 2005-2006 ISSUE: WON the vice mayor. actions. 15 April 1993: Sublease contract expired but petitioner was not able to remove all of her movable properties. courts are given authority to determine the validity of municipal proceedings. VIII. or proceedings in cases falling within the authority of said Lupons. The rules of procedure of the municipal board of Naga City exclude the chairman from voting except in case of a tie vote. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS Homeowner’s Association of the Philippines. The mere fact that the vice mayor was made the “presiding officer” did not ipso jure make him a member thereof. RATIO: The authority of municipal corporations to regulate is essentially police power. the interference upon individual rights must be coextensive and coterminous with the existence thereof. the regulations promulgated must also be temporary. since in that case. must be for a “definite” period of time. The law makes no distinction with respect to the classes of civil disputes that should be compromised at the barangay level. NO. YES.9 The petitioners challenged this and the CFI declared it illegal and void ab initio. 22 issued by C. owners were prohibited from increasing the rentals to an amount beyond 10% per annum of the assessed value of the bldg leased and the land on which the bldg stands. RATIO: The conciliation process at the barangay level. The exercise of police power is subject to a qualification.Loc Gov Reviewer. Seriña case is not at point. The position of vice mayor was not even provided for. to be valid and legal.J. It was followed by a scuffle between the petitioner and Atayde and her employees. ISSUE: WON a municipal ordinance that controls the increase in rent for an indefinite period is a valid exercise of police power.” in relation to the nature and duration of the crisis it seeks to overcome or surmount. is compulsory not only for cases falling under the exclusive competence of the metropolitan and municipal trial courts. It is true that RA 2259 created the post of vice mayor. The Lupon of each barangay has the authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of disputes except in some specified cases. The offense occurred in Makati. 11 May 1993: Office of Prov’l Prosecutor of Rizal filed 2 informations for slight physical injuries against the petitioner. Since emergencies are temporary. v. Morata v. In the absence of any statutory authority constituting the vice mayor as a member of the municipal board. As regards buildings. by express legal mandate. is also a member thereof? Can he vote twice. To say that the authority of the Lupon is limited to cases exclusively cognizable by the inferior courts is to lose sight of its objective. those found in the Bill of Rights. ISSUE: WON the dismissal was proper. percentage-wise. and the offense is about to prescribe. The law defines the scope of authority of the Lupon. the animosity generated by protracted court litigations between members of the same political unit. we cannot read into the law something which is not there.

shall be brought in the barangay where such workplace or institution is located. As to venue. offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding P5. NO. The 3rd case involved a charge of rendering an unjust decision. 408 (c). the SC was not persuaded. ISSUE: WON the case should be dismissed because of the general averment of Alvarado that the case was not referred to the Lupon. but it is now under the LGC. Alvarado: The affidavit was forged. The RTC reversed the ruling of the MTC.Loc Gov Reviewer. ignorance of the law and abuse of authority for issuing an arrest warrant against Wingarts despite the lack of prior barangay conciliation. or until 22 June 1993. be from receipt by the complainant of the certificate of repudiation or the certification to file action issued by the lupon. he could have remanded the case to the lupon instead of taking cognizance thereof and prematurely issuing the warrant of arrest against the accused.00 require prior barangay conciliation. The judge was also charged with incompetence. Judge Mejia: I believed that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law since a certification from the barangay captain was given to him. Salomon of the Bonifacio Law Office charged Judge Bellosillo of the MTC with ignorance of the law. PD 1508 was expressly repealed. These complaints were an offshoot of 3 criminal cases decided by the judge and involving Wingarts and Col. 2 Apr 1996: An order was given referring the ejectment case back to the barangay for concilation proceedings despite the fact that it was alleged in the verified complaint that the matter had already been referred to the barangay and that a copy of the Certification to File Motion was attached. the jurisprudence built thereon regarding prior referral to the lupon as a precondition to the filing of an action in court remains applicable. 19 . It increased the authority of the lupon in criminal cases to offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding P5. or arbitration process. Alvarado and the other lessees executed an “Affidavit of Waiver” granting Barredo the right to sell his house to any person who can afford to purchase it. NO. 2. a certification to file action is issued.00. properly. Judge Bellosillo FACTS: Atty. Barredo: Decided to sell his property to the tenants in May 1988. The crime of grave threats punishable under Art. and Partiality in connection with a civil case. Since the slight physical injuries charged were allegedly inflicted on 17 April 1993. The proceeding in PD 1508 is not a jurisdictional requirement and noncompliance therewith cannot affect the jurisdiction which the lower court had already acquired over the subject matter and the parties. The answer of Alvarado reveals that no reason or explanation was given to support his allegation. However. However. RATIO: The MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over ejectment cases.00. It provides for the suspension of the prescriptive periods of offenses during the pendency of the mediation. John Wingarts was charged with malicious mischief and grave threats. Barredo sold his house to Corpuz for P37. Court of Appeals FACTS: Alvarado and Corpuz: 2 tenants of Lorenzo Barredo. Dui v. it could not resolve the issue of ownership. Munar. the MTC decision was reinstated. A tenancy relationship was established between Corpuz and Alvarado. the phrase “the complaint or” is not found. 1st Sem. Paragraph (c) of Section 410 suffers from ambiguity when it states that the prescriptive periods “shall resume upon receipt by the complainant of the complaint or the certificate of repudiation or of the certification to file action issued by the lupon or pangkat secretary. Since the petition involves the issue of possession intertwined with the issue of ownership.500. Such suspension shall not exceed 60 days. Grave Abuse of Discretion. 282 of the Revised Penal Code falls within the purview of that section. 3. Corpuz filed an action for unlawful detainer for recovery of possession of the room occupied by Alvarado. in Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations issued by the SOJ. The revised katarungang pambarangay law has 3 new significant features: 1. the respondents would still have 56 days within which to file their separate criminal complaints for such offense. the dispute was not referred to the Lupong Tagapayapa. The only issue to be resolved in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases is the physical or material possession over the real property.” What is referred to as receipt by the complainant of the complaint is unclear. it provides that disputes arising at the workplace where the contending parties are employed or at the institution where such parties are enrolled for study. In the admin complaint relative to the malicious mischief case. The MTC ordered Alvarado to vacate the room. Had Mejia observed the mandate of the law. October 1991: Corpuz demanded that Alvarado vacate the room that he was occupying since the children of the former needed it for their own use. If no mediation is reached. its running was tolled by the filing of the respondents’ complaints with the lupon of Valenzuela on 23 April 1993. Bonifacio Law Office v. Accordingly. Petition was granted. Although PD 1508 has already been repealed. RATIO: The law on the katarungang pambarangay was originally governed by PD 1508. It discourages any intentional delay of the referral to a date close to the expiration of the prescriptive period and then invoking such proximity as the reason for immediate recourse to the courts. Corpuz v. Mejia FACTS: John Wingarts and Ophelia Wingarts filed three letter complaints against Judge Mejia of the MTC of Pangasinan. such that the resumption of the running of the prescriptive period shall.000. conciliation. The third feature is aimed at maximizing the effectiveness of the mediation. 2005-2006 Respondents: Prior referral is not applicable since they are not residents of barangays in the same city or municipality or of adjoining barangays in different cities or municipalities. and automatically suspended for a period of 60 days. Refugia applies: The inferior court may look into the evidence of title or ownership and possession de jure insofar as said evidence would indicate or determine the nature of possession. that is. ABG RATIO: The judge is liable for incompetence and ignorance of the law for taking cognizance of the criminal case despite the legal obstacles thereto. ISSUE: WON the judge properly issued the warrant of arrest without the required compliance with the KP law. ISSUE: WON a complaint that is about to prescribe is exempted from PD 1508. Wingarts v. The case was later on dismissed and indorsed to the barangay official concerned. CA: The failure of a party to specifically allege the fact that there was no compliance with the Barangay conciliation procedure constitutes a waiver of that defense. possession de facto. the prescriptive period would have expired 2 mos after. NO. the judge was charged with malicious delay in the administration of justice.000. As regards the non-referral to the Lupon. Under Art.

” 7 July 1999: Mendova filed with the OCA an admin complaint against the judge. the Ombudsman filed a case for usurpation of judicial function against the mayor in the MTC of Loreto. In this case. Offender is an officer of the executive branch. The defense that the former LGC allowed mayors to issue an arrest warrant will not prosper. The alleged offense took place on 15 February 1998. He complied but no action was taken. summoned Muñez to his office for conference respecting a land dispute which Muñez had with one Tirso Amado. the crime of usurpation of judicial authority involves the following elements: 1. When he filed on 4 May 1998. Eastern Samar. The complaint in this case did not bother to file a motion for reconsideration of the judge’s decision. Muñez v. From the date of the commission of the alleged offense. DILG: Reversed it and held that the warrant was actually just an “invitation or summons. this being evidenced by the elimination in the present Constitution of the phrase “such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law” found in the counterpart provision of the 1973 Constitution. He cannot fault Judge Afable for dismissing his case based on prescription. Bgy Chairman Quintua. Corp. directing the defendants to submit their Comment. mayors were authorized to issue arrest warrants. NO. 1st Sem. the acts did not constitute a crime under the law. v. he assumes judicial powers. the records fail to show when the complainant received the Barangay Certification to File Action. Bataan 20 . a complaint for slight physical injuries against Robert Palada. more than two months have elapsed… Art. The barangay failed to exert enough effort required by law to conciliate between the parties and to settle the case. 3 Nov 1998: Judge dismissed the case on the ground of prescription. 2. or where the respondent fails to appear at the mediation proceeding before the Punong Barangay. or obstructs the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction. It took a year from the time of the filing of the complaint for the judge to order that summons be served on the defendants. 410 (c) that while the dispute is under mediation. Municipality of Balanga. however. The prescriptive periods shall resume upon receipt by the complainant of the complaint or the certificate of repudiation or of the certification to file action issued by the Lupon or Pangkat Secretary. These elements were alleged in the information. RATIO: The acts alleged in the information constitute a crime. Under Art. It also faulted him with disregarding the Rules on Summary Procedure by calling for a preliminary conference. the Punong Barangay shall not cause the issuance of the CFA but must constitute the Pangkat Tagapamayapa before whom the conciliation proceedings should be held. After PI. Mayor Irisari issued a warrant of arrest against him. the function of determining probable cause and issuing warrants of arrest or search warrants may be exercised only by judges. He alleged that the judge did not apply the provisions of the LGC which state in Sec. Office of the Court Administrator: Judge is guilty and recommended a P3. It showed that no personal confrontation took place before a duly constituted Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo took place. the same may not be considered ignorance of the law. 241 of the Revised Penal Code. No investigation was conducted afterwards. Greater Balanga Dev. Section 143 of the LGC has been abrogated by the 1987 Constitution. Agusan del Sur. Muñez filed a complaint against Mayor Irisari for grave misconduct and usurpation of judicial function with the Ombudsman as well as an admin complaint for violation of the Constituion. YES. Under Sec. RATIO: The records reveal that such Certification was improperly and prematurely issued. 143 (3) of the former LGC. 27 December 1989: Since Muñez failed to attend. in his Certification. ISSUE: WON the judge should be held administratively liable. The ABG undated certification he submitted merely states that the case was set for hearing before the barangay on several dates.Loc Gov Reviewer. the prescriptive periods for offenses and causes of action under existing laws shall be interrupted upon filing of the complaint with the Punong Barangay. The case was later on assigned to Judge Ariño after the 1st judge inhibited himself. Mendova v.000. ISSUE: WON the judge in this case should be deemed administratively liable.00 fine. 14-93 provides: In case mediation efforts have proven to be unsuccessful. 90 of the Revised Penal Code provides that light offenses prescribe in 2 months. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan found him guilty of misconduct and abuse of authority and suspended him for 8 months. San Julian.” The respondent judge reconsidered his previous order and dismissed the case. It can only be an error in judgment. Ponsica v. Limayan. This provision has been repealed by the 1987 Constitution. Pangkat Chairman Cabago also certified that the case was set for hearing but that the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement. he still failed to present proof of his receipt of the BCFA. The instant administrative complaint is premature. much less issue orders of arrest. there having been no agreement to arbitrate. and failing to render judgment within the reglementary period. The first hearing was dated 16 Feb 1999 and yet the CFA was issued on 1 March 1996. Ariño FACTS: 26 December 1989: Mayor Asuero Irisari of Loreto. but the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement. that such interruption shall not exceed 60 days from the filing of the complaint with the Punong Barangay. Provided. “Complaint in this case dated 20 April 1998 was filed with this Court on 4 May 1998…. misconduct in office and abuse of authority with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur. What he issued was a warrant of arrest. confirmed such fact. Ignalaga: No longer does the mayor have at this time the power to conduct PI. ISSUE: WON the requirements of the LGC on the lupon were complied with. he was required to submit the minutes of the hearings. It was reflected in the minutes submitted by the complainants. OCA: found Bellosillo either ignorant or negligent in referring the case back to the barangay despite the presence of a valid Certificate to File Action. Supreme Court Circular No. Irisari: Quash the information. 4 May 1998: Complainant filed with the MCTC of San Julian a similar complaint. until the dismissal of the case on 3 November 1998. The constitutional proscription has thereby been manifested that thenceforth. NO. RATIO: An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every irregular or erroneous order or decision issued by a judge where a judicial remedy is available. While respondent admitted his mistake. Judge Afable FACTS: 18 Feb 1998: Mendova filed with the Office of the Brgy Chairman of Poblacion. The warrant was served by CFC Caballes and Cpl. 2005-2006 When Salomon asked about the order.

The mayor must observe due process in exercising these powers. Lim’s exercise of the power violated Bistro’s property rights that are protected under the due process clause of the Constitution. COMELEC FACTS: The Tripoli Agreement took effect on 23 December 1976. 7716 which prohibits police raids and inspections. Mayor Banzon then issued EO No. this still does not justify the revocation of the Mayor’s permit. was registered under a TCT in the name of petitioner. Bataan. and petitioner did not make any false statement in the pertinent entry. the landowner cannot be deprived of its right over the land. The manner of revocation also violated the petitioner’s right to due process. because of a false statement in the application form cannot be justified under the quoted provision. Mayor Banzon issued Permit No. Their Code does not expressly require two permits for the conduct of 2 or more businesses in one place. The Municipality replied by saying that the petitioners violated an ordinance when it failed to disclose the true status of the area and when it failed to secure separate permits for its two businesses (Balanga Revenue Code). Under the Constitution and RA 6734. however. 3 (iv) of the LGC of 1991. Article II of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila and in Sec. WON RA 6734 is unconstitutional as it does away with the required plebiscite. 1 August 1989: RA 6734 was enacted. The application for 2 businesses in one permit is not a ground for revocation. The disputed land lies behind the market. as well as the work permit for its staff for the year 1993. It provided for the establishment of Autonomy in the Southern Philippines within the realm of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines and enumerated the 13 provinces comprising the areas of autonomy. It found out that certain portions of the property had been usurped by the municipality which had tolerated the construction of shanties and market stalls while charging fees and entrance fees from the occupants and users of the area. it provided for regional autonomy. ISSUE: WON a mayor may order the closure of a nightclub absent any violation of the conditions for the granting of its license. Assuming arguendo that the lot in question was actually one of those awarded to the plaintiffs. suspend or revoke business permits and licenses as provided for in Sec. The law refers to the Constitution and it indicates that the creation of the autonomous region shall take place only in accord with the constitutional requirements. Lim and Garayblas v Court of Appeals FACTS: Policemen under Lim’s instructions inspected and investigated Bistro’s license as well as the work permits and health certificates of its staff. Bistro: The Charter and the LGC do not grant Lim any power to prohibit the operation of night clubs. There must be proof of willful misrepresentation and deliberate intent to make a false statement. RATIO: It is clear that the power of the mayor to issue business licenses and permits necessarily includes the power to suspend or revoke these licenses. HELD: NO. NO. 15 provides the ARMM and the CAR. 12 annulling the Mayor’s permit issued to petitioner and advising the Mayor to revoke the permit. The powers of municipal corporations must be construed in strictissimi juris and any doubt must be construed against the municipality. but only that separate fees be paid for each business. it is constitutional. ISSUES: 1. X Sec. However. Lim: The power of a mayor to inspect and investigate commercial establishments and their staff is implicit in the statutory power of the city mayor to issue. Revoking the permit. 1987: New Constitution was ratified. granting the petitioner the privilege to operate as a real estate dealer/ privately-owned public market operator” under the name Balanga Central Market. Lim failed to specify any violation by Bistro of the conditions of its licenses and permits. San Jose. ABG Lim also refused to accept Bistro’s application for a business license. It violated Ordinance No. Art. Balanga. par. It argued that there was no ground for its revocation since it had not violated any law or ordinance. which donated to the municipality the present site of the Balanga Public Market. 455. 2005-2006 FACTS: A parcel of land located in Bo. Mayors have no power to order a police raid on these establishments in the guise of inspecting or investigating them. Although the SB has the duty in the exercise of its police powers to regulate any business subject to municipal license fees and prescribe the conditions for their issuance or revocation. HELD: As to No. Good faith is always presumed. 11 (1). Petitioner is a domestic corporation owned and controlled by the Camacho family. Until expropriation proceedings are instituted in court. it need not be discussed by the Court to resolve this case. This caused the stoppage of work in Bistro’s night club and restaurant operations. the “anxiety. 13 July 1988: Petitioner filed this petition seeking to reinstate the mayor’s permit. and the TCT of petitioner is spurious. uncertainty. 2. 7 December 1992: Bistro filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition against Lim. The proper LG officials include the City health officer or his representative and the City treasurer. 11 January 1988: Petitioner applied with the Office of the Mayor for a business permit. The permit should not have been issued without the required information given in the application form itself.Loc Gov Reviewer. and only those provinces and citi4es where a majority vote in favor of the Organic Act shall be included in the autonomous region. 21 . Lim issued a closure order on Bistro’s operations effective 23 January 1993. WON RA 6734 conflicts with the Tripoli Agreement. 2. this power is premised on the violation of the conditions of these licenses and permits. 2729. 1. the creation of the autonomous region shall take effect only when approved by a majority of the votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite. 1987: Petitioner conducted a relocation survey of the area. Abbas v. 1st Sem. The resolution merely mentioned the plan to acquire the lot for expansion of the market beside it. The regulatory power of MCs must always be exercised in accordance with law. ISSUE: WON the mayor’s permit initially issued was properly revoked. 19 Feb 1988: Sangguniang Bayan of Balanga passed Resolution No. RATIO: The authority of the mayor to revoke a permit he issued is premised on a violation by the grantee of any of the conditions for which the permit had been granted. which revoked the permit. The records reveal that the Sanggunian did not establish or maintain any public market on the lot. and restiveness” among the stallholders and traders could not be a valid ground for revoking the permit of the petitioner. RATIO: As regards the Tripoli Agreement.

or the ARMM Secretary of Health? HELD/RATIO: The Court of Appeal’s reliance on Sec. The term “region” used in its ordinary sense means two or more provinces.899 votes in only the Ifugao Province and was overwhelmingly rejected by 148. MUNICIPAL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES Abella v. cities. 8 March 1990: Congress enacted RA 6861 which set the elections in the CAR.676 votes in the rest of the provinces and city mentioned. alone. 29 October 1993: Pres. Pandi v. in her capacity as Regional Director and as Secretary of the DOH of the ARMM. 478 of the LGC as Provincial Governor Mutilan’s authority to appoint Saber is misplaced. city and municipal governments. As Regional Secretary of Helath. exercising their legislative powers over the province of Ifugao. ISSUE: WON an incumbent provincial health officer can be assigned to another province and if so. as OIC of the IPHO-APGH. and other relevant characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines. and who is empowered to appoint the provincial health officer of Lanao del Sur—the Governor. 15 of 1987 Constitution: There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordillera consisting of provinces. assumed the administrative powers and functions of the Secretary of Helath of the National Government with respect to provincial health offices within the ARMM. There can be no valid CAR in only one province since the Constitution and RA 6766 require that the said Region be composed of more than one constituent unit. NO. 2005-2006 The provinces and cities wherein such a majority is not attained shall not be included in the autonomous region. The official exercising supervision and control over an office has the administrative authority to designate.Loc Gov Reviewer. While the power to merge administrative regions is not expressly provided for in the Constitution. 478 which provides that “The appointment of a health officer shall be mandatory for provincial. Mountain Province. The Regional Secretary. they would have so indicated. Ramos issued EO 133 transferring the powers and functions of the DOH in the region to the Regional Government of the ARMM. This must be distinguished from the Abbas case in that it laid the ff rule: What is required by the Constitution is a simple majority of votes approving the Organic Act in individual constituent units and not a double majority of the votes in all constituent units put together. legally and validly constitute such region. by virtue of EO 133. 15 September 1993: Lanao del Sur Governor Mutilan issued Office Order No. What the Constitution requires is a simple majority of votes approving the Organic Act in individual constituent units and not a double majority of the votes in all constituent units put together. Even RA 6766 shows that Congress never intended that a single province may constitute the autonomous region. IX. COMELEC FACTS: Three people are contesting the governorship of Leyte: 1. 7 designating Saber as OIC of the IPHO-APGH Lanao del Sur. It can be seen that the creation of the autonomous region is made to depend. being essential for public services. 1st Sem. 5 October 1993: Saber filed a quo warranto case claiming that he is the lawfully designated OIC of the IPHO-APGH. This majority must be of each unit. Ordillo: The SC must declare COMELEC Res. who was then DOH-ARMM Assistant Regional Secretary. This is supported by the fact that the 13 regions into which the Philippines is divided for administrative purposes are groupings of contiguous provinces. 12 August 1993: Sani filed a complaint with the RTC of Lanao del Sur challenging his transfer to the DOH ARMM Office in Cotabato. After the effectivity of the ARMM Local Code. municipalities and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage. Otherwise. RATIO: Art. Sani to the DOH-ARMM Regional Office in Cotabato. Abra and Kalinga Apayao and the city of Baguio cast their votes in a plebiscite held pursuant to RA 6766. who can designate the OIC in the provincial health office of Lanao del Sur. Ifugao. alleging that he is the holder of a permanent appointment as provincial health officer of the IPHO-APGH Lanao del Sur. who can order such assignment.10 The COMELEC results showed that the creation of the Region was approved only by a majority of 5. Sec. Ordillo v. but on the will of the majority in each of the constituent units and the proviso underscores this. Lanao del Sur. we would be faced with the absurd situation of having 2 sets of provincial officials and another set of regional officials exercising their executive and legislative powers over exactly the same area. 2259 as null and void. If the framers of the Constitution intended to require approval by a majority of all the votes cast in the plebiscite. therefore. No. It must also declare EO 220 constituting the CEB and the CR Assembly and other offices to be still in force and effect until another organic law for the Autonomous Region shall have been enacted and duly ratified. It is simply a directive that those empowered to appoint local health officers. the Regional Governor. Macacua. an Officer-in-Charge if the office becomes vacant. not on the total majority vote in the plebiscite. Sec of Justice: Ifugao can legally constitute the CAR. Court of Appeals FACTS: 9 August 1993. issued a Memorandum designating Pandi. as well as the individual constituent units. The same memo also detailed Dr. in the interest of public service. the official vested by law to exercise supervision and control over all provincial health offices in the ARMM. being the only province which voted favorably for the creation of the CAR can. it is a power which has traditionally been lodged with the President to facilitate the exercise of the power of general supervision over local governments. as well as the individual constituent units. Macacua was. COMELEC FACTS: 30 January 1990: People of the provinces of Benguet. It must restrain the respondents from implementing AO 160. is a mandatory obligation on the part of those vested by law with the power to appoint them. ISSUE: WON the province of Ifugao. ABG Macacua. the Regional Secretary of Health lost the authority to make such a designation. economic and social structures. had the authority on 6 Nov 1993 to designate an OIC in the provincial health office of Lanao del Sur pending the appointment of the permanent provincial health officer. X Sec.” is not a grant of power to governors and mayors to appoint local health officers. as of 6 Nov 1993. Adelina Larrazabal—obtained the highest number of votes in the 1 Feb 1988 election and was proclaimed but was later 10 An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region 22 . There will be two legislative bodies: the Cordillera Assembly and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

WON Labo is disqualified. and registered as an alien with the CID upon his return to the country in 1980. League of Municipalities of Sorsogon: filed a petition for annulment of Frivaldo’s election on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen. 14 Feb 1991: 2nd Division disqualified Larrazabal as governor. Sec. COMELEC: Lifted its TRO against her proclamation while the hearings in the disqualification case continued. 3. WON the person who obtained the 2nd highest number of votes may replace the winning candidate that was found ineligible. What is clear is that she established her residence in Ormoc City with her husband and considered herself a resident therein. the evidence shows that her supposed cancellation of registration in Ormoc and transfer to Kananga is not supported by the records. there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner temporarily left her residence in Kananga. or 21 days after his proclamation. profession. Labo became a citizen of Australia because he was naturalized through a formal and positive process. is not the issue. Labo asked the SC to restrain the COMELEC from looking into the question of his citizenship as a qualification for his office as Mayor of Baguio City. X of the Constitution is explicit in that aside from highly urbanized cities. Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress. This was merely inferred from the fact that he had married an Australian citizen. He immediately paid the filing fee on that date. ISSUES: WON Larrazabal is qualified to run as governor. The SC set it aside and directed the COMELEC to determine the residence qualification of Larrazabal. ABG the Special Committee on Naturalization had not been organized yet. by repatriation. it provides for other component cities within a province whose charters do not provide a similar prohibition. 42 of the LGC. 2005-2006 declared by the COMELEC to lack both residence and registration qualification for the post of Governor. RATIO: The fee was paid during the ten-day period as extended by the pendency of the petition when it was treated by the COMELEC as a preproclamation proceeding which did not require the payment of a filing fee. ISSUES: WON the quo warranto petition was filed on time. His election did not cure this defect since the people of Sorsogon could not amend the Constitution. Res judicata does not apply to questions of citizenship. 2. COMELEC: No direct proof that the petitioner had been formally naturalized as a citizen of Australia. and the Omnibus Election Code. Leyte. 1st Sem. NO. Labo did not question the authenticity of the evidence nor does he deny his acquisition of an Australian passport. It was only on 8 February 1988 that the COMELEC treated his petition solely as a quo warranto and redocketed it. She filed her own COC in substitution of her husband. observe mutual love. 68 and 69 of the Family Code are at point. ISSUE: WON Frivaldo was a citizen of the Philippines at the time of his election as governor of Sorsogon. RATIO: Arts. Frivaldo should have tried to acquire naturalization by legislative or judicial proceedings. Publication is still necessary despite an “immediately upon approval” clause as regards its date of effectivity. HELD: YES. obtained an Australian passport. A petition for quo warranto was filed by private respondent on 26 January 1988 but the filing fee was only paid on 10 February 1988. but I sought such citizenship only as a protection against Marcos. the LGC. 69. H & W are obliged to live together. Lardizabal: He filed it ahead of time. His alleged forfeiture does not concern us. In this case. in 1975 to pursue any calling. Benjamin Abella—obtained the 2nd highest number of votes but was not allowed by the COMELEC to sit as governor after the disqualification of Larrazabal. Leopoldo Petilla—Vice Governor of Leyte. the court shall decide. The COMELEC dismissed the petition and referred it to its law department on the ground that it was a violation of an election offense. the petitioner should have done so in accordance with the laws of our country. CID: Took into account the official statement of the Aussie Government through its consul in the Philippines that the petitioner was still an Australian citizen as of that date by reason of his naturalization in 1976. YES. Private respondent is the wife of Emeterio Larrazabal (disqualified for lack of residence). or business. NO. Labo v. Her candidacy was challenged for alleged false statements in her COC regarding her residence. RATIO: Nottebohm: Irrelevant since it dealt with a conflict between the nationality laws of two states as decided by a third state. My participation in the congressional elections divested me of US citizenship under US law. Under CA No. Nottebohm: Citizenship acquired for reasons of convenience only.Loc Gov Reviewer. 23 . he says. The fact that she occasionally visits Kananga does not signify an intention to continue her residence therein. If Frivaldo really wanted to disavow his American citizenship and reacquire Philippine citizenship. Abella was the official candidate of the LP. My oath in my COC that I was a natural born citizen amounted to a sufficient act of repatriation. Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must be possessed not only at the time of appointment or election or assumption of office but during the officer’s entire tenure. The allegation that he is a foreigner. considering that the quo warranto case against him was not filed on time. NO. “shall not be qualified and13 entitled to vote in the election of the…” Frivaldo v. SolGen: Frivaldo was not a citizen and had not repatriated himself after his naturalization as a US citizen. It also denied Abella’s proclamation as governor. having been naturalized in the US in 1983. 42 of BP 337. 68. I could not have repatriated myself since 11 12 They alleged that Larrazabal was neither a resident nor a registered voter of Leyte as required by Sec. component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials are independent of the province. 3 Feb 1989: COMELEC upheld the challenged rulings of the provincial board of canvassers. The issue is WON the public respondent has jurisdiction to conduct any inquiry into this matter. YES. 12 Husband and wife as a matter of principle live together in one legal residence which is their usual place of abode. WON the prohibition against the city’s registered voters electing the provincial officials necessarily means a prohibition of the registered voters to be elected as provincial officials. The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other… for valid and compelling reasons… 13 The conjunction and refers to two prohibitions: running and voting. or by naturalization.11 It was alleged that she was a resident of Ormoc City like her husband. In the same provision. The intention of animus revertendi not to abandon her residence in Kananga is not present here. In case of disagreement. H & W shall fix the family domicile. Despite the petitioner’s insistence. respect. COMELEC FACTS: 22 January 1988: Juan Frivaldo was proclaimed governor of Sorsogon. 63 as amended by CA 473 and PD 725. Frivaldo: I was naturalized. and render mutual help and support. COMELEC FACTS: Labo was proclaimed mayor-elect of Baguio on 20 January 1988. I returned to the Philippines after the EDSA revolution to help restore democracy. 12 Art. and fidelity. He was not even a qualified voter because of his alienage. He was therefore ineligible as a candidate for mayor of Baguio under Sec.

Since Frivaldo reassumed his citizenship. 2. Juan Frivaldo—Obtained the highest number of votes in 3 successive elections but who was twice declared disqualified to hold office due to his alien citizenship but who now claims to have reassumed his lost citizenship through repatriation. There is a waiver of the validity and efficacy of their votes in such a case. it does not require him to actually vote. WON the repatriation of Frivaldo was valid and legal. Topacio v. The respondent who filed the petition cannot replace the petitioner as mayor. provincial officials. ISSUE: WON Sec. Frivaldo: He took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen on 30 June 1995. 3. 24 . 72 if the Omnibus Election Code has already been repealed by Sec. the majority of which have positively declared through their ballots that they do not choose him. No finding was made by the CID or the COMELEC as regards his specific intent to renounce his Fil citizenship. RATIO: 1. the Special Committee on Naturalization has not yet acted on the application of the petitioner for repatriation. In Vance v Terrazas: It was held that in proving expatriation. HELD: FRIVALDO. Frivaldo should be the one proclaimed. 28 March 1995: Raul Lee questioned the COC and moved for Frivaldo’s disqualification. ABG COMELEC: Annulled Lee’s proclamation and proclaimed Frivaldo as the governor-elect. If yes. The LGC requires that an official be a registered voter. The exception to this rule is if the electorate is fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate’s disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety.894 and Daza acquired 54. returns. There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in canceling his COC. WON Frivaldo’s judicially declared disqualification for lack of Fil citizenship is a continuing bar to his eligibility to run for governor. A person may subsequently reacquire. Mercado garnered 100. he secured to most number of valid votes. who obviously was not voted directly but who according to prevailing jurisprudence should take over the post inasmuch as. Frivaldo had proved that he has acquired Philippine citizenship by repatriation under PD 725 and that he took his oath of allegiance on 30 June 1995. Frivaldo’s MR was unacted upon so he was voted for during the elections. Gabriel Daza III and Eduardo Manzano were candidates for vice mayor of Makati in the 1998 elections. COMELEC FACTS: 20 March 1995: Juan Frivaldo filed his COC for Governor in the 1995 elections. ISSUE: Who should be the rightful governor of Sorsogon? 1. The COMELEC can now legally suspend the proclamation of petitioner Labo.Loc Gov Reviewer. or lose. 2. 72 of the Omnibus Election Code “operates as a legislatively mandated special repatriation proceeding” and that it allows Labo’s proclamation as the winning candidate since the resolution disqualifying him was not yet final at the time the election was held. that the electorate should be deemed to have intentionally thrown away their ballots and that legally. The legislative intent in PD 725 was to give it a retroactive operation.275 votes. he was not the choice of the people of Baguio City. a “permanent vacancy in the contested office has occurred. did it seasonably cure his lack of citizenship to qualify him to be proclaimed and to become Governor? If not. or at least a stateless individual owing no allegiance to the Philippines to preside over them as mayor of their city. 6 of RA 6646. A minority or defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office. NO. a mere application for repatriation does not amount to automatic reacquisition of the applicant’s Philippine citizenship. The simple reason is that as he obtained only the second highest number of votes in the election. Mercado v. Manzano FACTS: Ernesto Mercado. The SC also held that the repatriation retroacted to the date of the filing of his application on 17 August 1994. Labo: He is a Fil citizen. Ortega filed a COC for the same office. COMELEC FACTS: This is the 2nd time the SC was asked to rule on the citizenship of Labo. Frivaldo v. Jr. Paredes: It would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed a winner and imposed as the representative of a constituency. 4. In the absence of any official action or approval by the proper authorities. Labo’s status has not changed in this case. The claim in the 5th issue is now moot and academic as the resolutions are deemed superseded by the subsequent ones issued by the COMELEC. 5. The rule is the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. 5. Manzano got 103. His election does not automatically restore his Philippine citizenship. WON the proclamation of Lee was valid. especially so in this case where Labo failed to present any evidence to support his claim. Lee was proclaimed although Frivaldo got the plurality of votes.853 votes. or The incumbent Vice Governor. v. He was disqualified for being an alien. Alleged that there was a lack of trial on the merits and lack of due process in the first case and that he can prove his citizenship. WON COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction in preventing Frivaldo from assuming the governorship. would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. the very day the term of office of governor began. 3. The law does not specify any particular date or time when the candidate must possess citizenship.” SUB-ISSUES: 1. Labo. Raul Lee—2nd place in the canvass but who claims that the votes cast for Frivaldo should be considered void. Decisions declaring the acquisition or denial of citizenship cannot govern a person’s future status with finality. There was insufficient evidence presented to show that the people of Sorsogon knew in fact and in law the alleged disqualification. an expatriating act and an intent to relinquish citizenship must be proved by preponderance of evidence. 2005-2006 The people of that locality could not have changed the requirements of the LGC and the Constitution. an election protest or a quo-warranto case. Up to this point. he was therefore already qualified to be proclaimed. Oscar Deri. Labo believed that he is a Filipino citizen and so he ran for mayor of Baguio in the 1992 elections. WON COMELEC had jurisdiction over the initiatory petition considering that it is not a pre-proclamation case. unlike that for residence and age. 3. by the ineligibility of Frivaldo. The electorate had no power to permit a foreigner owing his total allegiance to the Queen of Australia. may it be given retroactive effect? 2. his citizenship. The Constitution has granted the COMELEC ample power to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections. his reception of the winning number of votes notwithstanding. and qualifications of all elective. 4. Jr. There is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and that was not successfully rebutted by Lee. the possession of which is an indispensable requirement for holding public office. 1st Sem. Sec. RATIO: The fact remains that Labo has not submitted in this case any evidence to prove his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.

Until his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship in 2000. eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi). the concern of the Constitutional Commission was not with dual citizens per se but with naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization. sought to cancel the COC on the ground that Coquilla made a material misrepresentation in the COC since he had only been there for 6 months since he took his oath as a citizen. 1st Sem. WON Miguel had waived his status as a permanent resident of or immigrant to the US prior to the local elections on 18 January 1988. NO. Hence. a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states.Loc Gov Reviewer. 20 must be understood as referring to “dual allegiance. Pangasinan. Miguel: Admitted to the holding of a green card but denied that he is a permanent resident of the US. Eastern Samar. Oras. Sec. he visited the Philippines while on leave from the navy. 2005-2006 Manzano’s proclamation was suspended in view of a pending petition for disqualification on the ground that he was a US citizen.” but rather to “domicile” or “legal residence. YES. 27 February 2001: He filed his COC stating that he had been a resident of Oras for two years. he wrote that he intended to stay permanently. In his application. 40 (d) Those with dual citizenship. Sec. He was naturalized as a US citizen. a permanent resident of the US. months. It should suffice if. Court of Appeals FACTS: The petitioners in this case argued for the disqualification of Merito Miguel for the post of municipal mayor of Bolinao. ISSUES: 1. The former arises when.” In including this section. RATIO: Green card: Stated that Miguel was a resident alien. He continued making trips to the US. Easter Samar at least one year before the elections held on 14 May 2001. Art. RATIO: The term “residence” is to be understood not in its common acceptation as referring to “dwelling” or “habitation. Residence in the US is a requirement for naturalization as a US citizen. the act of immigrating. Congress commanded in explicit terms the ineligibility of persons possessing dual allegiance to hold local elective office. Coquilla lost his domicile of origin by becoming a US citizen after enlisting in the navy. Miguel owes temporary and local allegiance to the US. as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of 2 or more states. The BOC then declared Manzano as the winner. 2. NO.” That refers to a place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home. 5 March 2001: Respondent Neil Alvarez. WON a green card is proof that the holder is a permanent resident of the US. Manzano elected Philippine citizenship and in effect renounced his American citizenship. COMELEC: Granted the petition and ordered the cancellation of the COC of Manzano on the ground that he is a dual citizen and under Sec. 15 October 1998: Coquilla returned and took out a residence certificate. He alleged that he is a permanent resident of Bolinao. by some positive act. ISSUE: WON dual citizenship is a ground for disqualification. incumbent mayor of Oras. 25 . He allegedly obtained it for convenience that he may freely enter the US for his periodic medical exams and to visit his children there. 68 of the Omnibus Election Code applies to him: Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code.” Persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under the disqualification. to which he was elected in 1988 on the ground that he is a green card holder. NO. the entering into a country with the intention of residing in it. Caasi v. 40 (d) of the LGC. loyalty to two or more states. He resided there until 1965 when he joined the US navy. unless such person has waived his status as permanent resident in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws. He was proclaimed mayor of Oras. ABG 19 July 2001: COMELEC cancelled the COC on the ground that he failed to comply with the residency requirement. 21 November 2000: Petitioner applied for registration as a voter of Butnga. He applied for repatriation under RA 8171 to the Special Committee on Naturalization. While dual citizenship is involuntary.” Coquilla v. having voted in all previous elections there. upon the filing of their COC. From 1970-73. he did not acquire his legal residence here. By filing a COC when he ran for this post. As a resident alien. The number of years he claimed to have resided in Oras since 1985 as an American citizen before 10 November 2000 cannot be added to his actual residence to cure the deficiency in days. Dual allegiance refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes. they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states. and year to allow him to run for an elective office. Coquilla won in the election with a margin of 379 votes. It was approved in 2000 and he took his oath as a citizen. dual allegiance is a result of an individual’s volition. COMELEC: Possession of a green card does not establish that he has abandoned his residence in the Philippines. COMELEC FACTS: Coquilla was born in 1938 of Filipino parents in Eastern Samar. the phrase “dual citizenship” in RA 7160 Section 40 (d) and in RA 7854 Sec. ISSUE: WON petitioner had been a resident of Oras. 18. Sec. where he. It was approved. he remained in the US. 5 of the Constitution states that “Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. RATIO: Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. persons with dual citizenship COMELEC en banc: Manzano was qualified to run for vice mayor. Immigration is the removing into one place from another. IV Sec. His registration as a voter of Butnga in January 2001 is not conclusive of his residency as a candidate since Sec. hence. no matter where he may be found at any given time. Article XI of the Constitution which states that “any public officer or employee who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by law” is inapplicable to Miguel since he acquired such status prior to his election as mayor. not of Bolinao. Miguel’s immigration to the US in 1984 constituted an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. Even after his retirement from the navy in 1985. 117 of the Omnibus Election Code requires that a voter must have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the city where he proposes to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the election. His COC contained the following statement: “I am a Filipino Citizen—NaturalBorn.

Miguel did not possess that since he was a permanent resident of the US and he resided in Bolinao for only 3 months after his return to the Philippines. or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men. 40 that a person who was sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude. Marquez challenged the victory by arguing that Rodriguez left the US where a charge is pending against him before the LA Court for fraudulent insurance claims. 2005-2006 The records are bare of proof that he had waived his status before he ran for election as mayor of Bolinao. Petitioner applied for probation and was discharged on 5 March 1998. The same underlying reason holds even if the “fence” did not have actual knowledge.Loc Gov Reviewer. in fact. or good morals. 26 . ISSUE: WON Rodriguez is a fugitive from justice. but merely “should have known” the origin of the property received.” The legal rule in the Marquez Decision must govern the instant petition. COMELEC FACTS: Eduardo Rodriguez and Bienvenido Marquez were protagonists for the gubernatorial post of Quezon in the 1992 elections. RATIO: The definition of “fugitive from justice” indicates that the intent to evade is the compelling factor that animates one’s flight from a particular jurisdiction. item. flee to avoid prosecution. 40 (a). COMELEC FACTS: Montes filed a case for the disqualification of Magno as mayoralty candidate of San Isidro. It was impossible for Rodriguez to have known about such felony complaint and arrest warrant a the time he left the US. Rodriguez is therefore a “fugitive from justice” which is a ground for his disqualification under Sec. He also cited the LGC which states in Sec. Nueva Ecija during the 2001 elections on the ground that he was previously convicted by the Sandiganbayan of 4 counts of direct bribery penalized under Article 210 of the RPC. flee to avoid prosecution. or for an offense punishable by one year or more of imprisonment. Petitioner’s conviction of fencing which is a crime of moral turpitude subsists and remains unaffected notwithstanding the grant of probation. A judgment of conviction in a criminal case ipso facto attains finality when the accused applies for probation. although it is not executory pending resolution of the application for probation. the Court admitted that this guideline is inadequate in providing a clear-cut solution. However.” Dela Torre v. to the extent that it confines the term “fugitive from justice” to refer only to a person “who has been convicted by final judgment” is an inordinate and undue circumspection of the law. a criminal charge against him for 10 counts of insurance fraud or grand theft of personal property was still pending before an LA court. or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. NO. RATIO: Article 73 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the LGC of 1991. NO. Rodriguez’ case just cannot fit in this concept. Magno: Direct bribery does not involve moral turpitude. COMELEC: … “fugitive from justice” includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise those who. or to society in general. Magno v. within 2 years after serving sentence. COMELEC ABG FACTS: Rolando Dela Torre sought to nullify two decisions of the COMELEC in the disqualification case filed against him: 6 May 1995 Resolution: Disqualified him from running for Mayor of Cavinti. Residence in the municipality where he intends to run for office for at least one year at the time of filing of the COC is one of the qualifications. COMELEC FACTS: Bienvenido Marquez. 40 (a) of the LGC. 7 May 2001: COMELEC granted the petition citing Section 12 of BP 881. BP 881 explicitly lifts the disqualification to run for an elective office of a person convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude after 5 years from the service of the sentence. 40 (e) of the LGC. The Court is guided by the general rule that crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude while crimes mala prohibita do not.14 The COMELEC ruled that the petitioner was found guilty of violating PD 1612 or the Anti-Fencing Law. The COMELEC in this case did not make any definite finding on WON. Laguna in the 1995 elections based on Sec. 14 Sec. What prosecution was Rodriguez deliberately running away from with his departure from the US? The “law of the case” doctrine forbids the Court from crafting an expanded re-definition of “fugitive from justice. 28 August 1995 Resolution: Denied the MR and the COMELEC denied the contention of the petitioner that the probation granted to him suspended the execution of the judgment of conviction and all other legal consequences that flowed from it. Rodriguez v. vileness. YES. ISSUE: WON a “fugitive from justice” must be a person who has been convicted by final judgment. for allegedly being a fugitive from justice. RATIO: Moral turpitude has been defined as: an act of baseness. WON a crime involves moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and depends on the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute. by almost 5 months. the winning candidate in their province. modesty. honesty. and attempted grand theft of personal property. ISSUES: WON the crime of fencing involves moral turpitude. NO. 1st Sem. after being charged. after being charged. Marquez: At the time Rodriguez filed his COC. In Marquez. grand theft. Marquez v. 40. Disqualifications—(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one year or more of imprisonment within two years after serving sentence. There is no dispute that his arrival in the Philippines from the US preceded the filing of the felony complaint in the LA Court and of the issuance on even date of the arrest warrant by the same foreign court. Lorenzo was proclaimed by the COMELEC as the duly elected mayor. Moral turpitude is deducible from the 3rd element of the crime: The accused knows or should have known that the said article. This case must be remanded to the COMELEC. the Court ruled that “A ‘fugitive from justice’ includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise those who. contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman or conduct contrary to justice. a defeated candidate for governor of Quezon in the 1992 elections filed a petition for certiorari questioning the resolution of the COMELEC which dismissed his quo warranto case against Rodriguez. WON a grant of probation affects the applicability of Sec. Rodriguez won and was proclaimed governor. The Court specifically refers to the concept of “fugitive from justice” as defined in the main opinion of Marquez which highlights the significance of an intent to evade. This definition finds support from jurisprudence and may be so conceded as expressing the general and ordinary connotation of the term. Rodriguez is a “fugitive from justice” since the quo warranto case was outrightly dismissed. object.

NO. petitioner nonetheless could not be disqualified from running in the 2001 elections. order. COMELEC FACTS: 3 May 2001: Petitioner filed with the Provincial Election Supervisor in Pagadian City a petition for the disqualification of respondent Sulong pursuant to the LGC which disqualifies from running for any elective local post “those removed from office as a result of an administrative case. RATIO: Not every criminal act involves moral turpitude. the SC declared that RA 7160 is a codified set of laws that specifically applies to local government units. Galeon filed an election protest before the RTC. ISSUE: WON respondent was found guilty in the administrative case. or rulings of the COMELEC in contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials are final. is disqualified from being a candidate for a local elective position does not apply where the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan finding a local mayor guilty of dishonesty. it cannot be determinative of the constitutionality of RA 7227 for no legislative act can prevail over the fundamental law of the land. Any person removed from office by reason of an administrative case is disqualified from running for any elective local office. Thus. 94 of the LGC permits the appointment of a local elective o fficial to another post if so allowed by law or the primary functions of his office. or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. the decision sought to be reconsidered had been rendered nearly ten years ago. The petitioners claim that this is against Sec. assumes the nature of a special law which ought to prevail. The phrase “shall be appointed” shows the intent to make the SBMA posts appointive and not merely adjunct to the post of mayor of Olongapo. The COMELEC reversed the RTC ruling. 13. especially so where at the time of the election. Flores v. 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. It is applicable to them only. (d) of RA 7227. final orders. Although the crime of direct bribery involved moral turpitude. There is no decision finding respondent guilty to speak of. 7 of the Constitution states “Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law. Lingating: During Sulong’s first term in 1991. 1st Sem. The court upheld the proclamation of Galido by a majority of 11 votes. Sulong: The decision has not become final and executory. Galido v.” ISSUE: WON certiorari can be used to challenge a final order of the COMELEC in a contest involving elective municipal officials. Sec. RATIO: The fact that decisions. 1 August 2001: COMELEC declared Sulong disqualified. and not appealable. does not preclude a recourse to the SC by way of a special civil action for certiorari. Section 40 thereof specially and definitely provides for disqualifications of candidates for elective local positions.e. 7. Art.Loc Gov Reviewer. falsification and malversation of public funds has not become final. Bohol. 2005-2006 ISSUE: WON Magno was disqualified to run for mayor in the 2001 elections. who is removed before the expiration of the term for which he was elected. he was administratively charged with various offenses and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zamboanga del Sur found him guilty of the charges and ordered his removal from office. IX-B of the Constitution which states that “no elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure. Galido went to the SC to challenge this COMELEC decision alleging grave abuse of discretion in its appreciation of “marked ballots. i. In David v COMELEC. NO. ISSUE: WON Gordon’s appointment pursuant to a legislative act that contravenes the Constitution can be sustained. HELD: NO. Sec. it is unfair to the electorate to be told after they have voted for said official that after all he is disqualified. It depends on the circumstances surrounding the violation of the law. Provincial Secretary: Issued a certification that the decision in the case has not become final and executory as the final disposition thereof was overtaken by the local elections of May 1992. He also won in 1992 and in 1995. Article IX (A) Sec. any decision. Drilon FACTS: Under Sec. ABG Where there was failure of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to resolve a local official’s motion for reconsideration before the elections. par. denotes a malicious intent on the part of the offender to renege on the duties which he owes his fellowmen. It deals with the election of all public officers. Sulong was voted for in the elections and was subsequently proclaimed as the duly elected mayor. COMELEC en banc reversed the earlier decision. Direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. Even though Sec. I filed a motion for reconsideration and such is still pending. Lingating v. insofar as it governs the disqualification of candidates for local posts. It can be inferred from the third element of bribery.” Sulong previously won as mayor of Lapuyan in 1988. the law is unconstitutional. YES. the Mayor of Olongapo. It was affirmed by the COMELEC en banc. deciding for himself who is best qualified among those who have the necessary qualifications and eligibilities. Mayor Richard Gordon of Olongapo was appointed Chairman and CEO of SBMA. 40 of RA 7160. COMELEC FACTS: Galido and Galeon were candidates for mayor in the January 1988 elections in Garcia-Hernandez.” 27 . The fact that the offender agrees to accept a promise or gift and deliberately commits an unjust act or refrains from performing an official duty in exchange for some favors. executory. the subject proviso directs the President to appoint an elective official. Article 12 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881) must yield to Article 40 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160). Petitioner’s disqualification ceased as of 5 March 2000 and he was therefore under no such disqualification anymore when he ran for mayor of San Isidro in the 2001 elections. Since this is prohibited by the Constitution. The appointing power has the right of choice which he may exercise freely according to his judgment. RATIO: In this case. RATIO: The rule that an elective local officer. to other government posts (Chairman of the Board and CEO of SBMA). 12 of BP 881 speaks of disqualifications of candidates for any public office.

ISSUE: WON the term of a person who gets disqualified after proclamation is included in the counting of the three consecutive term limit. In the recall election of 12 May 2000. ISSUE: WON the decisions of the COMELEC in election contests involving elective local officials. COMELEC FACTS: Romeo Lonzanida was elected and served two consecutive terms as mayor of San Antonio prior to the 8 May 1995 elections. On his third attempt to get elected. 2005-2006 Rivera v. from May 1995 to March 1998 because he was not duly elected to the post. final orders or rulings of the COMELEC in contests involving local elective officials are final. During the next term. It sustained the judgment of the RTC. NO. That the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post. The appreciation and re-evaluation of ballots are factual determinations. Garcia filed an election protest. involuntary severance from office for any length of time short of the full term provided by law amounts to an interruption of continuity of service. he must also have been elected to the same position for the same number of times before the disqualification can apply. The Representative serves a term for which he was elected. Garcia: The Constitution declares that decisions of the COMELEC on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials to be final. he again won and served the unexpired term of Tagarao until 30 June 2001. A painstaking re-evaluation of the questioned 67 ballots was made by the COMELEC en banc. COMELEC resolved the case in favor of Alvez. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Rivera as the duly elected Mayor by a majority of 10 votes. 8 Article X of the Constitution. ISSUE: WON Talaga served for 3 consecutive terms as contemplated by the Constitution. A proclamation subsequently declared void is no proclamation at all and while a proclaimed candidate may assume office on the strength of the proclamation of the Board of Canvassers. he lost to Tagarao. Borja v. It is not enough that an individual has served 3 consecutive terms in an elective local office. In 1998. X Sec. NO. RATIO: Conditions for the application for disqualification: 1. 28 . Adormeo: Talaga was elected and had served as city mayor for 3 consecutive terms violating Sec. Rivera filed this petition seeking the annulment of the COMELEC en banc decision. preclude the filing of a special civil action for certiorari. In May 1995. Lonzanida v. he is only the presumptive winner who assumes office subject to the final outcome of the election protest. 14 ballots originally adjudicated in Garcia’s favor were overruled by the Commission en banc. It was contested by his then opponent Juan Alvez who filed an election protest. His opponent Eufemio Muli filed a case for disqualification against Lonzanida. 8 of the Constitution shows that the members of the Commission were as much concerned with preserving the freedom of choice of the people as they were with preventing the monopolization of political power. Adorneo v. executory. NO. COMELEC FACTS: Capco was elected vice mayor of Pateros. he must also have been elected to the same position for the same number of times before the disqualification can apply. and not appealable. RATIO: To prevent the establishment of political dynasties is not the only policy in the Constitution—the other policy is that of enhancing the freedom of choice of the people. Garcia commenced to discharge the functions of Mayor of Guinobatan. being final and executory and not appealable. Zambales. conversely. In fact. He became mayor upon the death of the incumbent Cesar Borja. It is settled that in a petition for certiorari. Talaga was elected mayor in 1992. Rivera appealed to the COMELEC. Voluntary renunciation of a term does not cancel the renounced term in the computation of the three-term limit. such official cannot be considered to have fully served the term notwithstanding his voluntary renunciation of office prior to its expiration. does not preclude a recourse to the SC by way of a special civil action for certiorari. Lonzanida: Only served for two consecutive terms and that his assumption to office in 1995 cannot be counted as service of a term for the purpose of applying the three term limit for local government officials since he was not the duly elected mayor of San Antonio in the May 1995 elections. becomes incapacitated or is removed from office—the vicemayor succeeds to the mayorship by operation of law while the Representative is elected to fill the vacancy. executory. and not appealable. In considering the historical background of Art. he ran and was proclaimed winner. 2. RATIO: The fact that decisions. Not only historical examination but textual analysis supports the ruling that this provision contemplates service by local officials for three consecutive terms as a result of election. ABG There is a difference between the case of a vice-mayor and that of a member of the House of Representatives who succeeds another who dies.Loc Gov Reviewer. petitioner Benjamin Borja challenged his candidacy on the idea that he would have already served as mayor for 3 consecutive terms by 30 June 1998 and would therefore be ineligible to serve for another term. 11 May 1998: Lonzanida again filed his COC for mayor. findings of fact of administrative bodies are final unless grave abuse of discretion has marred such factual determinations. NO. 1st Sem. The SC has closely scrutinized the challenged COMELEC decision and found that the said decision was not arrived at capriciously or whimsically. It is not enough that an individual has served three consecutive terms in an elective local office. COMELEC FACTS: Adormeo and Talaga were the only candidates for mayor of Lucena City in the 2001 elections. He was reelected in 1995-1998. resigns. he merely assumed office as a presumptive winner. Petitioner Lonzanida did not serve a term as mayor of San Antonio. COMELEC FACTS: Petitioner Juan Rivera and respondent Juan Garcia II were candidates for the local elections in 1988. thus reducing the number of votes in his favor to 894 votes out of the 2. Talaga was then the incumbent mayor. he ran and was elected mayor and was again reelected. The trial court found for Garcia. ISSUE: WON a vice mayor who succeeds to the office of mayor by operation of law and serves the remainder of the term is considered to have served a term in that office for the purpose of the three term limit. If an official is not serving a term for which he was elected because he is simply continuing the service of the official he succeeds.445 contested ballots. and that he has fully served three consecutive terms. which presumption was later overturned by the COMELEC when it decided that Lonzanida lost in the May 1995 mayoral elections.

A subsequent election like a recall election is no longer an immediate reelection after three consecutive terms. It arose when Luis Capito died in office and petitioner Agustin Docena was appointed to succeed him. of the Constitution. may. 01-02 which declared its loss of confidence in Socrates and called for his recall. as Acting Governor of Leyte. Menzon. was also designated by Secretary Santos to act as Vice Governor for Leyte. 49 in connection with Sec. A recall election mid-way in the term following the third consecutive term is a subsequent election but not an immediate reelection after the third term. RATIO: In the absence of any contrary provision in the LGC. The intent of Sec. in the best interest of public service. In this case. “An Act Providing for the National and Local Election in 1992. NO. PRA passed Resolution No. is no longer covered by the prohibition for two reasons: 1. but this was later itself recalled in favor of the second appointment. is fixed by the Constitution at 3 years. who had in fact already assumed office as member of the SPES. ISSUE: WON Docena is the proper appointee who can serve for the unexpired term. On 27 November 1990. Socrates Alar was appointed. Any subsequent election. COMELEC FACTS: 2 July 2002: 312 out of 528 members of the incumbent barangay officials of Puerto Princesa convened themselves into a preparatory recall assembly. acting through the Secretary of Local Government. After three consecutive terms. 2. YES. as in this case.” ISSUE: WON the law is constitutional. like a recall election. having been elected and having served as mayor of the city for 3 consecutive terms. NO. YES. RATIO: RA 7056. The prohibited election refers to the next regular election for the same office following the end of the third consecutive term. ABG The term of office of the local elective officials. also by Secretary Luis Santos. has no power to appoint petitioner. 588 and the Revised Administrative Code of 1987. The petitioner is himself the member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan who obtained the highest number of votes. 43 (b) of RA 7160 is that only consecutive terms count in determining the threeterm limit rule. The incumbent local officials were elected in January 1988. unless the findings are patently erroneous. petitioner is a de facto officer entitled to compensation. Their term would have expired on 2 February 1991. Here is no question that Sec. the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. RATIO: From the tenor of the appointment extended to Docena on 19 November 1990. Docena v.” in accordance with Article XVIII. except barangay officials. The first appointment was replaced by the second appointment. COMELEC FACTS: This petition calls for the determination of the validity of RA 7056. which was subsequently withdrawn to reinstate the first appointment. as per 29 . is violative of the clear mandate of the 1987 Constitution to hold synchronized national and local elections in the second Monday of May 1992. The winner in the recall election cannot be charged or credited with the fill term of three years for purposes of counting the consecutiveness of an elective official’s terms in office. Section 2. to the post already occupied by Docena. But their term was adjusted to expire at noon of 30 June 1992. Petilla FACTS: 16 Feb 1988: Since no Governor had been proclaimed in Leyte. ISSUE: WON a candidacy in a recall election is included in the 3consecutive term rule. Involuntary severance from office for any length of time interrupts continuity of service. which provides for the holding of desynchronized election. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Eastern Samar FACTS: Two persons are claiming the same position in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Eastern Samar by virtue of separate appointments extended to them by the same authority. empowering the President to make temporary appointments in case of any vacancy in appointive positions. The said appointment had been accepted by Docena. Pave the Way for Synchronized and Simultaneous Elections Beginning in 1995. The intervening period constitutes an involuntary interruption in the continuity of service. COMELEC then gave due course to the resolution and scheduled a recall election. The Dept. The reason for this is to synchronize the national and local elections. For nearly two years he was a private citizen. and Authorizing Appropriations Therefor. 23 August 2002: Edward Hagedorn filed hi COC for mayor in the recall election. who was entitled to serve “until noon of June 30. there was a need to fill the vacancy. 1st Sem. it was to be valid for the unexpired portion of the term of the deceased member. Secretary acted correctly in extending the temporary appointment. to fill the permanent vacancy caused by Capito’s death. The PRA was convened to initiate the recall of Victorino Docrates who assumed office as mayor on 30 June 2001. Even granting that the President. 2005-2006 RATIO: The ruling of the COMELEC that private respondent was not elected for three consecutive terms should be upheld. The continuity of his mayorship was disrupted by his defeat in the 1998 elections. an elective local official cannot seek immediate reelection for a 4th term. ISSUE: WON the appointment of Menzon was valid. 8. Leopoldo Petilla. As such. Socrates v. RA 7056 provides for 2 separate elections in 1992. 1992. 52 of the LGC shows clearly the intent to provide for continuity in the performance of the duties of the Vice Governor. also be applied in case of vacancy in the position of Vice-Governor. Article X of the Constitution and under Sec. Luis Santos (LG Sec) designated the Vice Governor. it was intended to be permanent. Osmeña v.Loc Gov Reviewer. at the very least. RATIO: The SC is bound by the findings of fact of the COMELEC on matters within the competence and expertise of the COMELEC. The appointment of the petitioner is in full accord with the intent behind the LGC. On the other hand. Menzon v. 17 August 2002: Adovo and Gilo filed a petition to disqualify Hagedorn from running on the ground that Hagedorn is disqualified from running for a fourth consecutive term. a senior member of the Sanggunian. The legislature cannot extend the term of officers by providing that they shall hold over until their successors are elected and qualified where the Constitution has in effect fixed the term and the day on which the official term shall begin.

has been a regular employee of the municipal government of Escalante. Mayor Ponsica suspended Zonsayda for one month and one day for simple misconduct. Petitioners are also estopped from pursuing their petitions. It merely left the determination of such term to the lawmaking body. The Constitution did not expressly prohibit Congress from fixing any term of office for barangay officials. Zonsayda Alinsug. Docena had already acquired security of tenure in the position and could be removed only for any of the causes. She filed a motion praying that the answer be disregarded since the respondents were sued in their official capacities so they should have been represented either by the municipal legal officer or by the provincial legal officer or prosecutor as provided for in the LGC. RATIO: The intent of the legislature is to limit the term of barangay officials to only three years. Alinsug v. RATIO: It appears that the law allows a private counsel to be hired by a municipality only when it is an adverse party in a case involving the provincial government or another municipality or city in the province. Docena’s appointment having been issued and accepted earlier. The appointment was permanent in nature. Budgetary appropriation of P400M for the cost of the elections. not just an equitable. 2880 and 2887 fixing the date of holding of the elections. 15 Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term. however. right to the position. COMELEC FACTS: As barangay chairman and as president of the Liga ng mga Barangay sa Pilipinas. Sec. Nos. RA 7160 was enacted later than RA 6679. Court of Appeals FACTS: Upon his assumption to the post of Mayor of Pagbilao. and the petitioner having already assumed office. except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. FACTS: Petitioner. It is well-settled that the person assuming a position in the civil service under a completed appointment acquires a legal. These could not be circumvented by the simple process of recalling his appointment. Sec. petitioner Conrado de Rama wrote a letter to the CSC seeking the recall of the appointments of 14 municipal employees. he could not thereafter be just recalled and replaced to accommodate Alar. She asked the permission of the personnel officer but not of the mayor. prescribed in the LGC. 43 (c) of RA 7160: Term of office of bgy officials shall be for 3 years. ISSUE: WON RA 7160 which shortened the term of office of barangay officials constitutional.15 Some of the employees filed a claim for payment with the CSC alleging that de Rama withheld their salaries. and conformably to the procedure. She received an order from the newly proclaimed mayor detailing her to the mayor’s office. these are deemed valid and in effect. HELD: YES. ISSUE: WON the respondents can be represented by a private counsel. done in violation of Article VII. ABG COMELEC Res. HELD: YES. There is a clear incompatibility between the provisions of these two laws so the earlier one must be deemed to have been repealed. The CSC denied de Rama’s request for the recall of the employees: In the absence of any showing that these appointments were defective in form and substance. 2005-2006 certification of the provincial secretary. The key to resolving this issue of whether a local government official may secure the services of private counsel. HELD: YES. For all legal intents and purposes. but only when such appointment and approval are proven to be in disregard of applicable provisions of the CSC law and regulations. the election of Petitioner David was illegal since they were elected under RA 6679. In another case. ISSUE: WON the appointments are valid. It is the CSC that is authorized to recall an appointment initially approved. Zonsayda filed with the RTC a petition for damages and TRO against the mayor and the municipal treasurer. lies on the nature of the action and the relief that is sought. Upon the issuance of an appointment and the appointee’s assumption of the position in the civil service. COMELEC opposed the petition while the SolGen agreed with it. Quezon. RTC-Negros Occidental 2. 15 of the 1987 Constitution. 1st Sem. alleging that it was an act of political vendetta. RATIO: There is no law that prohibits local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of their tenure. “he acquires a legal right which cannot be taken away either by revocation of the appointment or by removal except for cause and with previous notice and hearing. David v. De Rama v. in an action filed against him in his official capacity. RA 6679 requires the votesrs to elect seven kagawads and the candidate who gets the highest number of votes becomes the punong barangay.Loc Gov Reviewer. nor is there evidence presented to show that they were issued in contravention of law or rules. without any specific limitation or prohibition. the Liga ng mga Barangay QC Chapter filed a petition seeking to declare the following as unconstitutional: 1. She absented herself from work allegedly to attend to family matters. Following the petitioner’s own theory. a President or Acting President shall not make appointments. and for the unexpired portion of the deceased predecessor’s term. 30 . the petitioner’s appointment had already been complete and enforceable at the time it was supposed to have been superseded by the appointment in favor of Alar. 3. petitioner Alex David filed a petition for prohibition to prohibit the holding of barangay elections scheduled on the second Monday of May 1997. mandates a direct vote on the barangay chairman. thereby leaving to the lawmakers full discretion to fix such term in accordance with the exigencies of public service. He alleged that the appointments of the employees were midnight appointments of the former mayor. Legis posteriors priores contraries abrogant. The LGC.

Salalima v. except in cases whereof original jurisdiction is vested in the SC or in cases where the municipality or district in question is the party adverse to the provincial government or to some other municipality or district in the same province. The fiscal’s refusal to represent the municipality is not a legal justification for employing the services of private counsel. Court of Appeals FACTS: The petitioners in this case seek the nullification of the resolution of the Court of Appeals which dismissed their petition for having been filed by a private counsel. there is nothing to show that the provincial fiscal is disqualified. or constitutes. The order of the trial court stated that Atty. The fact that the municipal attorney and the fiscal are supposed to collaborate with a private law firm does not legalize the latter’s representation of the municipality. RATIO: An administrative offense means every act or conduct or omission which amounts to. Regalado. Ramos v. abuse of authority. Romanillos appeared as counsel of the municipality. A public official. whose legal fees shall be for their own account. the provincial fiscal shall act on behalf of the province. ABG None of the exceptions is present here. and neither may they do so even in collaboration with authorized government lawyers. In this case. All the foregoing considered. and negligence. although the aggregate thereof exceeds six months and the unexpired portion of the elective official’s term of office where the suspension imposed for each administrative offense does not exceed six months and there is an express provision that the successive service of the suspension should not exceed the unexpired portion of the term of office. and his actions would be ultra vires that can thereby result in an incurrence of personal liability. who. RATIO: Artieda v. Hence. a mayor may hire a private counsel to defend him at his own personal expense. does so in excess of authority. The RAC provides: The provincial fiscal shall represent the province and any municipality or municipal district thereof in any court. oppression and abuse of authority. The petitioners argued that the challenged AO is an oppressive and capricious exercise of executive power. Although a municipality may not hire a private lawyer to represent it in litigation. in the interest of substantial justice. HELD: NO. 31 . a municipality may adopt the work already performed in good faith by such private lawyer. The petitioners sought to disqualify Romanillos.Loc Gov Reviewer. Romanillos argued that he was the collaborating counsel of the provincial fiscal. and the Baliuag Market Vendors Association filed a petition to declare the nullity of two municipal ordinances and the contract of lease over a commercial arcade to be constructed by the Municipality of Baliuag. the appearance of herein counsel is without authority of law. Private lawyers may not represent municipalities on their own. Guingona FACTS: Petitioners seek to annul and set aside AO No. Atty. It may be said that Atty. Romanillos entered his appearance as collaborating counsel of the provincial attorney. Court of Appeals FACTS: Petitioners Ramos. elected mayor of Iloilo. This collaboration is contrary to law and should not have been recognized as legal. The council should have requested the SOJ to appoint an acting provincial fiscal in place of the fiscal who declined to handle such case. Atty. Romanillos appeared for respondent municipality inasmuch as he was already counsel of Kristi Corporation which was sued with respondent municipality in this case. ISSUE: WON a private counsel may represent a municipality if the provincial fiscal refuses to handle its case. HELD: NO. Atty. the municipalities entitled to taxes on said properties may be considered co-owners of such properties to the extent of their respective shares in the real property taxes and the penalties thereon. RATIO: The CA is correct in holding that Atty. HELD: NO. which work is beneficial to it provided (1) that no injustice is thereby heaped on the adverse party and (2) provided that no compensation in any guise is paid therefore by said municipality. Only the provincial fiscal and the municipal attorney can represent a province of municipality in their lawsuits. The provision is mandatory. on different grounds. The municipality’s authority to employ a private lawyer is expressly limited only to situations where the provincial fiscal is disqualified to represent it. it the performance of his duty acts in such fashion. Rizal v. Perez. Where the province buys the delinquent properties sold in a public auction to satisfy unpaid real estate taxes and penalties. When the interests of a provincial government and of any of the political division thereof are opposed. ten administrative complaints were filed by various city officials against Ganzon. any of the grounds for disciplinary action. A fiscal cannot refuse to perform his functions on grounds not provided for by law without violating his oath of office. ISSUE: WON a private counsel may collaborate with a provincial counsel. Santos FACTS: In 1988. we hold that the respondents were not improperly represented by a private counsel. 153 issued by the Executive Secretary approving the findings of fact of the Ad Hoc Committee which held that the petitioners are administratively liable for disregarding the law in several cases. Public officials could not be subject to disciplinary action for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term. The matter of representation of a municipality by a private attorney has been settled. 1st Sem. Municipality of Pililla. ISSUE: WON the AO is valid. Mendiola has no authority to file a petition in behalf of and in the name of the municipality. There is no grave abuse of discretion in imposing the penalty of suspension. The Office of the President is without any power to remove elected officials. however. and the grant under the LGC of 1991 to the “disciplining authority” of the power to remove local officials is clearly beyond the authority of the Oversight Committee that prepared the Rules and Regulations. 2005-2006 When moral and/or exemplary damages are claimed. A special attorney may be employed by its council in this case.

To arrest the course of the principal action during the pendency of the certiorari proceedings. 2005-2006 Respondent Secretary Santos issued three separate orders of preventive suspension against Ganzon. When the evidence of culpability is strong. when the Secretary could have pursued a consolidated effort. When there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent has committed the acts complained of.000 from each market stall holder in the municipal public market. He was later on disqualified by the COMELEC. Aguinaldo v. COMELEC FACTS: Renato Reyes was the incumbent mayor of Bongabong. 2. HELD: YES. The Sanggunian required Melgar to answer the charges. HELD: NO. him pursuant to a ABG Petitioner was charged with disloyalty to the Republic and culpable violation of the Constitution for the acts he committed during the coup. Reyes v. but administratively with the end view of removing him as the duly elected Governor of Cagayan for acts of disloyalty to the Republic. When the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. a public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term. 3. Since the 60-day preventive suspension of Mayor Melgar was maintained by the TRO and therefore has already ben served.Loc Gov Reviewer. Espiritu v. 32 . Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required before the petitioner could be suspended or removed from office. Removal cannot extend beyond the term during which the alleged misconduct was committed. It was alleged that he exacted and collected P50. HELD: YES. RATIO: Re-election renders administrative case moot and academic. in the main decision. Inasmuch as the power and authority of the legislature to enact a LGC which provides for the manner of removal of local government officials. De Castro sought Reyes’ disqualification as candidate for mayor. Petitioner in this case is not being prosecuted criminally under the RPC. Mayor Melgar’s direct recourse to the courts without exhausting administrative remedies was premature. the SC stated that what is intriguing is that respondent Secretary has been cracking down on the mayor piecemeal. is found in the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. noting that successive suspensions have been imposed on Mayor Ganzon. 26 October 1994: Administrative complaint was filed against him by a Dr. RATIO: The privincial governor of Oriental Mindoro is authorized by law to preventively suspend the municipal Mayor of Naujan at any time after the issues have been joined when any of the following grounds exist: 1. RATIO: If simultaneous service of two suspension orders is allowed. he cannot be preventively suspended for more than 90 days within a single year on the same ground or grounds existing and known at the time of the first suspension. that certain checks issued to him by the DILG were never received by the municipal treasurer and that he took 27 heads of cattle from the beneficiaries of a cattle dispersal program after the latter had reared the cattle for seven months. It will be recalled that. or 4. When the gravity of the offense so warrants. Petitioner was voted for in the next elections. Melgar FACTS: It was alleged that Mayor Melgar assaulted Ramir Garing. this would work in favor of the local elective official as the balance of his third preventive suspension would. Governor Espiritu preventively suspended recommendation made by the Sanggunian. RATIO: Any agreement to delay service of a decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in administrative cases is illegal. then it cannot be said that BP 337 was repealed by the 1987 Constitution. each to last for 60 days. An original action of certiorari is an independent action and does not interrupt the course of the principal action nor the running of the reglementary period involved in the proceeding. HELD: YES. Santos FACTS: Petitioner Aguinaldo assails the decision of the Interior Secretary dismissing him as Governor of Cagayan on the ground that his power has been repealed by the 1987 Constitution. boxing and kicking him on different parts of his body and that he was ordered arrested and detained in the municipal jail without filing any charges against him. ISSUE: WON the suspension of Mayor Melgar was validly done. there must be a restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction from the appellate court directed to the lower court. 48 (1) of BP Blg 337 grants the Secretary the power to appoint local government officials in case of incumbent’s removal from office. he is deemed reinstated in office without prejudice to the continuation of the administrative investigation of the charges against him. Sec. in effect. The LGC provides that in the event that several administrative cases are filed against an elective official. There is nothing improper in suspending an officer before the charges against him are heard and before he is given an opportunity to prove his innocence. The law makes it mandatory that copies of the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan shall immediately be furnished to respondent and/ or interested parties. apparently to pin him down ten times the pain. The filing of a petition for certiorari does not prevent a decision from attaining finality. Except for criminal acts committed. Manalo. be reduced from 46 days to 17 days. Oriental Mindoro. ISSUE: WON the petitioner can be allowed the benefit of simultaneous service of his third and fourth suspension orders. When the elections were held on 8 May 1995. 1st Sem. the decision of the SP had already become final and executory. ISSUE: WON the power of the Secretary to dismiss a locally elective official has been repealed by the 1987 Constitution. ISSUE: WON the disqualification was proper.

it is mandatory and ministerial for the Board of Canvassers to count the votes based on such returns and declare the result. He won. Gozo-Dadole FACTS: Criminal and administrative complaints were filed against the respondents in this case with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas. Hagad v. ABG public officer administratively dismissed then was not therefore barred from running for an elective position. alleging that he barged into the session hall of the capitol. A possible exception to the rule that a second placer may not be declared the winning candidate is predicated on the concurrence of two assumptions: 1. 2. ISSUE: WON the suspension of Joson was improper. a preventive suspension can be decreed on an official under investigation after charges are brought and even before the charges are heard. Palawan. kicking the door. RATIO: There is nothing in the LGC that indicates that it has repealed the provisions of the Ombudsman Act. ISSUE: WON Basco should be removed from office as a result of an administrative case pursuant to the LGC that took effect in 1992. as may be constituted by the Disciplining Authority. Article 170 and 171 of the RPC. Under PD 807.Loc Gov Reviewer. Absent any determination of irregularity in election returns. Basco ran and won for another term after that. events. 33 . chairs. mayor of San Vicente. Executive Secretary FACTS: Private respondents filed with the OP a complaint charging Joson with grave misconduct and abuse of authority. what is delegated is the power to investigate and not the power to discipline. AO 23 delegates this power to investigate to the DILG or a Special Investigating Committee. He immediately took his oath of office. Villapando FACTS: Some SB members filed a complaint against Alejandro Villapando. Right to appear and defend himself in person or by counsel. An erring elective local official has rights akin to the constitutional rights of an accused: 1. Not being in the nature of a penalty. Right to compulsory attendance of witness and the production of documentary evidence. HELD: NO. RATIO: The power to discipline evidently includes the power to investigate. The Manila BOC proclaimed Basco as the duly elected councilor. 6713. The use of the word “may” in RA 6646 indicates that the suspension of a proclamation is merely directory and permissive. RATIO: Sec. and RA No. and 3. He won but was besieged by lawsuits of his opponents in the polls. 40(b) of the LGC does not have any retroactive effect. the term reinstatement had a technical meaning. They challenged the power of the Ombudsman to suspend them alleging that the LGC deprived the Ombudsman of the jurisdiction to try. COMELEC FACTS: 31 October 1981: Basco was removed from his post as Deputy Sheriff. The electorate is fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate’s disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety but would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. This is not undue delegation. referring only to an appointive position—a Pablico v. Joson v. hear. Petitioner’s right to a formal investigation was not satisfied when the complaint against him was decided on the basis of position papers. The one who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified. Grego v. He ran as a candidate for Councilor in Manila during the 1988 elections. the President has the power derived from the Constitution itself to investigate complaints against local officials. HELD: YES. as well as an order enjoining the canvassing and proclamation of the winner. Every statute must be interpreted and brought into accord with other laws. the former Civil Service Decree. ISSUE: WON the Ombudsman is bereft of jurisdiction to hear administrative cases against local officials. Right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. on pure question of law. Repeals by implication are not favored. must not be so construed as to overreach acts. These public officials of Mandaue City were charged with violating RA 3019. The complaint and the notes were sent to Secretary Barbers. As the disciplining authority. despite the generality of its language. and threatening them for resisting the approval of a loan of P150M from the PNB. A statute. and decide the admin case of local officials since the power is now vested in the Office of the President. Administrative disciplinary proceedings against local elective government officials are not similar to those against appointive officials. or matters which transpired before its passage. 2. Any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or finding of the Ombudsman may only be entertained by the Supreme Court. Joson filed a motion for a formal investigation but it was denied by the DILG noting that submission of position papers substantially complies with the requirements of procedural due process in administrative proceedings. 1st Sem. 2005-2006 That the candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes may not be proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate is disqualified is now settled. for abuse of authority and culpable violation of the Constitution. He sought re-election in the 1992 elections. HELD: No. His opponents challenged the third election.

Article 124(b). to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefore. insofar as it vests power on the “disciplining authority” to remove from office erring elective local officials. The COMELEC also erred since the Resolution is null and void for being unconstitutional. 70 of RA 7160 allowing a preparatory recall assembly is unconstitutional. he could not be recalled. 1 Feb 2000: Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan found him guilty and imposed the penalty of dismissal. 3 provides that all existing laws not inconsistent with it shall remain operative until amended. 1 July 1993: Some mayors. The LGC of 1991 provided for a second mode of initiating the recall process through a preparatory recall assembly. Article XVIII. RA 7160. It may be decreed only by a court of law. RATIO: The Constitution. 2005-2006 It was alleged that Villapando entered into a consultancy agreement with Tiape. COMELEC FACTS: Felipe Evardone was the mayor of the Municipality of Sulat. Since there was. is void for being against the last paragraph of Sec. RATIO: To strike down a law as unconstitutional. The Commission deferred the election to December 6. It is now barred since the 13 January 1996 falls within one year from the SK election on the first Monday of May 1996. it should not be permitted to manipulate the law by usurping the power to remove. Membership of the preparatory recall assembly at the provincial level is not apportioned to political parties.30% of the registered voters signed the petition. Since the SK election is a regular local election. Conducto v. No.Loc Gov Reviewer. There is therefore no basis for the resolution and the recall proceeding is premature. HELD: NO. The Election Code contains no special provisions on the manner of conducting elections for the recall of a local official. having been elected in the 1988 local elections. and Nival filed a petition for the recall of Evardone with the Office of the Local Election Registrar. and the authority in whom such power of suspension or removal is vested must exercise it in good faith. Cabanatuan City who won in the last regular election in 1994. Loss of confidence as a ground for recall is a political question. There is nothing in the Constitution that remotely suggests that the people have the sole and exclusive right to decide on whether to initiate a recall proceeding. IX-B. vice-mayors and members of the SB of the 12 municipalities of the province met and constituted themselves into a Preparatory Recall Assembly to initiate the recall election of Garcial.” ISSUE: WON Sec. Evardone v. 6 of the 1987 Constitution. however. The rule. 60 of the LGC. finds no application to criminal cases. RATIO: An elective local official may be remove from office on the grounds enumerated above by order of the proper court. A resolution was passed for the recall of Garcia on the ground of “loss of confidence. validly impose the penalty of dismissal on erring local officials. It is valid and has legal effect. during the period material to the case. Election Registrar of the municipality. The power to remove erring elective local officials from service is lodged exclusively with the courts. of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the LGC. Paras filed with the RTC a petition for injunction. Evardone: The COMELEC erred since the petitioner was denied due process. Paras v. Paras: No recall shall take place within one year from the date of the official’s assumption to office or one year immediately preceding a regular local election. A petition for his recall was filed by registered voters of the barangay. 29. repealed or 34 . ISSUE: Whether local legislative bodies and/or the Office of the President. COMELEC FACTS: Danilo Paras is the Punong Barangay of Pula. Monzon The rule is that a public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term since his reelection to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct committed during a prior term. ISSUE: WON Res. there must be a clear and unequivocal showing that what the fundamental law prohibits. COMELEC FACTS: 11 May 1992: Petitioner Enrique Garcia was elected governor of Bataan. The law on suspension and removal of elective public officials must be strictly construed and applied. TRTC dismissed the petition. Recall is a mode of removal of a public officer by the people before the end of his term of office. COMELEC: Approved the petition and set the recall election on 13 November 1995. The LGC of 1983 provided only one mode of initiating the recall elections of local elective officials. Where the disciplining authority is given only the power to suspend and not the power to remove. COMELEC issued a resolution approving the recommendation of Sumbilla. Whether the electorate of the municipality has lost confidence in the incumbent mayor is a political question. Sec. HELD: No. no local government code enacted by Congress after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution nor any law for that matter on the subject of recall of elected government officials. Hence. But the LGC will take effect only on 1 January 1992. Sec. HELD: YES. a defeated mayoralty candidate in the May 1998 elections. 2272 is constitutional. the statute permits. 14 February 1990: Apelado. Garcia v. Eastern Samar. 1st Sem. Rule XIX. falling within the 1 year prohibition under Art. all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a law. on appeal. The old LGC is still applicable to the present case. Aclan. specifically repeals BP 337. ABG revoked.

voted for the approval of PRA Res. 01-96. COMELEC: Dismissed the petition. in the absence of a substantial attack on its validity. 69(d) of the LGC: Expressly provides that the recall of any elective municipal official may be validly initiated upon petition of at least 25% of the total number of registered voters in the LGU concerned. It scheduled the recall election within 1 year from the Barangay Elections. 29 May 1999: 1. 40 SK officials had withdrawn their support. 14 were not duly accredited members of the barangays. September 1996: Petitioner received a copy of a petition for recall. Angobung v.057 Punong Barangays and Sangguniang Barangay members and SK chairmen. COMELEC en banc issued the assailed resolution. 7 July 1996: 1. seeking the annulment of the proclamation of Claudio should first be decided.073 members of the PRA composed of chairs. No. ISSUE: WON the dismissal was proper. Claudio v. the majority of whom met and voted in favor of the resolution for his recall. much lesss. and the recall resolution failed to obtain the majority of all the members of the PRA. not just one disgruntled loser or a small percentage of disenchanted electors. more so. and 60 barangay chairs executed affidavits of retraction. A statute must be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution. It just so happens that the personalities representing the barangays in the Liga are the very members of the PRA. 19 May 1999: At the residence of Mr. The Liga ng mga Barangay is undoubtedly an entity distinct from the PRA. 2 July 1999: Petition for recall was filed accompanied by an affidavit of service of the petition on the Office of the City Mayor. It would be more in keeping with the intent of the recall provision of the LGC to construe “regular local election” as one referring to an election where the office held by the local elective official sought to be recalled will be contested and be filled by the electorate. the election case filed by Wenceslao Trinidad in the SC. the filing thereof by just one person. HELD: NO. COMELEC RO: Recommended the approval of the petition for recall signed by other qualified voters to garner at least 25% of the total number of registered voters. The phrase “petition of at least 25%” is used and the law does not state that the petition must be signed by at least 25%. S-1999 to initiate the recall of Claudio for loss of confidence. are conclusive upon the court. RATIO: Factual findings of the COMELEC based on its own assessments and duly supported by gathered evidence.Loc Gov Reviewer. most of the signatories were only representatives of the parties concerned. ISSUE: WON the recall process was validly initiated. Angobung: The resolution was signed by just one person in violation of the 25% minimum. several chairs formed an ad hoc committee to convene a PRA. ISSUE: WON a petition for recall signed by just one person is valid. May 1999: Chairs of several barangays gathered to discuss the possibility of filing a petition for recall against Claudio for loss of confidence. Recall must be pursued by the people. 1st Sem. Hence. COMELEC RATIO: The issue in Sanchez was not the questioned procedure but the legal basis for the exercise by the COMELEC of its rule-making power in the alleged absence of a statutory grant. adopted Res. FACTS: 11 May 1998: Jovito Claudio was elected mayor of Pasay City. Malonzo v. initiative. that the initiation of the recall proceedings was infirm since it was convened by the Liga. Sec. rather. and referendum. Lim. No. SC: Cannot sanction the procedure of the filing of the recall petition by a number of people less than the foregoing 25% statutory requirement. while the initiatory recall petition may not yet contain the signatures of 25% of the registered voters. HELD: No. is misplaced. and SK chairs of Pasay. The Constitution requires an effective mechanism of recall. it will only serve to sitabilize a community and disrupt the running of government. expressing loss of confidence in Mayor Malonzo and calling for the initiation of recall proceedings against him. ABG RATIO: If the SK election which is set by law to be held every 3 years from May 1996 were to be deemed within the purview of the phrase “regular local election. the petition must contain the names of at least 25% of the total number of registered voters in whose behalf only one person may sign the petition in the meantime. met and upon deliberation and election. Petitioner’s insistence. COMELEC FACTS: Petitioner won as Mayor of Tumauini. the petition must be “of” or by. HELD: Yes. 35 . Malonzo: There was inadequate service of notices to the members and the PRA must be the one to initiate recall proceedings and not the Liga ng mga Barangay. kagawads. Claudio: The signatures affixed to the resolution were actually meant to show attendance at the PRA meeting. 01. constituting a majority of the members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly. In Sanchez and Evardone: The COMELEC-prescribed procedure of allowing the recall petition to be filed by at least one person and then inviting voters to sing said petition on a date set for that purpose was never put to issue. 2005-2006 ISSUE: WON the SK elections bar the recall election of a barangay official even if it falls within one year before the SK election. Otherwise. at least 25% of the registered voters. Isabela in the 1995 elections. the convening of the PRA took place within the 1 year period. COMELEC FACTS: Malonzo won over Asistio in the 1995 elections. The law is plain and unequivocal as to what initiates a recall proceeding. considering that 10 were double entries.” then no recall election can be conducted rendering inutile the recall provision of the LGC.

74 apply only to the exercise of the power to recall which is vested in the registered voters. Hence. Sec. their real employer. Constitutional limitations: 1. It is more probable to believe that it was signed to signify their concurrence to the recall resolution. 74 deals with restrictions on the power of recall. agencies. 74 cannot be deemed to apply to the entire recall proceedings. ISSUE: WON Coloyan is a party adversely affected by the decision allowed by law to file an appeal. the regional director or a person with a sworn written complaint. or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party. or teach in schools except during session hours. QC Mayor dismissed it for insufficiency of evidence. Code of 1987 to heads of departments. Chang Under Sec. the power to commence administrative proceedings against a subordinate officer or employee is granted by the Omnibus Rules to the secretary of a department. Coloyan appealed to the MSPB which reversed the decision and found him guilty with the penalty of dismissal. RATIO: LGC. the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain one’s side. he will not be judged on the performance prematurely. it is apparent that it was written by mistake. Garcia: Holding of a PRA is not the recall itself. HELD: No. Parties who choose not to avail themselves of the opportunity to answer charges filed against them cannot complain of a denial of due process. Protect private property. The limitations in Sec. Erwin Javellana was elected City Councilor of Bago City. designation of the replacement is not a requirement to give effect to the preventive suspension. Javellana v. The complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Javiero and Catapang against City Engineer Divinagracia is in effect a complaint against the City Government of Bago City. Due process is deemed satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of an action or a ruling. The term “recall” in par. BP 337 provides for the automatic assumption of the assistant municipal treasurer or next in rank officer in case of suspension of the municipal treasurer. or gross negligence. Whether the phrase “Regular Local Election” includes the election period for the regular election or simply the date of such election. the Secretary of Finance is the proper 36 . RATIO: It is axiomatic that the right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in a manner and in accordance Macalincag and Carlos v. provinces. (3) (2) ABG disciplining authority to issue the preventive suspension order. agency. Previously entered contracts must not be impaired. Sec. Sanggunian members may practice their professions. Such an interpretation would devitalize the right of recall. the petitioner violated Memo Circular No. In an administrative proceeding. 41 of PD 807. of Finance Macalincag. the chief of an agency. LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE RELATIONS Local Governments are subject to legislative control. X. 74-58 prohibiting a government official from engaging in the private practice of his profession. HELD: No. the head of an agency. malice. By serving as counsel for the complaining employees and assisting them to prosecute the claims against Divinagracia. RATIO: (1) On the word “recall” Sec. a legal research assistant in the QC Office of the City Attorney for Gross Misconduct and Dishonesty for allegedly tearing off a portion of TCT from the registry book and then pocketing it. Negros Occidental. This is limited by the Constitution. LGU.Loc Gov Reviewer. City Engineer Divinagracia filed an Administrative Case against Javellana for continuously engaging in the practice of law without securing authority from the Regional Director of the DILG. and instrumentalities. Pajaro and the City of Dagupan The power to discipline is specifically granted by Sec. Although the term “attendance” appears at the top of the page. 2. CSC affirmed it on appeal. Mendez v. Provided. More specifically acting Sec. Garcia v. 1st Sem. It also alleged that Javellana filed a case against Divinagracio for “Illegal Dismilssal and Reinstatement with Damages. 90. The Office of the Municipal Treasurer is unquestionably under the Department of Finance. that sanggunian members who are also members of the Bar shall not: Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or any office. 69 provides that the power of recall shall be exercised by the registered voters… Since the power vested on the electorate is not the power to initiate recall proceedings but the power to elect an official into office. People v. There is a distinction between election period and campaign period. the limitations in Sec. 2005-2006 HELD: YES. To construe the term recall as including the convening of the PRA for the purpose of discussing the performance in office of elective local officials would be to unduly restrict the constitutional right of speech and assembly of its members. Hence. Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the LGU of which he is an official. unless there is a clear showing of bad faith. Whether the Recall Resolution was singed by a majority of the PRA and duly verified. (b) refers only to the recall election. To hold that it includes the entire period would reduce the period to eight months. CSC FACTS: 7 June 1984: Then Acting Register of Deeds of QC Vicente Coloyan filed an admin complaint against petitioner. acted within his jurisdiction in issuing that order. of which petitioner Javellana is a councilman.” ISSUE: WON Javellana properly engaged in the practice of law. and cities. Yes. As long as the recall election is not held before the official concerned has completed one year in office. engage in any occupation. On the other hand. 47 of the Admin. A public officer shall not be liable by way of moral and exemplary damages for acts done in the performance of official duties. DILG and Santos FACTS: Atty. is such practice would represent interests adverse to the government. judgment against Divinagracia would actually be a judgment against the City Government. excluding the convening of the PRA and the filing of a petition of recall with the COMELEC or the gathering of the signatures of at least 25% of the voters for a petition for recall.

37 . The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments. oppression. it can also provide for exemptions and even take back the power. disgraceful and immoral conduct. otherwise. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities. ABG Mayor Ganzon was charged with 10 complaints which included abuse of authority. supervision and jurisdiction over the Osmeña Waterworks System. “Supervision” means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. the charter did not intend to divest the legislature of its right—or the President of her prerogative as conferred by existing legislation to provide administrative sanctions against local officials. Ganzon: DILG denied him due process. Suspension is temporary. But the prohibition does not mean that the Government cannot regulate it in the exercise of its police power. PAGCOR: Given territorial jurisdiction over the entire country. In addition to its corporate powers. the power of local governments to regulate gambling thru the grant of “franchise. control. 4. Another 60-day preventive suspension was imposed on the Mayor for the prima facie evidence found to exist in the case of Erbite. is generally prohibited. Only the National Government has the power to issue “licenses or permits” for the operation of gambling. it might be impeded or subject to the control of a mere local government. Sec. The latter role is governmental. CITY OF CEBU V. RATIO: Gambling in all its forms. the respondent issued a preventive suspension order on 11 August 1988 to last until 11 October 1988 for a period of 60 days. it must be exempt from local taxes. “Investigating” is not inconsistent with “overseeing. NATIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY WATERWORKS AND BASCO V. licenses. the Constitution contains no prohibition. but because the law lodged the power elsewhere. It intruded into an LGU’s right to impose local taxes. that the Secretary had been biased against him. Violates the trend of Cory government to veer from monopolistic and crony economy. The 2nd PS was not enforced due to a TRO. 2. income or otherwise. PAGCOR has a dual role. violates local autonomy. supervision is not incompatible with disciplinary authority. it was not because it did not think that the President can not exercise on account of his limited power. Ganzon: The deletion of “as may be provided by law” is significant since the power of the President is provided by law and no law may provide for it any longer. from paying any “tax of any kind or form. intimidation. The sole objective of a suspension is simply “to prevent the accused from hampering the normal cause of the investigation with his influence and authority over possible witnesses” or to keep him off “the records and other evidence. PAGCOR FACTS: Petitioners sought to annul PD 1869 on the ff grounds: 1.” FACTS: The City of Cebu filed an action for declaratory relief to prevent NAWASA from taking over the ownership. All of its shares of stocks are owned by the National Government. Its power to tax must yield to a legislative act which is superior having been passed upon by the state itself which has the “inherent power to tax. Ganzon filed a prohibition case against the DILG Secretary in the RTC of Iloilo. or permits” was withdrawn by PD No.Loc Gov Reviewer. Being an agency of the government.” Suspension is not a penalty and is not unlike preventive imprisonment in which the accused is held to insure his presence at the trial.” The Charter of the City of Manila is subject to control by Congress. it may be imposed for no more than 60 days. PD 1869: Enacted to provide funds for social impact projects and subjected gambling to close government scrutiny. It waived the Manila City government’s right to impose taxes and license fees. 8 of RA 1383. 2005-2006 3. 1987 Constitution no longer gives the President the power to suspend/ remove local officials. It constitutes a waiver of a right prejudicial to a 3 rd person with a right recognized by law. Local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of the National Government. He was given another 60-day suspension. which places it in the category of an agency of the government. and cities and municipalities with respect to component barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. It was to centralize and integrate all games of chance. If Congress can grant Manila the power to tax certain matters. whether national or local. RATIO: Despite the change in the constitutional language. 3. as well as fees. The omission signifies local autonomy from Congress. GANZON V. unless allowed by law. culpable violation of the Constitution. Uniform laws Limitations depending on nature of rights and powers exercised by the municipality. as the franchise holder. CA FACTS: 16 Exempts PAGCOR. 771 and was vested exclusively on the National Government. HELD: NO. Violates equal protection clause since it legalizes PAGCOR-conducted gambling.” In cases where the Court denied the President the power to suspend/ remove. The Constitution did nothing more insofar as existing legislation authorizing the President to proceed against local officials administratively. it also exercises regulatory powers. to operate and regulate gambling casinos. PAGCOR is a government owned or controlled corporation with an original charter. The City’s power to impose license fees on gambling has long been revoked. 13 par. ISSUE: WON the Secretary of the local government can suspend and/or remove local officials. and arbitrary detention. 1st Sem. He has no authority to suspend or remove him. HELD: NO. Initial hearings were set and conducted at the RO of the DILG in Iloilo City. As early as 1975. 4. ISSUE: WON Sec. pursuant to the provisions of Sec. This doctrine emanates from the “supremacy” of the National Government over local governments. A longer suspension is unjust and unreasonable. The City of Manila is a mere Municipal corporation and has no inherent right to impose taxes. 216 of PD 1896 constitutes a waiver of the right of the City of Manila to impose taxes and legal fees and WON it violates local autonomy. 4. charges or levies of whatever nature. grave misconduct. Finding probable grounds and reasons. Legally.

244. The System owned properties which are estimated to be worth P10. del Norte of property without due process and just compensation. including PAGCOR-sanctioned ones. However. del Norte and 45. the SC held that since the word “gambling” is associated with “and other prohibited games of chance. del Norte and Z. It must not contravene the Constitution or any statute. 2005-2006 Cebu: This deprives us of our property rights in the Osmeña Waterworks System without due process of law and just compensation. The municipality cannot be deprived of it without due process and payment of just compensation. It must bot be unreasonable. del Norte is still entitled to collect from the City the former’s share in the 26 properties which are patrimonial in nature. If the property is owned by the municipality in its public and governmental capacity.61% for del Sur. Sec. This controversy is more along the domains of Municipal corporations. CIR was allowed to deduct 25% of the internal revenue allotment for the city for the quarter ending 31 March 1960. words with which it is associated. public health. It results then that Z. Tests for a valid ordinance: 1. Gambling is not illegal per se. or given the same meaning of. payable within 30 years. RATIO: The validity of the law depends on the nature of the properties. it was public property and within the absolute control of Congress. to be considered public. Accordingly. MAGTAJAS V. 2. ABG ISSUE: WON RA 3039 is constitutional for depriving Z. It leased a portion of a building belonging to Pryce Properties and equipped it to be used as a casino. but upon the payment only of a certain rental (which makes it proprietary). 5. the property is public and Congress has absolute control over it. The system pays all who pay the charges. It must not be unfair or oppressive. INC. All the properties of the OWS are transferred to NAWASA in exchange for an equal value of the latter’s assets. ISSUE: WON RA 1383 is constitutional in vesting in NAWASA ownership of the OWS without just compensation. The OWS was established out of the $125.000. ISSUE: WON local governments are empowered to suppress all forms of gambling. 12 October 1936: Commonwealth Act 39 was approved converting it into a city. 50 provided that: “Buildings and properties which the province shall abandon upon the transfer of the capital to another place will be acquired and paid for by the City of Zamboanga at a price fixed by the Auditor General. etc. there was proper and just compensation provided in the law. granting that it was patrimonial. nothing concrete is said as to what assets are to be traded on the part of NAWASA. HELD: NO. WON congress can appropriate the properties in this case. It must not be partial or discriminatory. 3. Cebu applied for and obtained a certificate of public convenience from the PSC. del Norte of its share in the value of the rest of the 26 remaining lots which are patrimonial properties since they are not being utilized for distinctly governmental purposes. 6 provided that the funds and assets of the province shall be equitably divided upon the Auditor General’s recommendation. PAGCOR PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE V. HELD: NO. Applying the law of Municipal Corporations. qualified.00 loan extended to the municipality by the US. Under this norm. the rest remain patrimonial. PRYCE PROPERTIES CORP. 6. The share cannot be paid in lump sum. it is enough that the property be held and devoted for governmental purposes like local administration.000. there is the constitutional prohibition against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City enacted Ordinances No. Under the rule noscitur a sociis. 1948: RA 286 was approved creating the municipality of Molave making it the new capital. This was met by opposition from various sectors in the locality. HELD: YES.00. 17 June 1961: RA 3039 was approved providing that all assets of the former province of Zamboanga located in the city of Zamboanga are transferred to the city free of charge. But the law cannot be applied to deprive Z. 3353 and 3375-93 which prohibited the operation of gambling casinos within the premises of the city. 4. TC: RA 1383 is unconstitutional in so far as it vests NAWASA ownership over the system without just compensation. all those of the 50 properties in question which are devoted to public service are deemed public. NO. RATIO: RA 1383 provides that the net book value of the properties of the government owned water works systems shall be received by the Authority in payment for an equal value of the assets of NAWASA. NAWASA: They system had always been under the control and operation of the National Government. a word or phrase should be interpreted in relation to. 1949: Appraisal Committee formed by the Auditor General fixed the value at P1. hospital and leprosarium sites—a total of 24 lots— since these were held by the former province in its governmental capacity and therefore are subject to the absolute control of Congress. 1945: Zamboanga Province capital was transferred to Dipolog. The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue. its transfer to NAWASA was within the competence of Congress. Finance Secretary ordered the CIR to stop further payments. AND FACTS: PAGCOR decided to open a casino in Cagayan City. 1952: RA 711 was approved in dividing the province into Z. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA FACTS: Before its incorporation as a chartered city. RA 3039 is valid insofar as it affects the lots used as capitol site. If it is owned in its private or proprietary capacity.” 38 .39% for Z.000.00. 1955: Auditor General apportioned the assets and obligations: 54. It must not prohibit but may regulate trade. the Municipality of Zamboanga used to be the provincial capital of the then Zamboanga Province. The police power is not without limitations.Loc Gov Reviewer.” The properties consisted of 50 lots and some buildings covered by TCTs in the name of Zamboanga Province. then it is patrimonial and Congress has no absolute control. It must not be general and consistent with public policy. RATIO: PAGCOR is a corporation created directly by PD 1869. public education. except at to the money already returned to the City. 1st Sem. school sites and its grounds. Sec.294. del Sur. It is open to the public (in this sense it is public service).

2005-2006 the word should be read as referring to only illegal gambling which. As fees for the inspection of the boilers. which has the character and force of a statute.” MONDANO V. fish corrals and the like. Municipal governments are only agents of the national government.000 hectares in 1990 to almost 21. Big fishpen operators took advantage of this occasion to establish fishpens and cages to the consternation of the Authority. but is related to the safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the City. Considering the reasons behind the establishment of the Authority. construction and operation of fishpens. RATIO: There was no repeal. The charter which embodies a valid exercise of the police power should prevail over the LGC of 1991 on matters affecting Laguna de Bay. the City also has the authority to tax steam boilers. the illegal and those authorized by law. The power of the Authority to grant permits is for the purpose of effectively regulating and monitoring activities in the region.” As to the rates. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the national law making body.” Municipal governments then assumed authority to issue fishing privileges and fishpen permits. there is every indication that the legislative intent is for the authority to proceed with its mission. CA 696 (provides that the Secretary of Labor shall fix and collect reasonable inspection fees). HELD: YES. RATIO: The LGC does not contain any express provision which categorically repeals the charter of the Authority. It increased the occupation from 7. In the opinion of judicial authorities. There should be no quarrel over permit fees since there is a sharing mechanism in place. combined with the current and prospective use of the lake. 1st Sem. V. if the City’s power is merely to regulate. SILVOSA FACTS: ABG PD 813 amended certain sections of RA 4850 due to the concern for the rapid expansion of Metro Manila.000 hectares in 1995. as well as the public policy expressed in the decree allowing the playing of certain games of chance despite the prohibition of gambling in general. This was challenged in the courts by the different operators. The enactment of a later legislation which is a general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. This is a suit to recover the sum of P4. The City’s power to tax steam boilers could not have been affected by the Department of Labor’s power to regulate or inspect them: One is taxation. MANILA ELECTRIC CO. there is nothing “inherently obnoxious in the requirement that a person engaged in a business shall have two licenses. particularly of the neighborhood where the boilers are located. in accordance with the provisions of the City Ordinances.Loc Gov Reviewer. since the former is related to the “safety of laborers and employees” while the City is not limited to such purposes. On the contrary. PAGCOR is mentioned as a source of funding in two later enactments of Congress. There is every indication that herein charges were collected under both the power to tax and the power to regulate. Implied repeals are not lightly presumed in the absence of a clear and unmistakable showing of such intention. must be prevented or suppressed. like other prohibited games of chance. one issued by the state and another by a political subdivision or public corporation. RA 7309. then that is material. The name fee is not conclusive—taxes are often called fees.630 which plaintiff paid to Manila as inspection fees of its steam boilers. The charter of LLDA constitutes a special law. ISSUE: Which agency of the Government—the Laguna Lake Development Authority or the towns and municipalities comprising the region—should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its environs insofar as the issuance of permits for fishery privileges is concerned? HELD: The provisions of RA 7160 do not necessarily repeal the laws creating the LLDA. The basic relationship between the national legislature and the LGUs has not been enfeebled by the new provisions in the Constitution strengthening the policy of local autonomy. There is no sufficient indication of an implied repeal of PD 1869. Upon the demand of the city. the towns of Laguna de Bay. RA 7160 is a general law. However. plaintiff paid the National Government several amounts. fish enclosures. This approach would also affirm that there are indeed two kinds of gambling. 4850 created the “Laguna Lake Development Authority. the other is regulation. cities. navigational safety. plaintiff also paid several amounts as fees for the inspection of the boilers by the City Engineer. The Authority was granted special powers: “… the Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue new permits for the use of the lake waters for any projects or activities in or affecting the said lake including navigation. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. and sustainable development. 39 . “Laguna de Bay cannot be subjected to fragmented concepts of management policies where lakeshore local government units exercise exclusive dominion over specific portions of the lake water…” The power of local government units to issue fishing privileges was clearly granted for revenue purposes. The Authority issued a notice that all fishpens and structures erected without a permit from the Authority shall be demolished. creating a Board of Claims under the DOJ and RA 7648 providing for measures for the solution of the power crisis. which are environmental protection.” RA 7160: LGC of 1991. and to impose necessary safeguards for lake quality control and management. CA FACTS: RA No. The ordinances violate PD 1869. ISSUE: WON the power to levy inspection fees on steam boilers is still lodged in the City of Manila. MERALCO: Such provisions have been repealed by subsequent legislation. The power of inspection of the Labor Secretary does not conflict with that of the City authorities. The municipalities in the region interpreted the provisions to mean that the new law gave municipal governments the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges in their municipal waters since the law provides: “Municipalities shall have the exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in the municipal waters and impose rental fees or charges therefore in accordance with the provisions of this Section. CITY OF MANILA FACTS: MERALCO operates 7 steam boilers. It does partake of the nature of police power which is the most pervasive and the least limitable and the most demanding of all State powers. and provinces encompassed by the term “Laguna Bay Region. and to collect necessary fees…shared between the authority and other government agencies and political subdivisions…” EO 927 was enacted which further defined and enlarged the functions and powers of the Authority and named the towns.

it is manifest that greater control would be wielded by said officers of the national government if they could either assume the powers vested in said provincial board or act in substitution thereof. must prevail. The alleged authority of the Executive to suspend a municipal mayor directly without any opportunity on the part of the provincial governor and the provincial board to exercise the administrative powers of both under sections 23188 and 2190 of the AC. COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: This is a quo warranto case involving the Office of the Mayor of Carmona. because such would connote the assumption of control. 1st Sem. The procedure is exclusive. 2191: Renders a final decision within 30 days. 27 February 1954: Complaint was filed with the Presidential Complaints and Action Committee accusing Mondano of raping Caridad Mosenda and concubinage for cohabiting with Caridad in a place other than the conjugal dwelling. and supervision over all bureaus and offices under his juisdiction…” Villena v. Surigao. 6 March: Compliant was indorsed to provincial governor for investigation and report. Preventive suspension shall not be more than 30 days. FACTS: The petitions of Mayor Ganzon originated from a series of admin complaints filed against him by city officials in 1988. This cannot be done without legislation. The records of the investigation were forwarded to the Executive Secretary since 15 July 1954. being specific provisions. Governor issued AO No. 2188 to 2191 of the RAC. 2189: Trial by municipal board. An investigation was conducted. The power of the president over LGUs is limited to general supervision and this is unqualified so it applies to all powers: corporate or political. in the absence of express provision to the contrary. Mondano: asked for prohibition to enjoin respondents from proceeding with the hearing of the case against him. 1954: Letter was received from the OP suspending him until the termination fo the admin proceedings against him. petitioner Bernardo Hebron. for the suspension and removal of municipal officials is mandatory. The continued indefinite suspension cannot be reconciled with the letter and spirit of the Admin Code. not charged with disloyalty to the Republic. When the procedure for the suspension of an officer is specified by law. the application of those powers to municipal corporations—insofar as they may appear to sanction the assumption by the Executive of the functions of the provincial governors and boards— would contravene the constitutional provision restricting the authority of the President over local government to “general supervision. Hebron was suspended in May 1954. Ganzon: DILG denied me due process of law and the Secretary had been biased against me. and respondent Eulalio Reyes. passed within its jurisdiction. Respondents: Invoked Sec. Mayor Ganzon filed an action for prohibition against the Interior Secretary in the RTC of Iloilo.Loc Gov Reviewer. 2188 of the Admin. In this case. Secretary: Upheld the power of the Secretary to conduct at its own initiative investigation charges against local elective municipal officials. Suspension in this case was null and void. without the admin proceedings prescribed in the AC. corruption or any other form of maladministration of office. 8 suspending Mondano from office. Eulalio Reyes acted as mayor of Carmona and the Provincial Fiscal investigated the charges. If neither the Secretary not the President may disapprove a resolution of the Provincial Board. 40 . on various charges. and 2188 and 2191 of the same code. must be strictly construed in their favor. 79(c) and 86 of the Admin Code. Supervision: Overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. HELD: NO. No final dismissal is made until recommended by the Secretary and approved by the President. the third time in 20 months. 64(b) and (c). 1951: Elections were held. HELD: The procedure prescribed in Sec. 79 (c) of the Admin Code which clothes the department head with “direct control. The decision has not been rendered as of 13 May 1955. The deletion of “as may be provided by law” is significant since the power of the President is “provided by law” and may no longer be provided by law in the present set up. preventively suspending Ganzon for another 60 days. Hebron instituted this case on the ground that Reyes was illegally holding the post and that his term as mayor was about to expire. 2190: Provincial board then acts by dismissing the charges or by forwarding to the Interior Secretary the record of the case. 2005-2006 Mondano was the mayor of Mainit. 1987 Constitution no longer allows the President to exercise the power of suspension over local officials. Control: The power to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. Laws governing the suspension or removal of public officers. direction. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties. regardless of the procedure set forth in the Admin Code. were elected mayor and vice mayor. Code. Since the powers given to the Presidnet in addition to his general supervisory authority. and conviction by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude. Amidst two successive suspensions. such as by suspending municipal officers. Hebron continued to discharge such functions until 1954. since rape and concubinage have nothing to do with the performance of his duties as mayor nor do they constitute “neglect of duty. REYES GANZON V.” If there is any conflict between Sec. ISSUE: WON a municipal mayor. RATIO: Constitution: President shall have control over all the executive departments… exercise general supervision over all local governments as may be provided by law… Department head as agent of the President has direct control and supervision over all bureaus and offices under his jurisdiction but he does not have the same control of local governments. HEBRON V. The authority of the Department Head over persons under his department does not extend to local governments over which the President exercises only general supervision as may be provided by law. 2188: Governor shall receive and investigate complaints against municipal officers for offenses involving maladministration of office. Secretary issued another order. may be removed or suspended directly by the President. cannot be adopted without conceding that said powers are subject or repeal or suspension by the President. Cavite. the same must be deemed mandatory and adhered to strictly. He does not have the power to suspend and remove local officials. The charges preferred against the respondent are not malfeasances or any of those enumerated in Sec. ISSUE: WON the Secretary of the Interior has the power to investigate and suspend a municipal mayor (same power of control over bureaus under his department) stemming from a charge of rape and concubinage. The Executive may conduct investigations as a ABG means only to ascertain whether the governor and the board should take such action. especially those chosen by the direct vote of the people. RATIO: President has no inherent power to remove or suspend local elective officials. the latter. oppression.

2180. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. XI. In several cases. there being fault or negligence. MUNICIPAL CONTRACTS XII. is obliged to pay for the damage done. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions. by the provincial governor if the respondent is… The successive 60-day suspension imposed on Ganzon is different. or injuries suffered by any person by reason of the defective condition of roads. for the sake of local autonomy. Under the LGC. 63: Preventive suspension may be meted out by the Minister of Local Government if the respondent is a provincial or city official. in which local officials remain accountable to the central government in the manner the law may provide. The Secretary acted under Batas Blg . and such being the case. which causes. Ganzon may serve the suspension so far ordered. The President shall have control of all the executive departments. the SC held that the acts constitute misconduct in office for which he may be ordered investigated by the President within the meaning of the law. Resolution No. RATIO: The pertinent provisions are found in Sec. in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. Investigating is not inconsistent with overseeing. 1st Sem. Such fault or negligence.Loc Gov Reviewer. 2176. KAYANAN FACTS: 25 August 1956: Ernesto Rosales filed a complaint against Ganzon (Iloilo Mayor) with the President alleging violent acts during his work as a radio broadcaster. HELD: YES. HELD: YES. 2189. Sec.00. LGC SEC. 24.300. such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages. under Sec. Art. but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains. and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. Art. It cannot be inferred that the power of supervision of the Prez over local officials does not include the power of investigation when in his opinion the good of the public service so requires. bridges. 41 . to deprive the legislature of all authority over municipal corporations. if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. ISSUE: WON the President has the authority to order the investigation of a city mayor as regards an administrative complaint and to take disciplinary action against him if he is found guilty. GANZON V. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property. can suspend and/or remove local officials. under the Constitution. 2078 of the Admin Code.” It cannot be disputed that in this case the President is vested with the authority to order the investigation of petitioner when in his opinion the ABG good of the public service so requires. 34. not of power. or the president of his prerogative to provide admin sanctions against local officials. for the lease of its municipal waters. Local autonomy. Imposing 600 days of suspension is to make him spend the rest of his term in inactivity. the charter did not intend to divest Congress of its right. San Diego v. streets. Art. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY Art. Sec. as the President’s alter ego. bureaus and offices… It may be clearly inferred that the President may remove an official in the government service “conformably to law. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. the Court denied the President the power to suspend/remove because the law lodged the power elsewhere and not because the Court thought the President cannot exercise it on account of his limited power. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings. Considering the allegations in the complaint to the effect that petitioner took advantage of his public post as mayor in committing acts of violence and intimidation upon respondent to stop his radio program. by analogy. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. . The contract stipulated that San Diego would be the exclusive lessee to erect fish corrals for five years with an annual rent of P26. 2005-2006 ISSUE: WON the Secretary of Local Government. dishonesty. RATIO: Notwithstanding the change in the constitutional language. Liability for Damages.Local government units and their officials are not exempt from liability for death or injury to persons or damage to property. may also be amenable to suspension and removal for the same causes as the latter. and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. and misconduct in office. 10 (1). are: Disloyalty. oppression. 46 was passed by the council awarding the concession of the Butas River and the Naujan Lake to Bartolome San Diego. 13 September 1956: Executive Secretary designated respondent to investigate the complaint. 24 September 1956: Ganzon questioned the authority of the President to order his investigation. 337. although it is a lesser power than altering. public buildings. Municipality of Naujan FACTS: A public bidding was held by the Municipality of Naujan. Provinces. we are of the opinion that the former. This annual rental was reduced by 20% upon petition by San Diego. As to the cause. involves a mere decentralization of administration. 62-63. but may no logner be suspended for the offenses he was originally charged. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent. The Constitution did not intend. 64(b) and (c) of the Admin Code. (b) To remove officials from office conformably to law and to declare vacant the offices held by such removed officials… (c) To order… an investigation of any action or the conduct of any person in the Government service… Constitution: Sec. considering that the position of mayor of a chartered city may be fairly compared in category and statute with that of a provincial governor. the petitioner cannot now contend that the designation of respondent as the official to investigate him by Rosales has been done without the authority of law. such cannot exceed 60 days. The sole objective of suspension is to prevent the accused from hampering the normal course of the investigation. and other public works under their control or supervision. Oriental Mindoro.

Statutes requiring public bidding apply to amendments of any contract already executed in compliance with the law where such amendments alter the original contract in some vital and essential particular. It is not an impairment of the obligation of contract since the constitutional provision on impairment refers only to contracts legally executed. adopted Resolution No. 3 is unconstitutional.700 cubic meters of adobe stone and 1. It was stipulated that for the sum of P19. the contract was declared null and void by the SC. fraud. 2 of the RAC: Requires that before a contract involving the expenditure of P2. Maclang FACTS: 19 August 1949: Malolos called for bids for furnishing and delivering materials to be used in the maintenance and repair of barrio roads.Loc Gov Reviewer. GAO: Contract was void since no money had been appropriated to meet the obligation prior to the execution of the contract as required by Sec. 607 of the RAC. 2005-2006 The Council extended the lease for another five years with the condition that San Diego would waive the privilege to seek reduction of the amount of rent which was to be based on the original contract. 2165: Municipalities… endowed with faculties of municipal corporations to be exercised by and through their respective municipal governments in conformity with law. Naujan: The resolutions authorizing the original lease contract. Rivera v. This alone is not sufficient appropriation and authority to disburse part of the percentage collected under the law for the purpose of paying the petitioner’s claim. 68 ratifying the bidding called by the treasurer for the supply of construction materials. as required by Sec. 16 October 1951: Council of Malolos passed a resolution approving the contract. HELD: YES. and construction of municipal roads. Since the period in a lease is a vital and essential particular to the contract. The price was not paid.235 the petitioner was to furnish and deliver 2. Rivera: Cited Sec. it cannot produce any legal effect for which thereafter no recovery can be made. San Diego: Resolution No. reducing the lease rentals and renewing the lease are null and void for not having been passed in accordance with law (no public bidding). Rivera asked for the help of the Presidential Complaint and Action Commission which referred it to the General Auditing Office. ABG 16 October 1951: Council passed Resolution No. ISSUE: WON Resolution No.400 cubic meters of gravel. Rivera: Filed this action in his personal capacity pursuant to said provision. Trial Court: Dismissed it stating that since in the previous case. 222. Appellant won in the bidding and the contract was signed by the appellant and by defendant-appellee Carlos Maclang in his capacity as Municipal Mayor. Legally speaking. SC: Indicated that a remedy existed in Sec. TC: Upheld the validity of the lease contract. maintenance. there is no contract abrogated since the extension contract is void and inexistent. HELD: No. revoking Resolution No. and a contract entered into contrary to these requirements is void. 3 is null and void for revoking Resolution No. but the reduction of the rental and the extension of the term of the lease have been granted without a prior public bidding. 222. The requirement of competitive bidding is for the purpose of inviting competition and to guard against favoritism. Municipality of Malolos FACTS: August 1949: Municipality of Malolos called for bids for the supply of road construction materials to repair the roads of the municipality. for the repair. The office turned down the claim. Rivera’s bid was the lowest. 1st Sem. Sec. and corruption. 3. making it a distinct and different lease contract which requires the prescribed formality of a public bidding. 1952: Municipal Council. and that even if a sum was appropriated. the same shall be given to the highest bidder. 607 of the RAC. RATIO: Sec.235. ISSUE: WON the dismissal was proper and WON Maclang can be held liable in his personal capacity for the liability to Rivera. The Resolution extending the lease period was also revoked. Rivera complied with this. Rivera v. Municipal Treasurer: Informed the petitioner that the Council agreed to put said amount as standing obligation of the municipality authorizing payment and authorizing the Treasurer to pay as soon as funds are available. 42 . now composed of a new set of members. The Motor Vehicle Law invoked by Rivera merely allocates 10% of the money collected under its provisions to the road and bridge funds of the different municipalities in proportion to the population. the alleged deliveries could no longer be verified by the Provincial Auditor of Bulacan or his representative. 14 August 1955: Deputy Auditor General denied the petitioner’s claim on the ground that there was no sum of money appropriated to meet the obligation incurred before the execution of the contract. It shall be competent for them… to contract and be contracted with…” ISSUE: WON the Auditor General validly denied the claim of the petitioner. the municipal treasurer must certify to the officer entering into such contract that funds have been duly appropriated for such purpose and that the amount necessary to cover the proposed contract is available for expenditures on account thereof.000 or more may be entered into or authorized. RATIO: Sec. and that the contract is void. The original lease contract in this case was awarded to the highest bidder. which was granted without the requisite public bidding. Rivera was not paid so he requested that the sum be included in the appropriations for the incoming year 1950-51 since the fiscal year 194950 had already expired. 584-A of RAC: The provincial auditor or his representative must check up the deliveries made by a contractor pursuant to a contract lawfully and validly entered into and where there is no check up to show actual delivery. Rivera delivered gravel and adobe stones valued at P19. as shown in the last available census. The acting municipal treasurer informed Rivera that the contract had been awarded to him. its extension. 7 Par. 608 of the Code. the Auditor General is not duty bound to pass and allow in audit the sum claimed by a contractor. Public biddings are held for the best protection of the public and to give the public the best possible advantages by means of open competition between bidders. 2323 of the RAC: Requires that when the exclusive privilege of fishery is ranted to a private party. is not in accordance with law. The reduction of the rentals by 20% of the original price is also null and void since it is a substantial alteration of the contract.

Section 3 of the Constitution. The intention of the law in this case is to ensure that public officers entering into transactions with private individuals calling for the expenditure of public funds observe a high degree of caution so that the government may not be the victim of illadvised or improvident action by those assuming to represent it. RATIO: This action is against defendant-appellee in his personal capacity based on Sec. Consent is implied when the government enters into business contracts. several passengers of the jeepney including Laureano Baniña Sr. Government of the Philippines: This ruling may not be made since the driver was not a special agent of the Government. Mendoza v. the District Engineer. as if the transaction had been entered into by him as a private party. are not liable for consequences of their official acts unless it can be shown that they acted willfully and maliciously. HELD: Yes. respectively. but only when their acts are so far opposed to the true interest of the municipality as to lead to the clear inference that no one thus acting could have been influenced by any honest desire to secure such interests. it is not liable to private persons. Express consent may be embodied in a general law or a special law. The defendant councilors regularly leased an exclusive ferry privilege to the plaintiff for two years. The plaintiff was forcibly ejected under and in pursuance of a resolution adopted by the defendants in this case. of the passenger jeepney. the Provincial Treasurer. a gravel and sand truck driven by Manandeg and owned by Velasquez and a dump truck of the municipality. the private respondents amended the complaint wherein the petitioner and its regular employee. to wit: "the State may not be sued without its consent. 2005-2006 HELD: No. prescription of cause of action and the negligence of the owner and driver of the passenger jeepney as the proximate cause of the collision. 608 of the RAC: A purported contract entered into contrary to the requirements of the next preceding section hereof shall be wholly void. RATIO: The judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion when in the exercise of its judgment it arbitrarily failed to resolve the vital issue of nonsuability of the State in the guise of the municipality. thereby descending 43 . The doctrine of non-suability of the State is expressly provided for in Article XVI. He was prosecuted for homicide through reckless imprudence. owner and driver. 1634 of the Philippine Commission. Mendoza filed an action for damages against the individual members of the council. The construction of roads in which the truck and the driver worked at the time of the accident are admittedly governmental activities. the heirs later began this proceeding against the employer province. that there is no manner of doubt that this pretext was absolutely without foundation and as there was therefore no occasion whatever for rescinding the contract.Loc Gov Reviewer. HELD: No. RATIO: The Municipal Code confers both governmental and corporate powers upon municipal corporations. The liability of Maclang is personal. awarding a franchise for the same ferry to another person. ISSUE: WON the respondent court validly found the municipality liable for the quasi-delict committed by its employee. If the negligent employee was engaged in the performance of governmental duties." Consent takes the form of express or implied consent. killing him in the process. 11 December 1966: Compliant for damages was filed by the pvt respondents against the Estate of Macario Nieveras and Bernardo Balagot. as distinguished from the provincial or municipal governments. Due to the impact. judicial. he ran over Proceto Palafox. and the officer assuming to make such contract shall be liable to the Government or other contracting party for any consequent damage to the same extent as if the transaction had been wholly between private parties. Its liability to them for the wrongful exercise of the latter is the same as that of a private corporation or individual. not for mere mistakes of judgment. Municipality: Alleged lack of cause of action. After continuous user of a little more than one year. For the exercise of the former. 30 September 1948: While driving his truck in compliance with his duties. The defendants filed a Third Party Complaint against the petitioner and the driver of a dump truck of petitioner. Officers and agents of MCs charged with the performance of governmental duties which are in their nature legislative. 1st Sem. as distinguished from corporate functions. the defendant councilors are liable personally for the damages suffered by Mendoza. La Union v. a declaration must be made that he was a special agent and not one upon whom properly devolved the duty of driving the truck on that occasion. Merrit v. ABG ISSUE: WON the council members can be held personally liable for the damages suffered by the lessee. RATIO: 1903 Civil Code: To attach liability to the State for the negligence of Torralba. Alfredo Bislig were impleaded for the first time as defendants. driven by Bislig collided. the government is not liable. ISSUE: WON the province can be made to pay monetary compensation for an injury caused by its employee in the performance of his regular function involving governmental activities. Yes. The officers of municipalities charged with the administration of patrimonial property are liable for mismanagement of its affairs as are directors or managing officers of private corporations. Palafox. Province of Ilocos Norte FACTS: Sabas Torralba was employed as driver of the Provincial Government of Ilocos Norte detailed to the office of the District Engineer. The principle applies to the Insular. HELD: NO. they forcible evicted him on the pretext that he was not operating the ferry leased to him. Firme FACTS: 16 December 1965: A passenger jeep driven by Barnardo Balagot and owned by the Estate of Nieveras. By virtue of a court order. et al v. father of appellants. Under the evidence of record. Having reserved the right to file a civil action.a nd Torralba. Municipality of San Fernando. De Leon FACTS: The Municipal Council of Villasis Pangasinan revoked the lease of an exclusive ferry privilege awarded to the plaintiff under the provisions of Act No. with the express purpose of inflicting injury upon the plaintiff. or quasi-judicial. died as a result of the injuries they sustained and four (4) others suffered varying degrees of physical injuries. non-suability of the State.

RATIO: Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care. who was then engaged in the discharge of governmental functions. Bertulano to exercise prudence was the proximate cause of the accident. al. The circumstance that a state is suable does not necessarily mean that it is liable. City Engineer: Investigated and found that the victims entered the tank without clearance from it nor with the knowledge and consent of the market master. their acts are political and governmental. Court of Appeals FACTS: 14 March 1977: SB of Camalaniugan. An accident such as toxic gas leakage from the tank is unlikely to happen unless one removes its covers. Their officers and agents in such capacity. without just cause. like provinces and cities. and as such they are officers. Municipal corporations. v. When a person holds himself out as being competent to do things requiring professional skill. the duty of the market master or his security guards to supervise the work could not have started. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court by ordering the City of Davao to pay damages.Loc Gov Reviewer. on the other hand." Palafox. Fernando et al v. Official inaction may be due to plain indolence or a cynical indifference to the responsibilities of public service. without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. thus opening itself to a counterclaim. it has not even been alleged that Mayor Tuzon’s refusal to act on the respondent’s application was an attempt to compel him to resort to bribery. filed a requisition request with the Chief of Property of the City Treasurer’s Office for the re-emptying of the septic tank in Agdao. Hence. 22 November 1975: Bidder Bertulano. The respondents were not singled out and the resolution was uniformly applied to all the threshers in the municipality. The accident which befell the victims who are not in any way connected with the winning bidder happened before the award could be given. It cannot be said that the mayor and the treasurer were motivated by personal spite or were grossly negligent in refusing to issue the permit to Jurado. Toilets and septic tanks are not nuisances per se as defined in Article 694 of the Civil Code which would necessitate warning signs for the protection of the public. whereby such other person suffers injury. are nevertheless public functionaries performing a public service. ISSUE: WON Davao City is guilty of negligence in this case and if so. He must prove under 2179 that the defendant’s negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury. the toxic gases from the waste matter could not have leaked out because it was air-tight. he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and sill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he attempts to do. It provided for the compulsory donation of 1% of the palay threshed by the operators to finance the construction of a Sports and Nutrition Center. 27 is to end the bribery system. In the other capacity the municipalities exercise a private. the city immediately responded by issuing invitations to bid for such service. Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued. ISSUE: WON the petitioners are liable in damages to the private respondent from having withheld the mayor’s permit and license due to his refusal to comply with Resolution No. The surreptitious way in which the victims did their job without clearance from the market master or any of the guards goes against their good faith. While it may be ABG true that the city was remiss in its duty to re-empty the septic tank annually. and vigilance which the circumstances justly demanded. are agencies of the State when they are engaged in governmental functions and therefore should enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit. The provision presupposes that the refusal or omission of a public official to perform his official duty is attributable to malice or inexcusable negligence. HELD: No. The cause of death was asphyxia caused by the diminution of oxygen in the body below normal conditions. proprietary or corporate right. Considering that there was yet no award and order to commence work on the tank. liability on the applicable law and the established facts. et. The absence of any accident was due to the compliance of the city with the sanitary and plumbing specifications in constructing the toilet and the septic tank. In this case. agents. such negligence was not a continuing one. though elected or appointed by them. and servants of the state. Tuzon and Mapagu v. is obliged to pay for the damage done. adopted Resolution No. 2176: A person who by his omission causes damage to another. Driver of the dump truck of the municipality insists that "he was on his way to the Naguilian river to get a load of sand and gravel for the repair of San Fernando's municipal streets. Province of Ilocos Norte: "the construction or maintenance of roads in which the truck and the driver worked at the time of the accident are admittedly governmental activities. 9. HELD: No. The accident occurred because the victims on their own and without authority from the city opened the tank. Cagayan. WON that negligence is the proximate cause of the deaths of the victims. is performing governmental or proprietary functions. to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter. The lungs of the victims burst due to their intake of toxic sulfide gas produced from the waste in the tank. To be entitled to damages for an injury resulting from the negligence of another. and while in the performance of the duties pertaining thereto. An invitation to bid was issued to several parties and Bascon won in the bidding. 9. Private respondent Saturnino Jurado did not comply with it so the mayor refused to give him a license to operate. The failure of Mr. 27: Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects. were found dead inside the septic tank. for example. arising from their existence as legal persons and not as public agencies. The tank was found empty and the victims were presumed to be the ones who did the re-emptying. 1st Sem. and also when the State files a complaint. Municipal corporations exist in a dual capacity: They exercise the right springing from sovereignty. with 4 other companions. The petitioners acted within the scope of their authority and in consonance with their honest 44 . acting in behalf of the municipality. it can never be held liable if it does not first consent to be sued. The erring public officer is justly punishable under this article for whatever loss or damage the complainant has sustained. 2005-2006 to the level of the other contracting party. a claimant must establish the relation between the omission and the damage. there being negligence. The CA reversed itself upon a motion for reconsideration. Upon learning from the report of the market master about the need to clean the tank. RATIO: The purpose of Art. Jurado: Mayor and treasurer liable! Art. Court of Appeals and City of Davao FACTS: 7 November 1975: Bibiano Morta: Market master of the Agdao Public Market. precaution." Municipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its regular employee. The test of liability of the municipality for torts depends on whether or not the driver.

Genaro Teotico fell inside an uncovered manhole on P. its legality would have to be presumed. can be had from the municipality unless there is an existing statute on the matter. abrasions. Sec. as long as they performed their duties honestly and in good faith or that they did not act wantonly and maliciously. retarding her reconstructions. is obliged to pay for the damage done. His left eye got injured. RATIO: The City was not charged with any unlawful act. City of Manila FACTS: 27 January 1958: While attempting to board a jeepney. Municipality: It performs sovereign functions and the holding of a town fiesta was an exercise of its governmental functions for which no liability can arise to answer for the negligence of its agents. With respect to proprietary functions. He filed a case against the City of Manila. The performance was a donation offered by the respondents. HELD: YES. and chief of police. Naga: We acted thru our police power and it was “prompted to preserve the peace and good order of the community and the general welfare. the Civil Code constitutes a particular prescription. through its “Committee” would build a stage strong enough to support the performance. The mere fact that the celebration. or injuries suffered by. 2189 governs liability due to “defective streets” in particular. Macaraeg supervised the construction of the stage. 2246 of the RAC which provides that no municipal road or any part thereof shall be closed without indemnifying any person prejudiced thereby. Teotico. he suffered contusions. and used the closed thoroughfare to expand the market. Several kinds of constructions were allowed by the municipality along the sidewalk of the plaintiff’s property depriving the plaintiff’s property of access to P. the municipality is to be held liable for damages for the death of Fontanilla if that was attributable to the negligence17 of the officers of the municipality. in connection with its maintenance. RATIO: 2189: Provinces. Burgos Ave. The Civil Code and not the Charter of Manila applies in this case. 4 of RA 409 applies. no recovery. a municipal corporation can be held liable to third persons ex contractu or ex delicto. Manila: Sec. there being fault or negligence. city treasure. its mayor. It is true that insofar as territorial application is concerned. or from their negligence while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions. the Charter is a special law. Holding a fiesta for whatever purpose is in essence an act for the special benefit of the community and not for the general welfare of the public performed in pursuance of a state policy. 4 refers to liability arising from negligence. passed Resolution No. stating that the City shall not be liable for damages to persons arising form the failure of its officers to enforce the provisions of any law. The Councilors did not directly participate in the construction of the stage so they could not be held liable. However. streets. Sec.Loc Gov Reviewer. ISSUE: Whether the celebration of a town fiesta is an exercise of a municipality’s governmental or public function or one of a proprietary character. The determination of whether or not P. The CFI of Camarines Sur sentenced the City of Naga to pay the appellee P300 damages resulting from the closing of a municipal street. It is not subject to the review of the SC. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. Burgos Ave. was not to secure profit or gain but merely to provide entertainment is not a conclusive test. 45 . in general. 2005-2006 interpretation of the resolution. 159: It resolved to manage the 1959 Malasiqui town fiesta. The Article requires that the province. one of the performers. Municipality of Naga FACTS: Naga ordered the closing of a part of a municipal street which ran between the public market and the plaintiff’s property. Fontanilla. Pangasinan. Fontanilla FACTS: 21 October 1958: Municipal Council of Malasiqui. public buildings. In the absence of any judicial decision declaring the resolution invalid. or with acting without authority. city health officer. ISSUE: WON the city of Manila can be held liable for the injuries of Mr. 2176: Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. is a question of fact which was resolved by the CA in the affirmative. any person by reason of defective conditions of roads. The authority of Manila over the streets has neither been withdrawn nor restricted by any law.” Torio v. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. and other public works under their control and supervision. city engineer. as regards the subject matter of the provisions. the participants in the stage show had the right to expect that the Municipality. The basis of the lower court’s decision is Sec. HELD: Yes. died because the stage collapsed and he got pinned underneath. RATIO: If the injury is caused in the course of the performance of a governmental function or duty. and allergic reactions (due to the anti-tetanus shot) because of the accident. The basic element is that it is governmental in essence. CA: Found and held that there was negligence. is under the control or supervision of Manila and whether the latter is guilty of negligence. P100 was appropriated for the construction of 2 stages: for the zarzuela and the cancionan. city. 182 was also passed creating the Town Fiesta Executive Committee. 2180: The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omission. nor from its officers. Only P100 was appropriated for the two stages and the posts and braces were only made of bamboo. or municipality have either “control or supervision” over the street. as a rule. regardless of the object thereof.” ISSUE: WON the City can be held liable for damages resulting from the closure of a municipal street. 2282 of the Admin Code simply authorizes the municipality to celebrate a yearly fiesta but it does not impose a duty to observe one. Under the doctrine of respondent superior. bridges. and that when the Municipality accepted it. Prieto Street. Resolution No. Abella v. as claimed. HELD: Proprietary. 17 ABG Teotico v. It organized a subcommittee on entertainment and stage with Jose Macaraeg as chairman. The respondent could have taken the prudent course of signing the agreement under protest and later challenging it in court to relive him of his obligation to “donate. 1st Sem. The zarzuela entitled Midas Extravaganza was donated by an association of Malasiqui employees of the Manila Railroad Company in Caloocan.

PSB and private respondent entered into a compromise agreement where they agreed to divide the compensation due from the expropriation proceedings. That Pasay City shall remit the amount advanced by the contractor. the claimant may avail of the remedy of mandamus to compel the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance and its corresponding disbursement. TC: Contractor complied substantially.3M. no levy under execution may be validly effected on the second account. and that the indemnity assessed is within the bounds of the damages suffered. Home Bldg System. The city shall also reimburse the contractor for the cost of the work completed as estimated by the city engineer for each stage before proceeding to the nest. ABG The Municipality later discovered that PS Bank consolidated its ownership over the property as mortgagee/ purchaser. Provincial roads and foot-path. Tan Toco v. there is no dispute. 18 The contractor shall advance the needed amount for each stage. Court of Appeals FACTS: 20 May 1986: Action for eminent domain was filed by the City of Makati against the properties of Admiral Finance. It is evident that the movable and immovable property of a municipality. HELD: YES. The damages seem to be nominal judged by the description of the plaintiff’s interests adversely affected by the conversion of P. Prieto Street into a market. the stipulation of facts admits. 1012 which approved the Compromise Agreement19 and authorized then Mayor Claudio to represent the city. the RTC decision is not disputed by Makati. Municipal Council of Iloilo FACTS: The widow of Tan Toco sued the municipal council of Iloilo for P42. It spent P1. For 3 years now. The reason for this is the character of the public use to which such kind of property is devoted. one police patrol car. the police stations on Mabini Street. and as such are endowed with the faculties of municipal corporations. squares. Trial Court: Approved the compromise and ordered the release of the balance of the appraised value of the property. fountains. CFI of Manila FACTS: 12 August 1964: VD Isip. are property for public use. Pasay: It’s premature. to effect payment of a final money judgment rendered against it. Makati: On appeal. unless otherwise provided for by statue. out of the total contract price of P4. However. This was issued and a notice of garnishment was served upon the manager of PNB Buendia branch. 25 February 1969: Municipal Board of Pasay enacted Ordinance No. The sheriff attached two auto trucks used for street sprinkling. RATIO: The funds deposited in the second PNB account are public funds and the settled rule is that public funds are not subject to levy and execution. CFI of Iloilo: Municipality must pay the amount. 16 May 1968: Contractor sued for specific performance with damages. 1st Sem. the sheriff was told that a hold code was placed on the account. Where a municipality fails or refuses. without justifiable reason. to be reimbursed by the city before the contractor proceeds to the next stage. All other property possessed by said MCs is patrimonial and shall be subject to the provisions of the Civil Code. The appraised value of the property was P5. Absent a showing that the MC of Makati passed an ordinance appropriating from its public funds an amount corresponding to the balance due. the contractor has not yet set up a new performance bond. the city enjoyed possession and use of the property notwithstanding its failure to comply with its legal obligation to pay just compensation. Municipality of Makati v. 19 The contractor shall submit and file a new performance bond in proportion to the remaining value of the unfinished work. 46 . and Sheriff can’t garnish trust funds of the city. The contractor proceeded with the construction. Private respondent moved for the issuance of a writ of execution.9M.Loc Gov Reviewer. 2005-2006 That Concepcion Abella was economically damaged. It shall be competent for them… to sue and be sued.1 for this initial stage. 9 July 1969: An application for and notice of garnishment were made upon the funds of the Pasay City Government with the PNB. needed for governmental purposes. Pasay only paid P1. and the concrete structures and lots used by several markets. Iloilo was unable to pay due to lack of funds.7M for the initial stages of the work. the 90-day stipulation has not yet expired. The provincial fiscal filed a motion praying that the attachment be dissolved (this was granted).966. and public waters. garnishment must proceed. Pasay still failed to pay. Makati: Garnishment must be lifted! The manner of payment in expropriation proceedings should be done in installments. less the sum of P99T deposited in the first account. drives and public improvements of general benefit built at the expense of the said towns. Pasay City Government v. to contract and be contracted with…” The AC does not specify the kind of property that a municipality can acquire. may not be attached and sold for the payment of a judgment against the municipality. The necessity for government service justifies that the property of public use of the municipality be exempt from execution. In this case.40. another for statutory obligations and other purposes. RATIO: 2165 AC: Municipalities are political bodies corporate. and in Molo and Mandurriao. ISSUE: WON municipal properties are exempt from execution. the obligations were reciprocal. Sons and Associates entered into a contract18 for the construction of a new city hall with Pasay City represented by Mayor Cuneta. leaving P613T immediately due. Tan Toco had a writ of execution issued against the property of the municipality. The contractor shall finish the building within 1 year from the approval of the agreement. alleged that it has two accounts with the PNB: One for the expropriation of the property. and Arceli Jo. being the purchase price of two strips of land which the council appropriated for widening the street. streets. HELD: NO. 343 Civil Code: Divides the property of provinces and towns into those for public use and patrimonial property. to be exercised by and through their respective municipal government in conformity with law. ISSUE: WON the funds in the second account can be the subject of execution.

The city was initially content with a mere 5% bond. All this only goes to prove that the municipality of Paoay is not holding this usufruct or right of fishery in a permanent or absolute manner so as to enable it to dispose of it or to allow it to be taken away from it as its property through execution. may. ISSUE: WON the properties in this case can be subject to attachment and levy. it is strange for it to suddenly demand a 20% bond. 2041:One of the parties to a compromise has two options:1. This. The reason behind this exemption extended to properties for public use. Rescind/insist on original demand It is true that all government funds deposited with the PNB by any agency of the government remain government funds and may not be subject to garnishment or levy. However. It will also deprive Paoay of income. granted to it by section 2321 of the Revised Administrative Code. it is treated as the private asset of the town and may be levied upon and sold under an ordinary execution. for instance. municipal licenses and market fees are provided for and imposed by the law. avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced. particularly bañgos fry. 47 . The same rule applies to municipal funds derived from patrimonial properties. All that he can do is rent out to private individuals the fishery rights over the lots after public bidding. They do not belong to the municipality." 26 July 1949: Municipality filed a petition asking for the dissolution of that attachment or levy of the properties above-mentioned arguing that they are for public use. public policy… is a valid contract. more or less temporary. him being the highest bidder. The argument that it is reciprocal is already moot. if not necessary. Ilocos Norte and a writ of execution against the defendant municipality was issued. he must do since that is the only right granted by the legislature. RATIO: 2028: A compromise is a contract whereby the parties. The P613T has already been collected through execution and garnishment and the contractor already finished some stages of the construction.712. they are intended primarily and exclusively for the purpose of financing the governmental activities and functions of municipal corporations. The parties to the compromise contemplated a divisible obligation needing a performance bond in proportion to the uncompleted work. HELD: Not all of them. The premium of the bond will be sizeable and will eat up the contractor’s profits. since an ordinance has already been enacted expressly appropriating the amount of P613T. A compromise agreement not contrary to law. It is anomalous since a private individual would be forced to conduct a public bidding.Loc Gov Reviewer. for reasons it may deem valid or as a matter of public policy. 2. Manaois paid P2. The submission of the bond was not a condition precedent to the payment to the plaintiff. The right or usufruct of the town of Paoay over its municipal waters.01 in the Municipal Treasury representing the rental paid by Mr.01 in the municipal treasury of Paoay representing the rental paid by Demetrio Tabije on fishery lots let out by the municipality of Paoay is a proper subject of levy. The Legislature. particularly. he found therein Duque and his men who claimed that he (Duque) was still the lessee. Having established that the compromise agreement was final and executory. It may be profitable. 2005-2006 ISSUE: WON the PNB account can be garnished to pay for the remaining debt of the city. the Court was in error when it still entertained the supplemental complaint filed by the respondent-appellee for by then the Court no longer had jurisdiction over the subject matter. Manaois FACTS: Manaois obtained a judgment against the municipality of Paoay. 1938: The municipal council of Paoay approved a resolution confiscating said six fishery lots on the ground that a certain Duque failed to comply with the terms of the lease contract. mentioned at the beginning of this decision are not subject to execution. Municipality awarded the lease of the same lots to Manaois. What Paoay holds is merely a usufruct or the right to use said municipal waters. it has been held that shares of stock held by a municipal corporation are subject to execution. In fact. 1st Sem. Another reason for this prohibition is that the buyer would only buy the rights of the municipality. However. If it is patrimonial and which is held by a municipality in its proprietary capacity. to distinguish this kind of revenue from that derived from taxes. It is based merely on a grant. Or the Legislature may grant the usufruct or right of fishery to the provinces concerned so that said provinces may operate or administer them by leasing them to private parties. repeal or modify said section 2321 and revoke this grant to coastal towns and open these marine waters to the public. Municipality of Paoay v. public order. the latter succeeded in continuing in his possession and keeping Manaois and his men out. and despite the appeal of Manaois to the Municipality of Paoay to put him in possession and the efforts of the municipality to oust Duque. However.Enforce it.712. by making reciprocal concessions. we hold that the fishery lots numbering about forty in the municipality of Paoay. The Sheriff attached and levied upon the following: (1) P1. and the attachment made thereon by the Sheriff is valid. The fishery or municipal waters of the town are not subject to execution. the real estate taxes collected by a municipality do not all go to it."(2) About forty fishery lots leased to thirty-five different persons by the Municipality. when Manaois and his men tried to enter the property in order to exercise his right as lessee and to catch fish. at any time. made by the Legislature. In conclusion. is not subject to execution. and public municipal revenues is that they are held in trust for the people. But we hold that the revenue or income coming from the renting of these fishery lots is certainly subject to execution. the forty odd fishery lots included in the attachment by the Sheriff. Demetrio Tabije of a fishery lot belonging to the defendant municipality. HELD: YES. Manaois brought an action against the Municipality of Paoay to recover not only the sum paid by him for the lease of the fishery lots but also damages.025 as rental for the said lots for the year 1939. RATIO: ABG Properties for public use held by municipal corporations are not subject to levy and execution. then this case is covered by the exception. They are property of the State. the amount of P1.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful