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

ABG

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

1

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;

4.

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;

2

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:
1

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.

3

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

ABG

-

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

3.

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.

2.

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

2

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

4

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

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

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

Persons may be subjected to certain kinds of restraints and burdens to secure the general welfare of the state. Cabrera: Resolution No. Tepoot’s bldg is residential or not is a factual determination which appellate courts should not disturb. gathering. also in the same part of the road. they argued. 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. converted it into a piggery farm. and tidal waters within the municipality. The testimony of City Councilor Vergara shows that Mr. park. Tolentino. of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms for a period of 5 yrs. Vargas. The LGC grants municipalities the power to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters and to impose rentals. possession. The petitioners directly invoked the original jurisdiction of the SC arguing as follows: 1. who bought Vargas’s share. Latorre. It deprived them of due process of law. 16 of the LGC). 135 was issued by Acting MMC Mayor Virgilio Robles. Sec. etc. The Caloocan City mayor opened 7 flea markets in their city. 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. fees. 23 contained no regulation nor condition under which the Mayor’s permit could be granted or denied. Alcala. Cabrera v CA (1991) FACTS: 19 Sept 1969: Provincial Board of Catanduanes adopted Resolution No. Anselmo Peña. 10 Jan 1979: EO No. and unduly restricted them from the practice of their trade.Loc Gov Reviewer. 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. 19 February 1993: Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan enacted Resolution No. The respondents implemented the ordinances. 2. Tepoot’s bldg was used for a dual purpose: dwelling and for business. 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: Resolution 158 clearly says that “it is hereby resolved to close the old road. While the cases on this subject dealt with city councils and not provincial boards. 131 [r] LGC). RATIO: The question of whether Mr. Two principal objectives of the Ordinances: 1. 3. YES. depriving all the fishermen.” 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 centerpiece of the LGC is decentralization. there is no reason for not applying the doctrine announced therein with respect to the closure of provincial roads. 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). Tano v Socrates (1997) FACTS: 15 Dec 1992: Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa City enacted Ordinance No. alley. 2. RATIO: Laws enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. 1st Sem. the Caloocan City Flea Market Authority was established. YES. The term ABG “municipal waters” includes not only streams. designating certain city and municipal streets as sites for flea markets. 2005-2006 ISSUE: WON the declaration of an LGU that an area is a commercial zone is a valid exercise of police power. Once a local gov’t has reclassified an area as commercial. While the commercial character of the vicinity was declared through ordinance. One of these powers is the enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters including the conservation of mangroves. The Ordinance took away the right of the fishermen to earn their livelihood in lawful ways. 158 is not an order for a closure of the road but an authority to barter. lessening 5 Bagadiong. street. 15-92 which banned the shipment of all live fish and lobster outside the city from 1993-1998. This authority is inferable from the grant by congress of the funds to the province for the construction of provincial roads. 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 purpose of the inspection is to check if the shipper had the required mayor’s permit issued by their office. 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. RA 5185. A public road could not be subject of a barter without a prior order of closure. 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. their livelihood. 23. 8 . marine merchants. Code. The findings of the trial court is supported by the fact that the Sanggunian declared the area as commercial or C-2. The Ordinance. violating Section 2. YES. and shippers of the entire province of their only means of livelihood. Article XII and Sections 2 and 7 of the 1987 Constitution. 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. 1978: Part of the northern end of the old road fronting the petitioner’s house was planted to vegetables in 1977 by E. While its commercial aspect has been established by the presence of machineries and laundry equipment. Alejandro. The sanggunians are directed to enact ordinances for the general welfare of the LGU and its inhabitants. Office Order No. 33 which prohibited the catching. ISSUE: WON the provincial board can order the closure of a road and use/ convey it for other purposes. etc. Mayor had absolute authority in issuing the permit. lakes. its use as a residence was not fully substantiated. the respondents have failed to substantiate their arguments that Cabaguio Avenue was still a residential zone. One of the streets designated was “Heroes del ‘96” where the petitioner lives. 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. and Reyes. Alejandro. that determination for zoning purposes must prevail. 22 Jan 1993: Acting Mayor Lucero issued Office Order No. 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. 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. 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. Dacanay v Asistio (1992) FACTS: 5 Jan 1979: MMC Ordinance No. or charges for their use. The respondents contended that it was a valid exercise of the Provincial Government’s power under the general welfare clause (Sec. 11 (II) (a): A municipal council may close any municipal road. 79-02 was enacted by the Commission. Indispensable to this is devolution. It authorized officers to inspect cargoes containing live fish and lobster that are shipped out of Puerto Princesa. The road was considered “the most viable and progressive. ie.

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

and the extent of social and economic reform secured by the condemnation. It is contended on the part of the plaintiff that the phrase in said section. and the purpose of the expropriation must be public. enhances the physical and moral value of the surrounding communities. .. but (b) also that the right or authority is being exercised in accordance with the law. by law. From an examination of Act No. Said section 248 gives the Supreme Court authority to inquire into the right of expropriation on the part of the plaintiff. we find how the right of eminent domain may be exercised. The land in question has cost the owner P140. finds that neither of said condition exists. The plaintiff alleged that the expropriation was necessary. concerning the question whether or not the purpose of the appropriation is. in its section 241. that it has authority to expropriate land. If the court. "and if the court shall find that the right to expropriate exists. or a large section of a town or city. 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. Lastly. may condemn private property for public use. and to authorize the exercise of the power of eminent domain to promote such public benefit. "In a broad sense. etc: each alleged (a) that no necessity existed for said expropriation and (b) that the land in question was a cemetery. 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. to render a judgment in favor of the defendant for its value. expropriation of large estates. Section 2429 of Act No. then the courts have no other function than to authorize the expropriation and to proceed to ascertain the value of the land involved. ISSUE: WON the expropriation of the area is proper. prevents the spread of crime and diseases to unaffected areas. Viewed from another angle. it shall then appoint commissioners. for some public use. and was covered with sepulchers and monuments. is not denied. and to hear proof upon an-issue properly presented. A municipal corporation in this jurisdiction cannot expropriate public property. 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). 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. trusts in perpetuity." means simply that. Tambunting. second. it may expropriate any land it may desire. crime and waste. In the present case there are two conditions imposed upon the authority conceded to the City of Manila: First. ISSUE: WON the courts can inquire and hear proof as to the existence of the prerequisites needed in eminent domain proceedings initiated by LGUs. 190. RATIO: The right of expropriation is not an inherent power in a municipal corporation." The Charter of the city of Manila contains no procedure by which the said authority may be carried into effect. in fact. 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. If the court. and any person. The land to be expropriated must be private. Sections 244. The expropriation in such cases tends to abolish economic slavery. If the Supreme Court on appeal shall determine that no right of expropriation existed. and forgetting for a moment the private character of the intended use. 1st Sem. Necessity within the rule that the particular property to be expropriated must be necessary. that the only function of the court in such proceedings is to ascertain the value of the land in question. endless conflicts between landlords and tenants. Comunidad de Chinos de Manila." Section 243 provides that if the court shall find upon trial that the right to expropriate the land in question exists. But measured even by this standard. . which had been used as such for many years. a task which the government alone is not in a position to undertake. when the value of the land is fixed by the method adopted by the law. We are driven. In the first place. 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.000 students would be sacrificed. bears direct relation to the public welfare. that the necessity for the expropriation is a legislative and not a judicial question. does not mean an absolute but only a reasonable or practical necessity. the land must be private. 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. or public advantage. 245 and 246 provide the method of procedure and duty of the commissioners. upon trial. 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. 2711 (Charter of the city of Manila) provides that "the city (Manila) . therefore.270 square meters and situated on Legarda Street. the courts have ample authority. and. especially where the interests involved are of considerable magnitude. The underlying reasons for these decisions are that the destruction of congested areas and unsanitary dwellings diminishes the potentialities of epidemics. to the procedure marked out by Act No. and other evils inimical to community prosperity and contentment and public peace and order. 190 to ascertain how the said authority may be exercised. shall exercise that right in the manner hereinafter prescribed. the large number of people benefited. and so dismissed the present action.000." CFI: This provision empowers cities to purchase but not to expropriate lands for the purpose of subdivision and resale. "The Government of the Philippine Islands. and about two-thirds of that involved in the Borja condemnation proceeding. the right to condemn private property for public use. to make inquiry. 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. and land that embraces a whole town. finds that neither of these conditions exists or that either one of them fails. In the second place. etc. necessity for the condemnation has not been shown. which seeks to condemn several parcels of land having a combined area of 7. feudalistic practices. public utility. When the courts come to determine the question. if the court finds that there is some law authorizing the plaintiff to expropriate. and promotes the safety and welfare of the public in general. or that either one of them fails. and. NO. City of Manila. in this jurisdiction. they must not only find (a) that a law or authority exists for the exercise of the right of eminent domain. under the law. and that the same should not be converted into a street for public purposes. Said section 241 provides that. the case at bar is weaker for the condemnor. RATIO: Although courts are not in agreement as to the tests to be applied in determining whether the use is public or not. the right to expropriate does not exist. the purpose must be public. some go so far in the direction of a liberal construction as to hold that public use is synonymous with public benefit.Loc Gov Reviewer. 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. or public or private corporation having. that the courts are mere appraisers of the land involved in expropriation proceedings. 2005-2006 homesites within their respective territorial jurisdiction and reselling them at cost to residents of the said cities and municipalities. If the property is taken in the 10 . While a handful of people stand to profit by the expropriation. and before it can exercise the right some law must exist conferring the power upon it. or of any province or department thereof. Section 248 provides for an appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance to the Supreme Court. clothes the expropriation with public interest and public use. That the city of Manila has authority to expropriate private lands for public purposes. the development of a university that has a present enrollment of 9. or of any municipality. upon trial. ABG City of Manila: Once it has established the fact. The size of the land expropriated.

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. it is a public use and no part of the ground can be taken for other public uses under a general authority. like a resort complex for tourists or housing project The expropriation of the property authorized by the questioned resolution is for a public purpose.P.) before the taking thereof could satisfy the constitutional requirement of "public use". concerning whether or not the lands were private and whether the purpose was. if the legislature under proper authority should grant the expropriation of a certain or particular parcel of land for some specified public purpose. "public use" means public advantage. 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.714. 11 . Solicitor General: Under Section 9 of the Local Government Code (B. authorizing the Provincial Governor to purchase or expropriate property contiguous to the provincial capitol site. 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. Where a cemetery is open to the public. When the legislature interferes with that right. However.” Camarines Sur filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. it is complete within its limits. that the courts would be without jurisdiction to inquire into the purpose of that legislation. because all of these projects would naturally involve a change in the land use. Moreover. 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. No species of property is held by individuals with greater tenacity and none is guarded by the constitution and laws more sedulously. 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. However.Loc Gov Reviewer. The housing project also satisfies the public purpose requirement of the Constitution. Province of Camarines Sur v CA (1993) FACTS: 22 December 1988: Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur passed Resolution No. Blg. ABG The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the price offered for their property. as the implementor of the agrarian reform program. 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. bridges. 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. Under the new concept. some of the vital components of which includes the establishment of model and pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops. and not follow. Series of 1988. in order to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial government employees. It cannot be denied. either in the law conferring the power or in other legislations. 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. it assumed that the resolution is valid and that the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use. in fact. roads. and the owner's constitutional rights call for protection by the courts. public plazas. ISSUE: WON the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units is subject to the prior approval of the Secretary of the Agrarian Reform. and the rule in that case is that the authority must be strictly construed. 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. the taking of the property. 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.. without first applying for conversion of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform. The Court of Appeals set aside the order of the trial court. the city of Manila cannot condemn a portion of the cemetery for a public street. the legislature may retain certain control or impose certain restraints on the exercise thereof by the local governments. 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.P. 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. fishermen and craftsmen would be enhanced. The ascertainment of the necessity must precede. convenience or benefit. While such delegated power may be a limited authority. marine biological and sea farming research center. the province of Camarines Sur has adopted a five-year Comprehensive Development plan. public. The establishment of a pilot development center would inure to the direct benefit and advantage of the people of the Province of Camarines Sur. The city of Manila is not authorized to expropriate public property. 337) and that the expropriations are for a public purpose. 129. schools. to make inquiry and to hear proof. small scale products of plaster of paris. than the right to the freehold of inhabitants. which tends to contribute to the general welfare and the prosperity of the whole community. under the provisions above quoted. the plain meaning of the law should not be enlarged by doubtful interpretation. 15 small scale technology soap making.00.g. 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. bridges. soil testing and tissue culture laboratory centers. In effect. 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. it is being taken for a use not public. The taking of private property for any use which is not required by the necessities or convenience of the inhabitants of a state. NO. upon an issue properly presented. the livelihood of the farmers. hospitals. 1st Sem. the limitations on the exercise of the delegated power must be clearly expressed. etc. "WHEREAS. RATIO: Modernly. Blg. Ultimately. The San Joaquins failed to appear at the hearing of the motion. 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. the courts have ample authority in this jurisdiction. etc. 337). 2005-2006 ostensible behalf of a public improvement which it can never by any possibility serve. It is also true that in delegating the power to expropriate. it would then be the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use. 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. However. The old concept was that the condemned property must actually be used by the general public (e.

for their truth is hypothetically admitted by the motion. Rule VU of the IRR which requires only a resolution could not prevail over the law. The remaining 315 square meters is the subject of a separate expropriation proceeding in Civil Case No. On 16 August 1996. the same being an expression of legislative policy. Article 36. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. III of the Constitution and other pertinent laws. more or less. Resolution. 1st Sem. Exercised for public use. No.826. 7160. the Municipality of Pque filed on 20 Sept 1993 a complaint for expropriation against VM Realty Corporation over 2 parcels of land. 6 Accordingly.339. There is payment of just compensation. 3. The assessment was approved as the just compensation thereof by the trial court in its Order of 27 December 1996. NO. NO. or in the amount of P20.A law. Res judicata is present in this case since VM Realty is a successor in interest of Limpan Investment Corp. The lots are the most suitable site for the purpose. whichever was lower. 1528 contains 793 square meters but the actual area to be expropriated is only 478 square meters.50. 2005-2006 Ordinarily. There is also an ancient rule that restrictive statutes. do not embrace the sovereign unless the sovereign is specially mentioned as subject thereto. then pending before Branch 9 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. The purpose was to alleviate the living conditions of the poor by providing homes through socialized housing projects. Inc.10 per square meter.824. The total area sought to be expropriated is 1.50. 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. 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.Loc Gov Reviewer.” (See Sec. The petitioner alleged therein that it needed the parcels of land of respondents for a public purpose. 9 Art. the Cebu Holdings. 2.e. No.. it contended that Lot No. Petitioner alleged that the lower court erred in fixing the amount of just compensation at P20.000 per square meter. are unfounded.A. RATIO: The power of eminent domain is lodged in Congress.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. No. 1528 and fixed it at P12. Valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated but that it was rejected. CEB-8348. 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. 93-95. 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. The motion was granted by the trial court on 21 September 1994. If Congress intended to allow LGUs to exercise the power through a resolution. which petitioner paid to the neighboring lots. WON those allegations are true is beside the point. the dispositive portion of the decision was amended to reflect the new valuation. 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. Respondents: The purpose for which their property was to be expropriated was not for a public purpose but for a single private entity. 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. 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. This right should be absolute and unfettered even by prior judgment or res judicata. purpose. respondents alleged that they have no other land in Cebu City. 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. An LGU may exercise the power to expropriate private property only when authorized by Congress and subject to the latter’s control and restraints.786. or for the benefit of the poor and the landless. i. 23 August 1994: Petitioner filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession pursuant to Section 19 of R. Besides.” 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.Merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. the question submitted before the court is the sufficiency of the ABG allegations in the complaint itself. imposed “through the law conferring the power or in other legislations. 4. Temporary. Finally. as required under Sec. Petitioner could simply buy directly from them the property at its fair market value if it wanted to.826. Petitioner deposited with the Philippine National Bank the amount of P51. Ordinance. The just compensation should be based on the prevailing market price of the property at the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. or welfare. The principle of res judicata cannot bar the right of the State or its agent to expropriate private property. RATIO: In their Comment. 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.624 square meters with an assessed value of P1. 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. (1998) FACTS: Pursuant to SB Res. 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 fears of private respondents that they will be paid on the basis of the valuation declared in the tax declarations of their property. just like what it did with the neighboring lots. More specifically. the commissioners submitted an amended assessment for the 478 square meters of Lot No. the price offered was very low in light of the consideration of P20. It has a general and permanent character. The RTC of Makati issued an order giving it due course. 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. 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 . no matter how broad their terms are. it would have said so. 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. An ordinance enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings.339. Municipality of Parañaque v VM Realty Corp.A.400. 7160. 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.

more than a year after the effectivity of the ordinance in 1996. the respondent Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Hagonoy.e. private property for public use or purpose. Hagonoy Market Vendors Assn v Municipality of Hagonoy Bulacan (2002) FACTS: 1 October 1996: Sangguniang Bayan of Hagonoy. 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. induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief. No. Finally. while Section 4. however.50. fee or charge levied therein: Provided. 28 took effect in October 1996. vs. intentionally or through culpable negligence. Costales (1991) FACTS: 13 January 1982: Sanggunian of Zamboanga City passed Ordinance No.624-square meter lot at P20. it was pointed out that petitioner's appeal. 28 is a revenue measure adopted by the municipality of Hagonoy to fix and collect public market stall rentals. RATIO: The appeal with the Secretary of Justice is already time-barred. 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. 19.. Article 3 provided that it shall take effect upon approval. It was posted from November 4-25. (2) petitioner did not interpose any serious objection to the commissioners' report of 12 August 1996 fixing the just compensation of the 1. 7160. In contrast. but upheld its validity. Secretary of Justice: Dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time.01 tax per liter of softdrinks produced. The periods stated in Section 187 of the Local Government Code are mandatory. In the case at bar. 28 which increased the stall rentals of the market vendors in Hagonoy. Being its lifeblood. Records show that petitioner consented to conform with the valuation recommended by the commissioners. ISSUE: WON the appeal in this case is already time-barred. The date of effectivity of the subject ordinance retroacted to the date of its approval in October 1996. saying that the Finance Minister did not act on it w/in 120 days from receipt of the petition. It cannot detract from its agreement now and assail correctness of the commissioner's assessment. The agreement is a contract between the parties. shall be at the rate of not exceeding 2% of the gross sales or receipts of the softdrinks for the preceding calendar year. Estanislao v. finally. 1996. beyond thirty (30) days from the effectivity of the Ordinance on October 1. or by his own silence when he ought to speak out. In the case at bar. Finance Secretary appealed. ISSUE: WON an ordinance that imposes a tax on the output or production of a business is valid. 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. as approved. 1st Sem.826. Ordinance No.A. after the ABG required publication or posting has been complied with. Petitioner claimed it was unaware of the posting of the ordinance. made over a year later. by a solemn document freely and voluntarily agreed upon by them. it was estopped from attacking the report on which the decision was based. which expressly provides that just compensation shall be determined as of the time of actual taking. such law cannot prevail over R. There is no evidence to prove petitioner's negative allegation that the subject ordinance was not posted as required by law. 7160. Bulacan. which is a substantive law. Furthermore. as prescribed under Section 187 of the 1991 Local Government Code. In petitioner's two (2) communications with the Secretary of Justice. the Government must pay the owner thereof just compensation as consideration therefor.A. Municipal Ordinance No. Petitioner filed its appeal only in December 1997. Eminent domain is the Government's right to appropriate. agreed to be bound by the report of the commission and approved by the trial court. Municipality: The ordinance took effect on 6 October 1996 and that the ordinance. 1996. 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. and/or bottled within the city. a percentage tax on the gross sales for the preceding calendar year of non-essential 13 .” 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.339. Estoppel in pais arises when one. 19 (a) of the Local Tax Code. Court of Appeals." More than anything else. 44. 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. According to Sec. manufactured. 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. was already time-barred. in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State. 1998. However. 3 December 1982: Finance Minister sent a letter to the Sanggunian suspending the effectivity of the Ordinance as it allegedly contravened Sec. being non-essential. 19 and Sec. by his acts. the parties. second. petitioner did not interpose a serious objection. during the hearing on 22 November 1996. YES. It is therefore too late for petitioner to question the valuation now without violating the principle of equitable estoppel. 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. The funds for the operation of its agencies and provision of basic services to its inhabitants are largely derived from its revenues and collections. It insists that it was unaware of the approval and effectivity of the subject ordinance in 1996 on two (2) grounds: first. 23 of the LTC: A city may impose. Hence. collection of revenues by the government is of paramount importance. We did not categorically rule in that case that just compensation should be determined as of the filing of the complaint. 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. That such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and accrual and payment of the tax. was posted as required by law. so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts. 8 December 1997: Petitioner's President filed an appeal with the Secretary of Justice assailing the constitutionality of the tax ordinance. enacted Kautusan Blg. the approved ordinance was not posted. Bulacan. It has the force of law between them and should be complied with in good faith. 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.Loc Gov Reviewer. 2005-2006 court. The petitioner has misread our ruling in The National Power Corp. in lieu of the graduated fixed tax prescribed under Sec. it imposed a P0. the effectivity of the assailed ordinance shall not be suspended. 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. representations or admissions. presented evidence which clearly shows that the procedure for the enactment of the assailed ordinance was 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. no public hearing was conducted prior to the passage of the ordinance and. NO. the applicable law as to the point of reckoning for the determination of just compensation is Section 19 of R. the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings. November 1997: Petitioner's members were given copies of the approved Ordinance and were informed that it shall be enforced in January. i. pursuant to Section 3 of said ordinance. hence.

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

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

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

including the president. FACTS: 7 out of the 13 members present. Initiative is resorted to by the people directly either because the lawmaking body fails or refuses to enact a law. voted in favor of Ordinance No. De la Cruz FACTS: 8 Jan 1968: During a private conference held at the office of the petitioner Perez. Ordinance No. Other measures prevail upon the majority vote of the members present. Bataan. Perez reiterated the same intention to vote twice. an ordinance passed by less than that majority is invalid. the Municipal Resolution still in the proposal stage. The petitioners were also denied their right to due process. The same idea is carried into the next sentence. Not once was the term “initiative used in the resolution. resolution. Under Sec. 2005-2006 be the proper subjects of local initiatives. For the passage of (1) any ordinance or (2) any proposition creating indebtedness. or act that they desire or because they want to amend or modify one already existing. resolution. 10. ordinance.power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an election called for the purpose. 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. 27 June 1996: COMELEC promulgated the Res. deal with subjects that can be taken up in a local initiative. 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. Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact a national legislation. ISSUE: WON an ordinance passed by a majority of the members present and not by a majority of all the members is valid. Sec. UNANSWERED. or amend any ordinance. It is not yet an approved law. 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. it needs only application. and (3) any other proposition. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Initiative. RATIO: The process started by private respondents was an initiative but COMELEC made preparations for a referendum only. Calimbas. Chapter 2. RATIO: The law is clear. with 7 councilors and the vice-mayor of Naga present. municipal. et. 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. enact. Premature. 25 is void. YES. 12 of RA 7227. On the other issue. and 6 members voted against the ordinance. 1 Feb 1995: President issued Proclamation No. defining the metes and bounds of the SSEZ 18 June 1996: COMELEC issued Resolution No. the proponents through their duly authorized and registered representatives may invoke their power of initiative. While initiative is entirely the work of the electorate. 2845: Adopting a calendar of activities for local referendum on certain municipal ordinances passed by the SB of Morong. 2. If it refuses to do so within 30 days from its a. B of the LGC of 1991. 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. 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. vice-mayor Perez expressed her intention to vote. V. giving notice thereof to the local legislative body concerned. The ayes and noes are taken upon (1) the passage of all ordinances. 17 . It included a referendum day. The SB acted on it by promulgating PK 18. 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. city. and a. ABG presentation. the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the municipal council shall be necessary. with 3 members absent. of the municipal council of Tabaco. Respondents: We are entitled to relief of restraining the vice-mayor from voting on legislative matters and acts/ proceedings of the board. 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. It is contended that only ordinances creating indebtedness require the approval of a majority of all the members of the council. requiring in mandatory language the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the municipal council for the passage of any ordinance. and as presiding officer the right to vote again in case of a tie. Title IX. in the deliberation of such matters. The vice mayor is not a member of the board but only its presiding officer. ISSUE: WON COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in scheduling a local initiative which seeks to annul Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. expressing its concurrence. he cannot vote except in case of a tie. (2) all propositions to create any liability against the municipality.Loc Gov Reviewer. as required by Sec. to create a tie vote and to then exercise her power to break such deadlock. 25.3 Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional. No. 2848 on the argument that COMELEC is intent on proceeding with a local initiative that proposes an amendment of a national law. upon the request of any member. It does not. however. 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. It was then submitted to the OP. There is a need for the COMELEC to supervise an initiative more closely especially if the proposal is lengthy and complicated. COMELEC Ortiz v. referendum is begun and consented to by the lawmaking body. requesting Congress to amend certain provisions of RA 7227. 1st Sem. The LGC of 1991 dealt with local initiative and did not change or limit its scope.2. the COMELEC shall state a date for the initiative at which the proposition shall be submitted to the registered voters in the LGU. or ordinance. Indirect initiative. Sec. whether or not an ordinance creating an indebtedness. Posadas FACTS: 13 March 1992: RA 7227 was enacted (Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992). 3. Congress differentiated the two: 1. 120. 13 of RA 6735: local legislative body is given the opportunity to enact the proposal. or barangay law. Albay. April 1993: Sangguniang Bayan of Morong. Should the proponents collect the required number within the period granted by the statute. The inclusion of Morong in SSEZ has far reaching implications. provincial. 532. to join the SSEZ.Exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition sent to Congress or the local legislative body for action. the respondents resorted to their power of initiative under Sec. 6 July 1993: COMELEC denied the petition for local initiative on the ground that the subject was merely a resolution and not an ordinance. 10 Jan 1968: in another conference. it provided for the creation of the Subic Special Economic Zone. Unsatisfied. 2224 of the Administrative Code. 24 Nov 1992: US Navy turned over the military reservation to the government. 10 July 1996: SBMA filed this action contesting the validity of Sec. passed Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg 10. WON the local initiative seeks the amendment of a national law. al. 24 May 1993: Respondents Garcia. concerning cockpits. Perez v. The debates confirm this intent. 122 par. Referendum is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation through an election called for that purpose. that as such.

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

be from receipt by the complainant of the certificate of repudiation or the certification to file action issued by the lupon. the dispute was not referred to the Lupong Tagapayapa. Under Art. These complaints were an offshoot of 3 criminal cases decided by the judge and involving Wingarts and Col.Loc Gov Reviewer. 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. NO. The 3rd case involved a charge of rendering an unjust decision. 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.500. properly. 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.” What is referred to as receipt by the complainant of the complaint is unclear. As regards the non-referral to the Lupon. The judge was also charged with incompetence.000. Corpuz v. Since the slight physical injuries charged were allegedly inflicted on 17 April 1993. but it is now under the LGC. Salomon of the Bonifacio Law Office charged Judge Bellosillo of the MTC with ignorance of the law. offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding P5. the respondents would still have 56 days within which to file their separate criminal complaints for such offense. he could have remanded the case to the lupon instead of taking cognizance thereof and prematurely issuing the warrant of arrest against the accused. Corpuz filed an action for unlawful detainer for recovery of possession of the room occupied by Alvarado. 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. the prescriptive period would have expired 2 mos after. The crime of grave threats punishable under Art. Bonifacio Law Office v. Barredo sold his house to Corpuz for P37. 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.00 require prior barangay conciliation. 1st Sem. its running was tolled by the filing of the respondents’ complaints with the lupon of Valenzuela on 23 April 1993. the jurisprudence built thereon regarding prior referral to the lupon as a precondition to the filing of an action in court remains applicable. ISSUE: WON the case should be dismissed because of the general averment of Alvarado that the case was not referred to the Lupon. PD 1508 was expressly repealed.000. 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. 408 (c). The case was later on dismissed and indorsed to the barangay official concerned. 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. Judge Bellosillo FACTS: Atty. 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.00. the phrase “the complaint or” is not found. 282 of the Revised Penal Code falls within the purview of that section. Although PD 1508 has already been repealed. 19 . conciliation. However. Mejia FACTS: John Wingarts and Ophelia Wingarts filed three letter complaints against Judge Mejia of the MTC of Pangasinan. However. Barredo: Decided to sell his property to the tenants in May 1988. John Wingarts was charged with malicious mischief and grave threats. Had Mejia observed the mandate of the law. ISSUE: WON the judge properly issued the warrant of arrest without the required compliance with the KP law.00. and automatically suspended for a period of 60 days. It provides for the suspension of the prescriptive periods of offenses during the pendency of the mediation. a certification to file action is issued. Alvarado: The affidavit was forged. the MTC decision was reinstated. As to venue. possession de facto. 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. 2. or arbitration process. and Partiality in connection with a civil case. The MTC ordered Alvarado to vacate the room. such that the resumption of the running of the prescriptive period shall. ignorance of the law and abuse of authority for issuing an arrest warrant against Wingarts despite the lack of prior barangay conciliation. In the admin complaint relative to the malicious mischief case. the SC was not persuaded. Petition was granted. 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. 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 a complaint that is about to prescribe is exempted from PD 1508. The RTC reversed the ruling of the MTC. The revised katarungang pambarangay law has 3 new significant features: 1. Since the petition involves the issue of possession intertwined with the issue of ownership. The answer of Alvarado reveals that no reason or explanation was given to support his allegation. that is. Accordingly. NO. or until 22 June 1993. Munar. The third feature is aimed at maximizing the effectiveness of the mediation. it could not resolve the issue of ownership. Court of Appeals FACTS: Alvarado and Corpuz: 2 tenants of Lorenzo Barredo. Grave Abuse of Discretion. in Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations issued by the SOJ. RATIO: The law on the katarungang pambarangay was originally governed by PD 1508. 3. 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. A tenancy relationship was established between Corpuz and Alvarado. If no mediation is reached. The only issue to be resolved in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases is the physical or material possession over the real property. NO. 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. RATIO: The MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over ejectment cases. Dui v. the judge was charged with malicious delay in the administration of justice. Such suspension shall not exceed 60 days. Wingarts v. shall be brought in the barangay where such workplace or institution is located.

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

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

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

The allegation that he is a foreigner. 2005-2006 declared by the COMELEC to lack both residence and registration qualification for the post of Governor. but I sought such citizenship only as a protection against Marcos. in 1975 to pursue any calling. In the same provision. 69. Private respondent is the wife of Emeterio Larrazabal (disqualified for lack of residence). 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. “shall not be qualified and13 entitled to vote in the election of the…” Frivaldo v. In case of disagreement. COMELEC FACTS: 22 January 1988: Juan Frivaldo was proclaimed governor of Sorsogon. obtained an Australian passport. or 21 days after his proclamation. considering that the quo warranto case against him was not filed on time. League of Municipalities of Sorsogon: filed a petition for annulment of Frivaldo’s election on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen. 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. NO. respect. His election did not cure this defect since the people of Sorsogon could not amend the Constitution. Abella was the official candidate of the LP. 42 of the LGC. component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials are independent of the province. 12 Art. having been naturalized in the US in 1983. 42 of BP 337. The issue is WON the public respondent has jurisdiction to conduct any inquiry into this matter. 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. 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. and the Omnibus Election Code. COMELEC: No direct proof that the petitioner had been formally naturalized as a citizen of Australia. 12 Husband and wife as a matter of principle live together in one legal residence which is their usual place of abode. YES. RATIO: Nottebohm: Irrelevant since it dealt with a conflict between the nationality laws of two states as decided by a third state. NO.Loc Gov Reviewer. 2. 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. Labo v. She filed her own COC in substitution of her husband. and fidelity. Leyte. 68 and 69 of the Family Code are at point. He was not even a qualified voter because of his alienage. RATIO: Arts. SolGen: Frivaldo was not a citizen and had not repatriated himself after his naturalization as a US citizen. COMELEC: Lifted its TRO against her proclamation while the hearings in the disqualification case continued. HELD: YES. and registered as an alien with the CID upon his return to the country in 1980. His alleged forfeiture does not concern us. 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. The COMELEC dismissed the petition and referred it to its law department on the ground that it was a violation of an election offense. 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. Despite the petitioner’s insistence. If Frivaldo really wanted to disavow his American citizenship and reacquire Philippine citizenship. It also denied Abella’s proclamation as governor. 68. by repatriation. My oath in my COC that I was a natural born citizen amounted to a sufficient act of repatriation. WON Labo is disqualified. Publication is still necessary despite an “immediately upon approval” clause as regards its date of effectivity. The intention of animus revertendi not to abandon her residence in Kananga is not present here. Res judicata does not apply to questions of citizenship. YES. My participation in the congressional elections divested me of US citizenship under US law. the evidence shows that her supposed cancellation of registration in Ormoc and transfer to Kananga is not supported by the records. WON the person who obtained the 2nd highest number of votes may replace the winning candidate that was found ineligible. H & W shall fix the family domicile. he says. H & W are obliged to live together. X of the Constitution is explicit in that aside from highly urbanized cities. profession. the LGC. ISSUES: WON the quo warranto petition was filed on time. the court shall decide. and render mutual help and support. Frivaldo should have tried to acquire naturalization by legislative or judicial proceedings. The SC set it aside and directed the COMELEC to determine the residence qualification of Larrazabal. Sec. He immediately paid the filing fee on that date. Leopoldo Petilla—Vice Governor of Leyte. Under CA No. observe mutual love. is not the issue. 1st Sem. This was merely inferred from the fact that he had married an Australian citizen. or business. He was therefore ineligible as a candidate for mayor of Baguio under Sec.11 It was alleged that she was a resident of Ormoc City like her husband. What is clear is that she established her residence in Ormoc City with her husband and considered herself a resident therein. ISSUE: WON Frivaldo was a citizen of the Philippines at the time of his election as governor of Sorsogon. ABG the Special Committee on Naturalization had not been organized yet. ISSUES: WON Larrazabal is qualified to run as governor. I returned to the Philippines after the EDSA revolution to help restore democracy. or by naturalization. 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. In this case. It was only on 8 February 1988 that the COMELEC treated his petition solely as a quo warranto and redocketed it. COMELEC FACTS: Labo was proclaimed mayor-elect of Baguio on 20 January 1988. the petitioner should have done so in accordance with the laws of our country. NO. The fact that she occasionally visits Kananga does not signify an intention to continue her residence therein. Labo became a citizen of Australia because he was naturalized through a formal and positive process. 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. Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress. Lardizabal: He filed it ahead of time. there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner temporarily left her residence in Kananga. Labo did not question the authenticity of the evidence nor does he deny his acquisition of an Australian passport. Frivaldo: I was naturalized. 3 Feb 1989: COMELEC upheld the challenged rulings of the provincial board of canvassers. 63 as amended by CA 473 and PD 725. 14 Feb 1991: 2nd Division disqualified Larrazabal as governor. Her candidacy was challenged for alleged false statements in her COC regarding her residence. it provides for other component cities within a province whose charters do not provide a similar prohibition. Nottebohm: Citizenship acquired for reasons of convenience only. 23 . 3.

2. The Constitution has granted the COMELEC ample power to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections. No finding was made by the CID or the COMELEC as regards his specific intent to renounce his Fil citizenship. who obviously was not voted directly but who according to prevailing jurisprudence should take over the post inasmuch as. 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. NO. the Special Committee on Naturalization has not yet acted on the application of the petitioner for repatriation. Frivaldo v. an expatriating act and an intent to relinquish citizenship must be proved by preponderance of evidence. There is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and that was not successfully rebutted by Lee. 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. Oscar Deri. unlike that for residence and age. The COMELEC can now legally suspend the proclamation of petitioner Labo. WON the repatriation of Frivaldo was valid and legal. 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. Mercado garnered 100. ISSUE: WON Sec. 4. ISSUE: Who should be the rightful governor of Sorsogon? 1. 3. 2. Topacio v. his reception of the winning number of votes notwithstanding. 24 . the possession of which is an indispensable requirement for holding public office. or lose. There is a waiver of the validity and efficacy of their votes in such a case. Labo’s status has not changed in this case. In Vance v Terrazas: It was held that in proving expatriation. Mercado v.Loc Gov Reviewer. WON COMELEC had jurisdiction over the initiatory petition considering that it is not a pre-proclamation case. RATIO: 1. Sec.” SUB-ISSUES: 1. Frivaldo: He took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen on 30 June 1995.275 votes. 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. The LGC requires that an official be a registered voter. by the ineligibility of Frivaldo. COMELEC FACTS: 20 March 1995: Juan Frivaldo filed his COC for Governor in the 1995 elections. would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. 3. may it be given retroactive effect? 2.894 and Daza acquired 54. Frivaldo should be the one proclaimed. A person may subsequently reacquire. 2005-2006 The people of that locality could not have changed the requirements of the LGC and the Constitution. Labo: He is a Fil citizen. Up to this point. a “permanent vacancy in the contested office has occurred. Labo. His election does not automatically restore his Philippine citizenship. 28 March 1995: Raul Lee questioned the COC and moved for Frivaldo’s disqualification. In the absence of any official action or approval by the proper authorities. an election protest or a quo-warranto case. the majority of which have positively declared through their ballots that they do not choose him. Raul Lee—2nd place in the canvass but who claims that the votes cast for Frivaldo should be considered void. 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. The simple reason is that as he obtained only the second highest number of votes in the election. his citizenship. that the electorate should be deemed to have intentionally thrown away their ballots and that legally. or The incumbent Vice Governor. 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. 6 of RA 6646.853 votes. The respondent who filed the petition cannot replace the petitioner as mayor. Decisions declaring the acquisition or denial of citizenship cannot govern a person’s future status with finality. The law does not specify any particular date or time when the candidate must possess citizenship. Labo believed that he is a Filipino citizen and so he ran for mayor of Baguio in the 1992 elections. Jr. Ortega filed a COC for the same office. If yes. A minority or defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office. RATIO: The fact remains that Labo has not submitted in this case any evidence to prove his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. he was not the choice of the people of Baguio City. ABG COMELEC: Annulled Lee’s proclamation and proclaimed Frivaldo as the governor-elect. a mere application for repatriation does not amount to automatic reacquisition of the applicant’s Philippine citizenship. provincial officials. He was disqualified for being an alien. 1st Sem. 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. WON Frivaldo’s judicially declared disqualification for lack of Fil citizenship is a continuing bar to his eligibility to run for governor. COMELEC FACTS: This is the 2nd time the SC was asked to rule on the citizenship of Labo. and qualifications of all elective. There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in canceling his COC. Jr. Since Frivaldo reassumed his citizenship. The electorate had no power to permit a foreigner owing his total allegiance to the Queen of Australia. 3. returns. The SC also held that the repatriation retroacted to the date of the filing of his application on 17 August 1994. did it seasonably cure his lack of citizenship to qualify him to be proclaimed and to become Governor? If not. The legislative intent in PD 725 was to give it a retroactive operation. the very day the term of office of governor began. WON the proclamation of Lee was valid. especially so in this case where Labo failed to present any evidence to support his claim. 5. 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. he secured to most number of valid votes. HELD: FRIVALDO. Manzano got 103. 72 if the Omnibus Election Code has already been repealed by Sec. 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. he was therefore already qualified to be proclaimed. WON COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction in preventing Frivaldo from assuming the governorship. v. Manzano FACTS: Ernesto Mercado. it does not require him to actually vote. There was insufficient evidence presented to show that the people of Sorsogon knew in fact and in law the alleged disqualification. or at least a stateless individual owing no allegiance to the Philippines to preside over them as mayor of their city. Lee was proclaimed although Frivaldo got the plurality of votes. 4.

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

or good morals. 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. He also cited the LGC which states in Sec. 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. The same underlying reason holds even if the “fence” did not have actual knowledge. modesty. 1st Sem.” The legal rule in the Marquez Decision must govern the instant petition. Rodriguez won and was proclaimed governor. or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. 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. the Court admitted that this guideline is inadequate in providing a clear-cut solution. This definition finds support from jurisprudence and may be so conceded as expressing the general and ordinary connotation of the term. YES. ISSUES: WON the crime of fencing involves moral turpitude. 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. 7 May 2001: COMELEC granted the petition citing Section 12 of BP 881. Petitioner applied for probation and was discharged on 5 March 1998. Rodriguez v. The COMELEC in this case did not make any definite finding on WON. 40. 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. 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. 40 that a person who was sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude. but merely “should have known” the origin of the property received. 26 . COMELEC FACTS: Eduardo Rodriguez and Bienvenido Marquez were protagonists for the gubernatorial post of Quezon in the 1992 elections. for allegedly being a fugitive from justice. It was impossible for Rodriguez to have known about such felony complaint and arrest warrant a the time he left the US. 40 (e) of the LGC. or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men. 2005-2006 The records are bare of proof that he had waived his status before he ran for election as mayor of Bolinao. 40 (a). 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. RATIO: Article 73 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the LGC of 1991. 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. Lorenzo was proclaimed by the COMELEC as the duly elected mayor. This case must be remanded to the COMELEC. 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. vileness. Petitioner’s conviction of fencing which is a crime of moral turpitude subsists and remains unaffected notwithstanding the grant of probation. although it is not executory pending resolution of the application for probation. item. honesty. by almost 5 months. within 2 years after serving sentence. COMELEC: … “fugitive from justice” includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise those who. Magno: Direct bribery does not involve moral turpitude.Loc Gov Reviewer. the winning candidate in their province. Rodriguez is a “fugitive from justice” since the quo warranto case was outrightly dismissed. Moral turpitude is deducible from the 3rd element of the crime: The accused knows or should have known that the said article. ISSUE: WON Rodriguez is a fugitive from justice. However. Marquez v. RATIO: Moral turpitude has been defined as: an act of baseness. COMELEC FACTS: Montes filed a case for the disqualification of Magno as mayoralty candidate of San Isidro. COMELEC FACTS: Bienvenido Marquez. Marquez: At the time Rodriguez filed his COC. 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.14 The COMELEC ruled that the petitioner was found guilty of violating PD 1612 or the Anti-Fencing Law. NO. 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. in fact. 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. the Court ruled that “A ‘fugitive from justice’ includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise those who. Magno v. and attempted grand theft of personal property. 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. after being charged. 14 Sec. WON a grant of probation affects the applicability of Sec. NO. or for an offense punishable by one year or more of imprisonment. flee to avoid prosecution. ISSUE: WON a “fugitive from justice” must be a person who has been convicted by final judgment. The Court is guided by the general rule that crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude while crimes mala prohibita do not. A judgment of conviction in a criminal case ipso facto attains finality when the accused applies for probation. Laguna in the 1995 elections based on Sec. contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman or conduct contrary to justice. grand theft. In Marquez. NO. flee to avoid prosecution. or to society in general. Rodriguez’ case just cannot fit in this concept. a criminal charge against him for 10 counts of insurance fraud or grand theft of personal property was still pending before an LA court. WON a crime involves moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and depends on the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute. Rodriguez is therefore a “fugitive from justice” which is a ground for his disqualification under Sec. object. after being charged. 40 (a) of the LGC.” Dela Torre v. 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.

or rulings of the COMELEC in contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials are final. Sec. Drilon FACTS: Under Sec. assumes the nature of a special law which ought to prevail. Flores v. Article 12 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881) must yield to Article 40 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160). 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. i. Although the crime of direct bribery involved moral turpitude. ISSUE: WON Gordon’s appointment pursuant to a legislative act that contravenes the Constitution can be sustained. it is unfair to the electorate to be told after they have voted for said official that after all he is disqualified. 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. Section 40 thereof specially and definitely provides for disqualifications of candidates for elective local positions. 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.” ISSUE: WON certiorari can be used to challenge a final order of the COMELEC in a contest involving elective municipal officials. especially so where at the time of the election. ISSUE: WON respondent was found guilty in the administrative case. HELD: NO. ABG Where there was failure of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to resolve a local official’s motion for reconsideration before the elections. Article IX (A) Sec. Bohol.” Sulong previously won as mayor of Lapuyan in 1988. There is no decision finding respondent guilty to speak of. it cannot be determinative of the constitutionality of RA 7227 for no legislative act can prevail over the fundamental law of the land. Even though Sec. 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. 13. RATIO: The fact that decisions. It can be inferred from the third element of bribery. Art. 1 August 2001: COMELEC declared Sulong disqualified. par. Galeon filed an election protest before the RTC. He also won in 1992 and in 1995. executory. the Mayor of Olongapo. Sec. NO.e. It is applicable to them only. and not appealable. The appointing power has the right of choice which he may exercise freely according to his judgment. 7 of the Constitution states “Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law. 12 of BP 881 speaks of disqualifications of candidates for any public office. 2005-2006 ISSUE: WON Magno was disqualified to run for mayor in the 2001 elections. 1st Sem. the decision sought to be reconsidered had been rendered nearly ten years ago. The court upheld the proclamation of Galido by a majority of 11 votes. 40 of RA 7160.” 27 . Any person removed from office by reason of an administrative case is disqualified from running for any elective local office. the subject proviso directs the President to appoint an elective official. RATIO: The rule that an elective local officer. denotes a malicious intent on the part of the offender to renege on the duties which he owes his fellowmen. Galido went to the SC to challenge this COMELEC decision alleging grave abuse of discretion in its appreciation of “marked ballots. insofar as it governs the disqualification of candidates for local posts. 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. 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. falsification and malversation of public funds has not become final. to other government posts (Chairman of the Board and CEO of SBMA). It was affirmed by the COMELEC en banc. 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. does not preclude a recourse to the SC by way of a special civil action for certiorari. It deals with the election of all public officers. Thus. Sulong was voted for in the elections and was subsequently proclaimed as the duly elected mayor. order. Galido v. RATIO: In this case. It depends on the circumstances surrounding the violation of the law. Lingating: During Sulong’s first term in 1991. the law is unconstitutional. I filed a motion for reconsideration and such is still pending. The COMELEC reversed the RTC ruling. 7. the SC declared that RA 7160 is a codified set of laws that specifically applies to local government units. The petitioners claim that this is against Sec. petitioner nonetheless could not be disqualified from running in the 2001 elections. Mayor Richard Gordon of Olongapo was appointed Chairman and CEO of SBMA. Lingating v. 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. Since this is prohibited by the Constitution. final orders. NO. 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. COMELEC en banc reversed the earlier decision.Loc Gov Reviewer. Direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. RATIO: Not every criminal act involves moral turpitude. any decision. deciding for himself who is best qualified among those who have the necessary qualifications and eligibilities. COMELEC FACTS: Galido and Galeon were candidates for mayor in the January 1988 elections in Garcia-Hernandez. who is removed before the expiration of the term for which he was elected. 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. 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. YES. In David v COMELEC. Sulong: The decision has not become final and executory. (d) of RA 7227.

2005-2006 Rivera v. NO. ISSUE: WON Talaga served for 3 consecutive terms as contemplated by the Constitution. 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. he must also have been elected to the same position for the same number of times before the disqualification can apply. 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. and not appealable. In considering the historical background of Art. 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. thus reducing the number of votes in his favor to 894 votes out of the 2. and that he has fully served three consecutive terms. The Representative serves a term for which he was elected. That the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post. Garcia: The Constitution declares that decisions of the COMELEC on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials to be final. NO. executory. He was reelected in 1995-1998. In 1998. 28 . ISSUE: WON the decisions of the COMELEC in election contests involving elective local officials. he is only the presumptive winner who assumes office subject to the final outcome of the election protest. Petitioner Lonzanida did not serve a term as mayor of San Antonio. 2. The trial court found for Garcia. and not appealable. Rivera appealed to the COMELEC. he lost to Tagarao. RATIO: Conditions for the application for disqualification: 1. Borja v. It is not enough that an individual has served three consecutive terms in an elective local office. 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. It is not enough that an individual has served 3 consecutive terms in an elective local office. COMELEC FACTS: Capco was elected vice mayor of Pateros. The SC has closely scrutinized the challenged COMELEC decision and found that the said decision was not arrived at capriciously or whimsically. On his third attempt to get elected. 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. It sustained the judgment of the RTC. does not preclude a recourse to the SC by way of a special civil action for certiorari. NO. 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. preclude the filing of a special civil action for certiorari. he ran and was proclaimed winner. he must also have been elected to the same position for the same number of times before the disqualification can apply. COMELEC FACTS: Petitioner Juan Rivera and respondent Juan Garcia II were candidates for the local elections in 1988. 8 Article X of the Constitution. In the recall election of 12 May 2000. It is settled that in a petition for certiorari. from May 1995 to March 1998 because he was not duly elected to the post. NO. In fact. During the next term. Lonzanida v. It was contested by his then opponent Juan Alvez who filed an election protest. Talaga was elected mayor in 1992. His opponent Eufemio Muli filed a case for disqualification against Lonzanida. final orders or rulings of the COMELEC in contests involving local elective officials are final. he merely assumed office as a presumptive winner. COMELEC FACTS: Adormeo and Talaga were the only candidates for mayor of Lucena City in the 2001 elections. which presumption was later overturned by the COMELEC when it decided that Lonzanida lost in the May 1995 mayoral elections. findings of fact of administrative bodies are final unless grave abuse of discretion has marred such factual determinations. 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. he again won and served the unexpired term of Tagarao until 30 June 2001. 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. 14 ballots originally adjudicated in Garcia’s favor were overruled by the Commission en banc. he ran and was elected mayor and was again reelected.Loc Gov Reviewer. 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. 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. 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. Rivera filed this petition seeking the annulment of the COMELEC en banc decision. COMELEC resolved the case in favor of Alvez. Adorneo v. resigns. 11 May 1998: Lonzanida again filed his COC for mayor. executory. The appreciation and re-evaluation of ballots are factual determinations. COMELEC FACTS: Romeo Lonzanida was elected and served two consecutive terms as mayor of San Antonio prior to the 8 May 1995 elections.445 contested ballots. Zambales. conversely. ISSUE: WON the term of a person who gets disqualified after proclamation is included in the counting of the three consecutive term limit. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Rivera as the duly elected Mayor by a majority of 10 votes. Voluntary renunciation of a term does not cancel the renounced term in the computation of the three-term limit. Adormeo: Talaga was elected and had served as city mayor for 3 consecutive terms violating Sec. In May 1995. A painstaking re-evaluation of the questioned 67 ballots was made by the COMELEC en banc. Talaga was then the incumbent mayor. such official cannot be considered to have fully served the term notwithstanding his voluntary renunciation of office prior to its expiration. RATIO: The fact that decisions. 1st Sem. Garcia filed an election protest. being final and executory and not appealable. He became mayor upon the death of the incumbent Cesar Borja. Garcia commenced to discharge the functions of Mayor of Guinobatan. X Sec.

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

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

The matter of representation of a municipality by a private attorney has been settled. The council should have requested the SOJ to appoint an acting provincial fiscal in place of the fiscal who declined to handle such case. 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. Atty. 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.Loc Gov Reviewer. however. on different grounds. 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. RATIO: Artieda v. does so in excess of authority. Guingona FACTS: Petitioners seek to annul and set aside AO No. HELD: NO. Although a municipality may not hire a private lawyer to represent it in litigation. 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. The RAC provides: The provincial fiscal shall represent the province and any municipality or municipal district thereof in any court. a municipality may adopt the work already performed in good faith by such private lawyer. HELD: NO. Hence. and neither may they do so even in collaboration with authorized government lawyers. The municipality’s authority to employ a private lawyer is expressly limited only to situations where the provincial fiscal is disqualified to represent it. Municipality of Pililla. 1st Sem. All the foregoing considered. Salalima v. Public officials could not be subject to disciplinary action for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term. Romanillos appeared as counsel of the municipality. there is nothing to show that the provincial fiscal is disqualified. The provision is mandatory. Only the provincial fiscal and the municipal attorney can represent a province of municipality in their lawsuits. Ramos v. Private lawyers may not represent municipalities on their own. it the performance of his duty acts in such fashion. any of the grounds for disciplinary action. a mayor may hire a private counsel to defend him at his own personal expense. and his actions would be ultra vires that can thereby result in an incurrence of personal liability. ISSUE: WON a private counsel may represent a municipality if the provincial fiscal refuses to handle its case. 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. abuse of authority. The Office of the President is without any power to remove elected officials. ISSUE: WON a private counsel may collaborate with a provincial counsel. Mendiola has no authority to file a petition in behalf of and in the name of the municipality. Rizal v. RATIO: The CA is correct in holding that Atty. The fiscal’s refusal to represent the municipality is not a legal justification for employing the services of private counsel. It may be said that Atty. in the interest of substantial justice. Perez. 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 petitioners sought to disqualify Romanillos. Romanillos entered his appearance as collaborating counsel of the provincial attorney. whose legal fees shall be for their own account. the appearance of herein counsel is without authority of law. Atty. 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. ISSUE: WON the AO is valid. the provincial fiscal shall act on behalf of the province. The petitioners argued that the challenged AO is an oppressive and capricious exercise of executive power. we hold that the respondents were not improperly represented by a private counsel. A special attorney may be employed by its council in this case. ten administrative complaints were filed by various city officials against Ganzon. elected mayor of Iloilo. oppression and abuse of authority. Santos FACTS: In 1988. Romanillos argued that he was the collaborating counsel of the provincial fiscal. RATIO: An administrative offense means every act or conduct or omission which amounts to. 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. who. 2005-2006 When moral and/or exemplary damages are claimed. Regalado. 31 . or constitutes. Court of Appeals FACTS: Petitioners Ramos. This collaboration is contrary to law and should not have been recognized as legal. HELD: NO. 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. In this case. 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. and negligence. A fiscal cannot refuse to perform his functions on grounds not provided for by law without violating his oath of office. ABG None of the exceptions is present here. Romanillos appeared for respondent municipality inasmuch as he was already counsel of Kristi Corporation which was sued with respondent municipality in this case. A public official. The order of the trial court stated that Atty. Atty. There is no grave abuse of discretion in imposing the penalty of suspension.

a public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term. Melgar FACTS: It was alleged that Mayor Melgar assaulted Ramir Garing. be reduced from 46 days to 17 days. is found in the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. 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. he is deemed reinstated in office without prejudice to the continuation of the administrative investigation of the charges against him. in effect. The law makes it mandatory that copies of the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan shall immediately be furnished to respondent and/ or interested parties.Loc Gov Reviewer. RATIO: If simultaneous service of two suspension orders is allowed. or 4. 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. 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. then it cannot be said that BP 337 was repealed by the 1987 Constitution.000 from each market stall holder in the municipal public market. Aguinaldo v. 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. When the elections were held on 8 May 1995. The Sanggunian required Melgar to answer the charges. COMELEC FACTS: Renato Reyes was the incumbent mayor of Bongabong. Petitioner in this case is not being prosecuted criminally under the RPC. ISSUE: WON the suspension of Mayor Melgar was validly done. RATIO: Any agreement to delay service of a decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in administrative cases is illegal. When there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent has committed the acts complained of. 26 October 1994: Administrative complaint was filed against him by a Dr. 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. HELD: NO. 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. When the evidence of culpability is strong. Petitioner was voted for in the next elections. each to last for 60 days. there must be a restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction from the appellate court directed to the lower court. but administratively with the end view of removing him as the duly elected Governor of Cagayan for acts of disloyalty to the Republic. RATIO: Re-election renders administrative case moot and academic. Since the 60-day preventive suspension of Mayor Melgar was maintained by the TRO and therefore has already ben served. 3. when the Secretary could have pursued a consolidated effort. ISSUE: WON the petitioner can be allowed the benefit of simultaneous service of his third and fourth suspension orders. Governor Espiritu preventively suspended recommendation made by the Sanggunian. Oriental Mindoro. 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. To arrest the course of the principal action during the pendency of the certiorari proceedings. noting that successive suspensions have been imposed on Mayor Ganzon. When the gravity of the offense so warrants. Espiritu v. Manalo. HELD: YES. 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. 48 (1) of BP Blg 337 grants the Secretary the power to appoint local government officials in case of incumbent’s removal from office. ISSUE: WON the disqualification was proper. HELD: YES. this would work in favor of the local elective official as the balance of his third preventive suspension would. 2. The LGC provides that in the event that several administrative cases are filed against an elective official. Mayor Melgar’s direct recourse to the courts without exhausting administrative remedies was premature. It was alleged that he exacted and collected P50. He was later on disqualified by the COMELEC. ISSUE: WON the power of the Secretary to dismiss a locally elective official has been repealed by the 1987 Constitution. De Castro sought Reyes’ disqualification as candidate for mayor. Sec. the decision of the SP had already become final and executory. Reyes v. Inasmuch as the power and authority of the legislature to enact a LGC which provides for the manner of removal of local government officials. 32 . apparently to pin him down ten times the pain. Removal cannot extend beyond the term during which the alleged misconduct was committed. the SC stated that what is intriguing is that respondent Secretary has been cracking down on the mayor piecemeal. 1st Sem. The filing of a petition for certiorari does not prevent a decision from attaining finality. It will be recalled that. Except for criminal acts committed. 2005-2006 Respondent Secretary Santos issued three separate orders of preventive suspension against Ganzon. 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. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required before the petitioner could be suspended or removed from office. in the main decision.

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

Article 124(b). It may be decreed only by a court of law. 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. 2005-2006 It was alleged that Villapando entered into a consultancy agreement with Tiape. RA 7160. ISSUE: Whether local legislative bodies and/or the Office of the President. specifically repeals BP 337. Membership of the preparatory recall assembly at the provincial level is not apportioned to political parties. 60 of the LGC. Recall is a mode of removal of a public officer by the people before the end of his term of office. HELD: NO.Loc Gov Reviewer. Whether the electorate of the municipality has lost confidence in the incumbent mayor is a political question. however. Cabanatuan City who won in the last regular election in 1994. 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. Garcia v. Rule XIX. Since the SK election is a regular local election. Paras filed with the RTC a petition for injunction. 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. repealed or 34 . Eastern Samar. COMELEC FACTS: Danilo Paras is the Punong Barangay of Pula. 1 Feb 2000: Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan found him guilty and imposed the penalty of dismissal. It is now barred since the 13 January 1996 falls within one year from the SK election on the first Monday of May 1996. Since there was. Article XVIII. 14 February 1990: Apelado. A petition for his recall was filed by registered voters of the barangay. But the LGC will take effect only on 1 January 1992. falling within the 1 year prohibition under Art. ISSUE: WON Res. Conducto v. ABG revoked. HELD: YES. The old LGC is still applicable to the present case. finds no application to criminal cases. Sec. A resolution was passed for the recall of Garcia on the ground of “loss of confidence. COMELEC: Approved the petition and set the recall election on 13 November 1995. 1st Sem. 1 July 1993: Some mayors. Paras v. during the period material to the case. Evardone: The COMELEC erred since the petitioner was denied due process. to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefore. of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the LGC. COMELEC issued a resolution approving the recommendation of Sumbilla. The Election Code contains no special provisions on the manner of conducting elections for the recall of a local official. IX-B. RATIO: The Constitution. No. TRTC dismissed the petition. There is therefore no basis for the resolution and the recall proceeding is premature. there must be a clear and unequivocal showing that what the fundamental law prohibits. The law on suspension and removal of elective public officials must be strictly construed and applied. It is valid and has legal effect. The power to remove erring elective local officials from service is lodged exclusively with the courts. 2272 is constitutional. 3 provides that all existing laws not inconsistent with it shall remain operative until amended. The LGC of 1991 provided for a second mode of initiating the recall process through a preparatory recall assembly. The rule. Loss of confidence as a ground for recall is a political question. Hence. the statute permits. Where the disciplining authority is given only the power to suspend and not the power to remove. and the authority in whom such power of suspension or removal is vested must exercise it in good faith. COMELEC FACTS: 11 May 1992: Petitioner Enrique Garcia was elected governor of Bataan. is void for being against the last paragraph of Sec. 6 of the 1987 Constitution. all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a law. Sec. The Commission deferred the election to December 6. The LGC of 1983 provided only one mode of initiating the recall elections of local elective officials. 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.” ISSUE: WON Sec. he could not be recalled. and Nival filed a petition for the recall of Evardone with the Office of the Local Election Registrar. on appeal. Election Registrar of the municipality. 70 of RA 7160 allowing a preparatory recall assembly is unconstitutional. a defeated mayoralty candidate in the May 1998 elections. having been elected in the 1988 local elections. validly impose the penalty of dismissal on erring local officials.30% of the registered voters signed the petition. The COMELEC also erred since the Resolution is null and void for being unconstitutional. 29. 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. HELD: No. RATIO: An elective local official may be remove from office on the grounds enumerated above by order of the proper court. RATIO: To strike down a law as unconstitutional. Evardone v. COMELEC FACTS: Felipe Evardone was the mayor of the Municipality of Sulat. Aclan. insofar as it vests power on the “disciplining authority” to remove from office erring elective local officials. it should not be permitted to manipulate the law by usurping the power to remove.

01. the petition must be “of” or by. The Constitution requires an effective mechanism of recall. HELD: No. 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. September 1996: Petitioner received a copy of a petition for recall. Petitioner’s insistence. HELD: NO. Sec. It just so happens that the personalities representing the barangays in the Liga are the very members of the PRA. constituting a majority of the members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly. S-1999 to initiate the recall of Claudio for loss of confidence. May 1999: Chairs of several barangays gathered to discuss the possibility of filing a petition for recall against Claudio for loss of confidence. much lesss. HELD: Yes. Claudio: The signatures affixed to the resolution were actually meant to show attendance at the PRA meeting. in the absence of a substantial attack on its validity. is misplaced. that the initiation of the recall proceedings was infirm since it was convened by the Liga. 19 May 1999: At the residence of Mr. 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. voted for the approval of PRA Res. 7 July 1996: 1. It scheduled the recall election within 1 year from the Barangay Elections. and the recall resolution failed to obtain the majority of all the members of the PRA. at least 25% of the registered voters. and SK chairs of Pasay. COMELEC FACTS: Malonzo won over Asistio in the 1995 elections. The law is plain and unequivocal as to what initiates a recall proceeding. seeking the annulment of the proclamation of Claudio should first be decided. met and upon deliberation and election. and 60 barangay chairs executed affidavits of retraction. ISSUE: WON a petition for recall signed by just one person is valid. Hence. SC: Cannot sanction the procedure of the filing of the recall petition by a number of people less than the foregoing 25% statutory requirement. 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. ISSUE: WON the recall process was validly initiated. adopted Res. Isabela in the 1995 elections. not just one disgruntled loser or a small percentage of disenchanted electors.073 members of the PRA composed of chairs. COMELEC FACTS: Petitioner won as Mayor of Tumauini. 14 were not duly accredited members of the barangays. Angobung v.057 Punong Barangays and Sangguniang Barangay members and SK chairmen. several chairs formed an ad hoc committee to convene a PRA. Lim. the majority of whom met and voted in favor of the resolution for his recall. Otherwise. 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. ISSUE: WON the dismissal was proper. 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. considering that 10 were double entries. No. 29 May 1999: 1. Recall must be pursued by the people. the election case filed by Wenceslao Trinidad in the SC. Malonzo v.Loc Gov Reviewer. 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. RATIO: Factual findings of the COMELEC based on its own assessments and duly supported by gathered evidence. 35 .” then no recall election can be conducted rendering inutile the recall provision of the LGC. are conclusive upon the court. 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. the filing thereof by just one person. and referendum. more so. initiative. COMELEC: Dismissed the petition. 01-96. rather. The Liga ng mga Barangay is undoubtedly an entity distinct from the PRA. 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%. 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. 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. No. Claudio v. A statute must be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution. FACTS: 11 May 1998: Jovito Claudio was elected mayor of Pasay City. most of the signatories were only representatives of the parties concerned. 2 July 1999: Petition for recall was filed accompanied by an affidavit of service of the petition on the Office of the City Mayor. COMELEC en banc issued the assailed resolution. 1st Sem. it will only serve to sitabilize a community and disrupt the running of government. 40 SK officials had withdrawn their support. the convening of the PRA took place within the 1 year period. Angobung: The resolution was signed by just one person in violation of the 25% minimum. expressing loss of confidence in Mayor Malonzo and calling for the initiation of recall proceedings against him. kagawads. while the initiatory recall petition may not yet contain the signatures of 25% of the registered voters.

Previously entered contracts must not be impaired. Due process is deemed satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of an action or a ruling. unless there is a clear showing of bad faith. 74 deals with restrictions on the power of recall. 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. Chang Under Sec. the head of an agency. of which petitioner Javellana is a councilman. or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party. Sec. Erwin Javellana was elected City Councilor of Bago City. There is a distinction between election period and campaign period. QC Mayor dismissed it for insufficiency of evidence. the power to commence administrative proceedings against a subordinate officer or employee is granted by the Omnibus Rules to the secretary of a department. Garcia v. RATIO: LGC. Coloyan appealed to the MSPB which reversed the decision and found him guilty with the penalty of dismissal. 47 of the Admin. Mendez v. A public officer shall not be liable by way of moral and exemplary damages for acts done in the performance of official duties. The limitations in Sec. As long as the recall election is not held before the official concerned has completed one year in office. X. or gross negligence. By serving as counsel for the complaining employees and assisting them to prosecute the claims against Divinagracia. The Office of the Municipal Treasurer is unquestionably under the Department of Finance. People v. agency. designation of the replacement is not a requirement to give effect to the preventive suspension. HELD: No. it is apparent that it was written by mistake. Sanggunian members may practice their professions. In an administrative proceeding. Parties who choose not to avail themselves of the opportunity to answer charges filed against them cannot complain of a denial of due process. Garcia: Holding of a PRA is not the recall itself. engage in any occupation. DILG and Santos FACTS: Atty. Negros Occidental. Hence. Whether the Recall Resolution was singed by a majority of the PRA and duly verified. acted within his jurisdiction in issuing that order. Constitutional limitations: 1. 1st Sem. 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. Although the term “attendance” appears at the top of the page. the Secretary of Finance is the proper 36 . he will not be judged on the performance prematurely. CSC FACTS: 7 June 1984: Then Acting Register of Deeds of QC Vicente Coloyan filed an admin complaint against petitioner. LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE RELATIONS Local Governments are subject to legislative control. Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the LGU of which he is an official. 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. Pajaro and the City of Dagupan The power to discipline is specifically granted by Sec. is such practice would represent interests adverse to the government. Such an interpretation would devitalize the right of recall. The term “recall” in par. 41 of PD 807. 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. This is limited by the Constitution. To hold that it includes the entire period would reduce the period to eight months. Whether the phrase “Regular Local Election” includes the election period for the regular election or simply the date of such election. Sec. 2005-2006 HELD: YES. the chief of an agency. judgment against Divinagracia would actually be a judgment against the City Government. Code of 1987 to heads of departments. Yes. of Finance Macalincag.” ISSUE: WON Javellana properly engaged in the practice of law. (3) (2) ABG disciplining authority to issue the preventive suspension order. 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. Provided. 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. 74 cannot be deemed to apply to the entire recall proceedings. and instrumentalities. or teach in schools except during session hours. agencies. the regional director or a person with a sworn written complaint. More specifically acting Sec. 74 apply only to the exercise of the power to recall which is vested in the registered voters. Hence. and cities. 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. the petitioner violated Memo Circular No. Protect private property. RATIO: (1) On the word “recall” Sec. the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain one’s side. 2. the limitations in Sec. CSC affirmed it on appeal. HELD: No. It is more probable to believe that it was signed to signify their concurrence to the recall resolution. 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. 74-58 prohibiting a government official from engaging in the private practice of his profession.Loc Gov Reviewer. provinces. (b) refers only to the recall election. LGU. Javellana v. 90. It also alleged that Javellana filed a case against Divinagracio for “Illegal Dismilssal and Reinstatement with Damages. ISSUE: WON Coloyan is a party adversely affected by the decision allowed by law to file an appeal. malice. On the other hand. 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. their real employer.

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

” 38 . But the law cannot be applied to deprive Z. the rest remain patrimonial. PRYCE PROPERTIES CORP.00. MAGTAJAS V. Applying the law of Municipal Corporations. Under the rule noscitur a sociis. NAWASA: They system had always been under the control and operation of the National Government. It must not be general and consistent with public policy.00. Cebu applied for and obtained a certificate of public convenience from the PSC. The OWS was established out of the $125. The System owned properties which are estimated to be worth P10. 4. The share cannot be paid in lump sum. The system pays all who pay the charges. All the properties of the OWS are transferred to NAWASA in exchange for an equal value of the latter’s assets. qualified. ABG ISSUE: WON RA 3039 is constitutional for depriving Z. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City enacted Ordinances No. 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. 1955: Auditor General apportioned the assets and obligations: 54. del Norte is still entitled to collect from the City the former’s share in the 26 properties which are patrimonial in nature. HELD: NO. public health. RA 3039 is valid insofar as it affects the lots used as capitol site. 3353 and 3375-93 which prohibited the operation of gambling casinos within the premises of the city. It must not be partial or discriminatory. including PAGCOR-sanctioned ones. granting that it was patrimonial. PAGCOR PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE V. The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue. RATIO: PAGCOR is a corporation created directly by PD 1869.294. 6.000. 1st Sem. If it is owned in its private or proprietary capacity. Tests for a valid ordinance: 1. it was public property and within the absolute control of Congress. the property is public and Congress has absolute control over it. However. This was met by opposition from various sectors in the locality. 1945: Zamboanga Province capital was transferred to Dipolog.Loc Gov Reviewer. 2005-2006 Cebu: This deprives us of our property rights in the Osmeña Waterworks System without due process of law and just compensation. It is open to the public (in this sense it is public service). or given the same meaning of. 1949: Appraisal Committee formed by the Auditor General fixed the value at P1. It must not contravene the Constitution or any statute. nothing concrete is said as to what assets are to be traded on the part of NAWASA. but upon the payment only of a certain rental (which makes it proprietary). then it is patrimonial and Congress has no absolute control. HELD: NO.00 loan extended to the municipality by the US. The municipality cannot be deprived of it without due process and payment of just compensation. words with which it is associated. Sec. the Municipality of Zamboanga used to be the provincial capital of the then Zamboanga Province. del Norte and 45. there is the constitutional prohibition against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. If the property is owned by the municipality in its public and governmental capacity. WON congress can appropriate the properties in this case. 1948: RA 286 was approved creating the municipality of Molave making it the new capital. Accordingly. 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. AND FACTS: PAGCOR decided to open a casino in Cagayan City. HELD: YES. It leased a portion of a building belonging to Pryce Properties and equipped it to be used as a casino. del Sur. CIR was allowed to deduct 25% of the internal revenue allotment for the city for the quarter ending 31 March 1960. all those of the 50 properties in question which are devoted to public service are deemed public. 1952: RA 711 was approved in dividing the province into Z. there was proper and just compensation provided in the law. to be considered public. public education. 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. 5.244. its transfer to NAWASA was within the competence of Congress.39% for Z. except at to the money already returned to the City. etc. 12 October 1936: Commonwealth Act 39 was approved converting it into a city. This controversy is more along the domains of Municipal corporations. NO.” The properties consisted of 50 lots and some buildings covered by TCTs in the name of Zamboanga Province. the SC held that since the word “gambling” is associated with “and other prohibited games of chance. INC. RATIO: The validity of the law depends on the nature of the properties.000. Finance Secretary ordered the CIR to stop further payments. TC: RA 1383 is unconstitutional in so far as it vests NAWASA ownership over the system without just compensation. It must not be unfair or oppressive. The police power is not without limitations. It must not prohibit but may regulate trade. 6 provided that the funds and assets of the province shall be equitably divided upon the Auditor General’s recommendation. del Norte and Z. Gambling is not illegal per se. Under this norm. ISSUE: WON RA 1383 is constitutional in vesting in NAWASA ownership of the OWS without just compensation.000. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA FACTS: Before its incorporation as a chartered city. payable within 30 years.61% for del Sur. it is enough that the property be held and devoted for governmental purposes like local administration. Sec. del Norte of property without due process and just compensation. 3. school sites and its grounds. 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. It results then that Z. It must bot be unreasonable. ISSUE: WON local governments are empowered to suppress all forms of gambling. 2. a word or phrase should be interpreted in relation to. 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.

plaintiff also paid several amounts as fees for the inspection of the boilers by the City Engineer. There should be no quarrel over permit fees since there is a sharing mechanism in place. fish enclosures. CA 696 (provides that the Secretary of Labor shall fix and collect reasonable inspection fees).000 hectares in 1995. the City also has the authority to tax steam boilers.000 hectares in 1990 to almost 21. There is no sufficient indication of an implied repeal of PD 1869. 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. and to impose necessary safeguards for lake quality control and management. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V.Loc Gov Reviewer. 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. This approach would also affirm that there are indeed two kinds of gambling. SILVOSA FACTS: ABG PD 813 amended certain sections of RA 4850 due to the concern for the rapid expansion of Metro Manila. like other prohibited games of chance. Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. The charter which embodies a valid exercise of the police power should prevail over the LGC of 1991 on matters affecting Laguna de Bay.” As to the rates. Upon the demand of the city. CITY OF MANILA FACTS: MERALCO operates 7 steam boilers. in accordance with the provisions of the City Ordinances. RATIO: The LGC does not contain any express provision which categorically repeals the charter of the Authority. 4850 created the “Laguna Lake Development Authority. MERALCO: Such provisions have been repealed by subsequent legislation. Considering the reasons behind the establishment of the Authority. plaintiff paid the National Government several amounts. The enactment of a later legislation which is a general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. 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. On the contrary. In the opinion of judicial authorities. The charter of LLDA constitutes a special law. 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. which has the character and force of a statute. one issued by the state and another by a political subdivision or public corporation. must be prevented or suppressed.” MONDANO V. 39 . RA 7160 is a general law. The ordinances violate PD 1869. there is every indication that the legislative intent is for the authority to proceed with its mission. 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. As fees for the inspection of the boilers. HELD: YES. Implied repeals are not lightly presumed in the absence of a clear and unmistakable showing of such intention. fish corrals and the like. V. since the former is related to the “safety of laborers and employees” while the City is not limited to such purposes. and sustainable development. the other is regulation. particularly of the neighborhood where the boilers are located. there is nothing “inherently obnoxious in the requirement that a person engaged in a business shall have two licenses. 2005-2006 the word should be read as referring to only illegal gambling which. RA 7309. “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. This was challenged in the courts by the different operators. 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 Authority issued a notice that all fishpens and structures erected without a permit from the Authority shall be demolished. combined with the current and prospective use of the lake. cities. However.630 which plaintiff paid to Manila as inspection fees of its steam boilers. navigational safety. 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. This is a suit to recover the sum of P4. 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. if the City’s power is merely to regulate. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the national law making body. The name fee is not conclusive—taxes are often called fees. the illegal and those authorized by law. CA FACTS: RA No.” Municipal governments then assumed authority to issue fishing privileges and fishpen permits. but is related to the safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the City. It increased the occupation from 7. the towns of Laguna de Bay. ISSUE: WON the power to levy inspection fees on steam boilers is still lodged in the City of Manila. creating a Board of Claims under the DOJ and RA 7648 providing for measures for the solution of the power crisis. The power of inspection of the Labor Secretary does not conflict with that of the City authorities. then that is material. RATIO: There was no repeal. construction and operation of fishpens. and provinces encompassed by the term “Laguna Bay Region. 1st Sem. which are environmental protection. Big fishpen operators took advantage of this occasion to establish fishpens and cages to the consternation of the Authority. The power of the Authority to grant permits is for the purpose of effectively regulating and monitoring activities in the region. 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.” RA 7160: LGC of 1991. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

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

The Secretary acted under Batas Blg . 13 September 1956: Executive Secretary designated respondent to investigate the complaint. Art. MUNICIPAL CONTRACTS XII. HELD: YES. RATIO: Notwithstanding the change in the constitutional language. (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. 10 (1). Art. such cannot exceed 60 days. under Sec.300. not of power. Ganzon may serve the suspension so far ordered. under the Constitution.Loc Gov Reviewer. Provinces. 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. Municipality of Naujan FACTS: A public bidding was held by the Municipality of Naujan. The President shall have control of all the executive departments. 2176. Under the LGC. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. Local autonomy. dishonesty. bridges. and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. streets. The sole objective of suspension is to prevent the accused from hampering the normal course of the investigation. but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. 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. RATIO: The pertinent provisions are found in Sec. by analogy. GANZON V. In several cases. but may no logner be suspended for the offenses he was originally charged. and other public works under their control or supervision. Sec. XI. in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. for the lease of its municipal waters. and misconduct in office. The Constitution did not intend. to deprive the legislature of all authority over municipal corporations. or injuries suffered by any person by reason of the defective condition of roads. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings. Sec. as the President’s alter ego. 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. public buildings. San Diego v. 24.Local government units and their officials are not exempt from liability for death or injury to persons or damage to property. 2078 of the Admin Code. may also be amenable to suspension and removal for the same causes as the latter. As to the cause. can suspend and/or remove local officials. 24 September 1956: Ganzon questioned the authority of the President to order his investigation. oppression. 46 was passed by the council awarding the concession of the Butas River and the Naujan Lake to Bartolome San Diego. the charter did not intend to divest Congress of its right. and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action. 34. . Liability for Damages. 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. considering that the position of mayor of a chartered city may be fairly compared in category and statute with that of a provincial governor. there being fault or negligence. Investigating is not inconsistent with overseeing. if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. 2180. involves a mere decentralization of administration. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions. in which local officials remain accountable to the central government in the manner the law may provide. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. and such being the case.00. 41 . LGC SEC. although it is a lesser power than altering. Art. HELD: YES. is obliged to pay for the damage done. or the president of his prerogative to provide admin sanctions against local officials. Imposing 600 days of suspension is to make him spend the rest of his term in inactivity. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY Art. 2005-2006 ISSUE: WON the Secretary of Local Government. for the sake of local autonomy. 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. Resolution No. 62-63. are: Disloyalty. 63: Preventive suspension may be meted out by the Minister of Local Government if the respondent is a provincial or city official. bureaus and offices… It may be clearly inferred that the President may remove an official in the government service “conformably to law. 1st Sem. 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. The contract stipulated that San Diego would be the exclusive lessee to erect fish corrals for five years with an annual rent of P26. we are of the opinion that the former.” 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. by the provincial governor if the respondent is… The successive 60-day suspension imposed on Ganzon is different. 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. which causes. 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. such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages. 337. Oriental Mindoro. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. This annual rental was reduced by 20% upon petition by San Diego. 64(b) and (c) of the Admin Code. Such fault or negligence. 2189.

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. 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. 1st Sem. and corruption. 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. 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. Rivera complied with this. 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. The Resolution extending the lease period was also revoked. The acting municipal treasurer informed Rivera that the contract had been awarded to him. revoking Resolution No.235 the petitioner was to furnish and deliver 2. 3 is unconstitutional. RATIO: Sec. 222. Legally speaking. 1952: Municipal Council. it cannot produce any legal effect for which thereafter no recovery can be made. The requirement of competitive bidding is for the purpose of inviting competition and to guard against favoritism. 607 of the RAC. there is no contract abrogated since the extension contract is void and inexistent. maintenance.700 cubic meters of adobe stone and 1. Rivera v. 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. 7 Par. RATIO: Sec. but the reduction of the rental and the extension of the term of the lease have been granted without a prior public bidding. and that even if a sum was appropriated. is not in accordance with law. The office turned down the claim. Rivera: Cited Sec. ISSUE: WON the dismissal was proper and WON Maclang can be held liable in his personal capacity for the liability to Rivera. Rivera asked for the help of the Presidential Complaint and Action Commission which referred it to the General Auditing Office. 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. ABG 16 October 1951: Council passed Resolution No. 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.Loc Gov Reviewer. 222. the contract was declared null and void by the SC. Sec. for the repair. and construction of municipal roads. 42 . HELD: YES. as shown in the last available census. 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.000 or more may be entered into or authorized. 2323 of the RAC: Requires that when the exclusive privilege of fishery is ranted to a private party. 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. 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. Rivera’s bid was the lowest. HELD: No. 2165: Municipalities… endowed with faculties of municipal corporations to be exercised by and through their respective municipal governments in conformity with law. fraud. Since the period in a lease is a vital and essential particular to the contract. It was stipulated that for the sum of P19. 608 of the Code. SC: Indicated that a remedy existed in Sec. Trial Court: Dismissed it stating that since in the previous case. Naujan: The resolutions authorizing the original lease contract. 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. 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. its extension. ISSUE: WON Resolution No. It is not an impairment of the obligation of contract since the constitutional provision on impairment refers only to contracts legally executed. and a contract entered into contrary to these requirements is void. 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. 3 is null and void for revoking Resolution No. San Diego: Resolution No. 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 same shall be given to the highest bidder.235. adopted Resolution No. Rivera delivered gravel and adobe stones valued at P19. as required by Sec. 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. the alleged deliveries could no longer be verified by the Provincial Auditor of Bulacan or his representative. 16 October 1951: Council of Malolos passed a resolution approving the contract. 68 ratifying the bidding called by the treasurer for the supply of construction materials. TC: Upheld the validity of the lease contract. making it a distinct and different lease contract which requires the prescribed formality of a public bidding. now composed of a new set of members. 607 of the RAC. The price was not paid. The original lease contract in this case was awarded to the highest bidder. Rivera: Filed this action in his personal capacity pursuant to said provision. the Auditor General is not duty bound to pass and allow in audit the sum claimed by a contractor. Rivera v. which was granted without the requisite public bidding. 2 of the RAC: Requires that before a contract involving the expenditure of P2. reducing the lease rentals and renewing the lease are null and void for not having been passed in accordance with law (no public bidding). and that the contract is void.400 cubic meters of gravel. 3.

or quasi-judicial. The plaintiff was forcibly ejected under and in pursuance of a resolution adopted by the defendants in this case. After continuous user of a little more than one year. the Provincial Treasurer. Alfredo Bislig were impleaded for the first time as defendants. Yes. et al v. Palafox. the defendant councilors are liable personally for the damages suffered by Mendoza. Its liability to them for the wrongful exercise of the latter is the same as that of a private corporation or individual. ISSUE: WON the respondent court validly found the municipality liable for the quasi-delict committed by its employee. Mendoza v. he ran over Proceto Palafox. a gravel and sand truck driven by Manandeg and owned by Velasquez and a dump truck of the municipality. Mendoza filed an action for damages against the individual members of the council. to wit: "the State may not be sued without its consent. Municipality of San Fernando. RATIO: 1903 Civil Code: To attach liability to the State for the negligence of Torralba. it is not liable to private persons. 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. 1634 of the Philippine Commission. several passengers of the jeepney including Laureano Baniña Sr. HELD: NO. For the exercise of the former. of the passenger jeepney. the District Engineer. Firme FACTS: 16 December 1965: A passenger jeep driven by Barnardo Balagot and owned by the Estate of Nieveras. 608 of the RAC: A purported contract entered into contrary to the requirements of the next preceding section hereof shall be wholly void. He was prosecuted for homicide through reckless imprudence. RATIO: The Municipal Code confers both governmental and corporate powers upon municipal corporations. 30 September 1948: While driving his truck in compliance with his duties. Government of the Philippines: This ruling may not be made since the driver was not a special agent of the Government. are not liable for consequences of their official acts unless it can be shown that they acted willfully and maliciously. Officers and agents of MCs charged with the performance of governmental duties which are in their nature legislative. Merrit v. RATIO: This action is against defendant-appellee in his personal capacity based on Sec. 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. HELD: No. Consent is implied when the government enters into business contracts. they forcible evicted him on the pretext that he was not operating the ferry leased to him. the heirs later began this proceeding against the employer province. By virtue of a court order. Under the evidence of record. The construction of roads in which the truck and the driver worked at the time of the accident are admittedly governmental activities. the government is not liable. awarding a franchise for the same ferry to another person.a nd Torralba. The liability of Maclang is personal. with the express purpose of inflicting injury upon the plaintiff. 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. non-suability of the State. thereby descending 43 . 1st Sem. Having reserved the right to file a civil action. respectively. 11 December 1966: Compliant for damages was filed by the pvt respondents against the Estate of Macario Nieveras and Bernardo Balagot. owner and driver. HELD: Yes. the private respondents amended the complaint wherein the petitioner and its regular employee. 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. not for mere mistakes of judgment. died as a result of the injuries they sustained and four (4) others suffered varying degrees of physical injuries. Due to the impact. killing him in the process. 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. Municipality: Alleged lack of cause of action. as distinguished from corporate functions. judicial. The defendants filed a Third Party Complaint against the petitioner and the driver of a dump truck of petitioner. 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. prescription of cause of action and the negligence of the owner and driver of the passenger jeepney as the proximate cause of the collision. The defendant councilors regularly leased an exclusive ferry privilege to the plaintiff for two years.Loc Gov Reviewer. If the negligent employee was engaged in the performance of governmental duties. La Union v. driven by Bislig collided. 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. Express consent may be embodied in a general law or a special law. The principle applies to the Insular. ABG ISSUE: WON the council members can be held personally liable for the damages suffered by the lessee. father of appellants. Section 3 of the Constitution. The doctrine of non-suability of the State is expressly provided for in Article XVI. as distinguished from the provincial or municipal governments." Consent takes the form of express or implied consent. 2005-2006 HELD: No. 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. 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. as if the transaction had been entered into by him as a private party. 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.

The CA reversed itself upon a motion for reconsideration. a claimant must establish the relation between the omission and the damage. Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued. In this case. 27 is to end the bribery system. thus opening itself to a counterclaim. The erring public officer is justly punishable under this article for whatever loss or damage the complainant has sustained. on the other hand. The lungs of the victims burst due to their intake of toxic sulfide gas produced from the waste in the tank. HELD: No. 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. is obliged to pay for the damage done. Fernando et al v. The accident which befell the victims who are not in any way connected with the winning bidder happened before the award could be given. and also when the State files a complaint. Upon learning from the report of the market master about the need to clean the tank. is performing governmental or proprietary functions. were found dead inside the septic tank. He must prove under 2179 that the defendant’s negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury. Municipal corporations. Municipal corporations exist in a dual capacity: They exercise the right springing from sovereignty. the duty of the market master or his security guards to supervise the work could not have started. whereby such other person suffers injury. 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. the city immediately responded by issuing invitations to bid for such service. their acts are political and governmental. al. who was then engaged in the discharge of governmental functions. 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. Cagayan. though elected or appointed by them. The circumstance that a state is suable does not necessarily mean that it is liable. 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. RATIO: The purpose of Art. ISSUE: WON Davao City is guilty of negligence in this case and if so. The test of liability of the municipality for torts depends on whether or not the driver. are nevertheless public functionaries performing a public service. In the other capacity the municipalities exercise a private. Hence. and as such they are officers. 9. Court of Appeals FACTS: 14 March 1977: SB of Camalaniugan. The failure of Mr." Palafox. without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. 22 November 1975: Bidder Bertulano. The accident occurred because the victims on their own and without authority from the city opened the tank. 2176: A person who by his omission causes damage to another. like provinces and cities. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court by ordering the City of Davao to pay damages. Court of Appeals and City of Davao FACTS: 7 November 1975: Bibiano Morta: Market master of the Agdao Public Market. 27: Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects. without just cause. liability on the applicable law and the established facts. WON that negligence is the proximate cause of the deaths of the victims. Official inaction may be due to plain indolence or a cynical indifference to the responsibilities of public service. the toxic gases from the waste matter could not have leaked out because it was air-tight. adopted Resolution No. to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter." Municipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its regular employee. and vigilance which the circumstances justly demanded. Considering that there was yet no award and order to commence work on the tank. 2005-2006 to the level of the other contracting party. for example. 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. The provision presupposes that the refusal or omission of a public official to perform his official duty is attributable to malice or inexcusable negligence. To be entitled to damages for an injury resulting from the negligence of another. While it may be ABG true that the city was remiss in its duty to re-empty the septic tank annually. 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. v.Loc Gov Reviewer. 1st Sem. 9. RATIO: Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care. 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. et. Bertulano to exercise prudence was the proximate cause of the accident. acting in behalf of the municipality. An invitation to bid was issued to several parties and Bascon won in the bidding. Their officers and agents in such capacity. 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. 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. An accident such as toxic gas leakage from the tank is unlikely to happen unless one removes its covers. The cause of death was asphyxia caused by the diminution of oxygen in the body below normal conditions. agents. 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. proprietary or corporate right. there being negligence. When a person holds himself out as being competent to do things requiring professional skill. and servants of the state. are agencies of the State when they are engaged in governmental functions and therefore should enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit. it can never be held liable if it does not first consent to be sued. with 4 other companions. arising from their existence as legal persons and not as public agencies. precaution. The respondents were not singled out and the resolution was uniformly applied to all the threshers in the municipality. The petitioners acted within the scope of their authority and in consonance with their honest 44 . and while in the performance of the duties pertaining thereto. Tuzon and Mapagu v. Jurado: Mayor and treasurer liable! Art. The tank was found empty and the victims were presumed to be the ones who did the re-emptying. HELD: No. Private respondent Saturnino Jurado did not comply with it so the mayor refused to give him a license to operate. 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. 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. such negligence was not a continuing one.

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

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

The parties to the compromise contemplated a divisible obligation needing a performance bond in proportion to the uncompleted work. public order. mentioned at the beginning of this decision are not subject to execution. The right or usufruct of the town of Paoay over its municipal waters. by making reciprocal concessions. he found therein Duque and his men who claimed that he (Duque) was still the lessee. at any time. 1st Sem. ISSUE: WON the properties in this case can be subject to attachment and levy."(2) About forty fishery lots leased to thirty-five different persons by the Municipality. it has been held that shares of stock held by a municipal corporation are subject to execution. more or less temporary. The argument that it is reciprocal is already moot. is not subject to execution. Manaois FACTS: Manaois obtained a judgment against the municipality of Paoay. may." 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. to distinguish this kind of revenue from that derived from taxes. municipal licenses and market fees are provided for and imposed by the law. then this case is covered by the exception. Municipality awarded the lease of the same lots to Manaois. However. Demetrio Tabije of a fishery lot belonging to the defendant municipality. They are property of the State.712. The Sheriff attached and levied upon the following: (1) P1. 47 . avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced. The submission of the bond was not a condition precedent to the payment to the plaintiff. Municipality of Paoay v. the real estate taxes collected by a municipality do not all go to it. In fact. if not necessary.025 as rental for the said lots for the year 1939. What Paoay holds is merely a usufruct or the right to use said municipal waters. it is strange for it to suddenly demand a 20% bond. The reason behind this exemption extended to properties for public use. 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. particularly. 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. 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. 2005-2006 ISSUE: WON the PNB account can be garnished to pay for the remaining debt of the city. repeal or modify said section 2321 and revoke this grant to coastal towns and open these marine waters to the public. All that he can do is rent out to private individuals the fishery rights over the lots after public bidding. and public municipal revenues is that they are held in trust for the people. for reasons it may deem valid or as a matter of public policy. The same rule applies to municipal funds derived from patrimonial properties. he must do since that is the only right granted by the legislature. In conclusion. The premium of the bond will be sizeable and will eat up the contractor’s profits. The Legislature. RATIO: ABG Properties for public use held by municipal corporations are not subject to levy and execution. RATIO: 2028: A compromise is a contract whereby the parties. However. The P613T has already been collected through execution and garnishment and the contractor already finished some stages of the construction.Loc Gov Reviewer. public policy… is a valid contract. and the attachment made thereon by the Sheriff is valid. the latter succeeded in continuing in his possession and keeping Manaois and his men out. granted to it by section 2321 of the Revised Administrative Code. However. it is treated as the private asset of the town and may be levied upon and sold under an ordinary execution. made by the Legislature. 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. If it is patrimonial and which is held by a municipality in its proprietary capacity. they are intended primarily and exclusively for the purpose of financing the governmental activities and functions of municipal corporations. It will also deprive Paoay of income. It is based merely on a grant.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. This. particularly bañgos fry.Enforce it. him being the highest bidder. since an ordinance has already been enacted expressly appropriating the amount of P613T. when Manaois and his men tried to enter the property in order to exercise his right as lessee and to catch fish. HELD: Not all of them. The city was initially content with a mere 5% bond. But we hold that the revenue or income coming from the renting of these fishery lots is certainly subject to execution. the amount of P1. It is anomalous since a private individual would be forced to conduct a public bidding.01 in the Municipal Treasury representing the rental paid by Mr. we hold that the fishery lots numbering about forty in the municipality of Paoay. Having established that the compromise agreement was final and executory. It may be profitable. the forty odd fishery lots included in the attachment by the Sheriff. Manaois paid P2. 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. 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. Ilocos Norte and a writ of execution against the defendant municipality was issued. A compromise agreement not contrary to law. 2. The fishery or municipal waters of the town are not subject to execution.712. 2041:One of the parties to a compromise has two options:1. Another reason for this prohibition is that the buyer would only buy the rights of the 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. for instance. They do not belong to the municipality.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful