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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 337) and that the expropriations are for a public purpose. as the implementor of the agrarian reform program. the taking of the property. The establishment of a pilot development center would inure to the direct benefit and advantage of the people of the Province of Camarines Sur. concerning whether or not the lands were private and whether the purpose was. etc. The general power to exercise the right of eminent domain must not be confused with the right to exercise it in a particular case. bridges. ISSUE: WON the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units is subject to the prior approval of the Secretary of the Agrarian Reform. if the Legislature should grant general authority to a municipal corporation to expropriate private land for public purposes. ABG The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the price offered for their property. No species of property is held by individuals with greater tenacity and none is guarded by the constitution and laws more sedulously. 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. Blg. schools. soil testing and tissue culture laboratory centers. 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 province of Camarines Sur has adopted a five-year Comprehensive Development plan. it is a public use and no part of the ground can be taken for other public uses under a general authority. marine biological and sea farming research center. 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. The San Joaquins failed to appear at the hearing of the motion. Solicitor General: Under Section 9 of the Local Government Code (B. Under the new concept. etc. the city of Manila cannot condemn a portion of the cemetery for a public street. It is also true that in delegating the power to expropriate. fishermen and craftsmen would be enhanced. While such delegated power may be a limited authority.g. it assumed that the resolution is valid and that the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use.P. The city of Manila is not authorized to expropriate public property. the livelihood of the farmers. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and authorized the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of the property upon the deposit with the Clerk of Court of the amount of P5. The ascertainment of the necessity must precede. and the owner's constitutional rights call for protection by the courts. convenience or benefit.) before the taking thereof could satisfy the constitutional requirement of "public use". Blg. the limitations on the exercise of the delegated power must be clearly expressed.. roads. 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. 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. 11 . in fact. 1st Sem. "public use" means public advantage. it is being taken for a use not public.Loc Gov Reviewer. to make inquiry and to hear proof. However. "WHEREAS. 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.” Camarines Sur filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. authorizing the Provincial Governor to purchase or expropriate property contiguous to the provincial capitol site. because all of these projects would naturally involve a change in the land use. it would then be the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use. However. bridges. the legislature may retain certain control or impose certain restraints on the exercise thereof by the local governments. Ultimately. 337). the courts have ample authority in this jurisdiction. Province of Camarines Sur v CA (1993) FACTS: 22 December 1988: Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur passed Resolution No. which tends to contribute to the general welfare and the prosperity of the whole community. hospitals. without first applying for conversion of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform. 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 is true that local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise it only when expressly authorized by the legislature. the plain meaning of the law should not be enlarged by doubtful interpretation. like a resort complex for tourists or housing project The expropriation of the property authorized by the questioned resolution is for a public purpose. Moreover. upon an issue properly presented. public. It cannot be denied. Series of 1988. 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. it is complete within its limits. public plazas.00. Where a cemetery is open to the public.P. under the provisions above quoted. that the courts would be without jurisdiction to inquire into the purpose of that legislation. and not follow. 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. than the right to the freehold of inhabitants. and the rule in that case is that the authority must be strictly construed. small scale products of plaster of paris. The Court of Appeals set aside the order of the trial court. However. When the legislature interferes with that right. if the legislature under proper authority should grant the expropriation of a certain or particular parcel of land for some specified public purpose.714. RATIO: Modernly. 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. 129. either in the law conferring the power or in other legislations. In effect. 15 small scale technology soap making. 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. The old concept was that the condemned property must actually be used by the general public (e. in order to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial government employees. 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. some of the vital components of which includes the establishment of model and pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops. The taking of private property for any use which is not required by the necessities or convenience of the inhabitants of a state. 2005-2006 ostensible behalf of a public improvement which it can never by any possibility serve. NO. The housing project also satisfies the public purpose requirement of the Constitution.

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.624 square meters with an assessed value of P1. Temporary. 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. 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.e. 4. CEB-8348. 23 August 1994: Petitioner filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession pursuant to Section 19 of R. The RTC of Makati issued an order giving it due course.400. just like what it did with the neighboring lots. 7160. the commissioners submitted an amended assessment for the 478 square meters of Lot No. imposed “through the law conferring the power or in other legislations. The lots are the most suitable site for the purpose. RATIO: The power of eminent domain is lodged in Congress. If Congress intended to allow LGUs to exercise the power through a resolution. do not embrace the sovereign unless the sovereign is specially mentioned as subject thereto. or in the amount of P20. 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. 6 Accordingly. 93-95. whichever was lower. An LGU may exercise the power to expropriate private property only when authorized by Congress and subject to the latter’s control and restraints. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. There is payment of just compensation. 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. 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. it would have said so. or for the benefit of the poor and the landless.A. Exercised for public use.786.826. which petitioner paid to the neighboring lots. Besides. No. 2005-2006 Ordinarily. the Cebu Holdings. or welfare. 1528 contains 793 square meters but the actual area to be expropriated is only 478 square meters. Article 36.” (See Sec.” 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.824. no matter how broad their terms are. The just compensation should be based on the prevailing market price of the property at the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. 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.000 per square meter.339.339. more or less. Petitioner could simply buy directly from them the property at its fair market value if it wanted to. There is also an ancient rule that restrictive statutes. it contended that Lot No. Rule VU of the IRR which requires only a resolution could not prevail over the law. No. 9 Art.Merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. The principle of res judicata cannot bar the right of the State or its agent to expropriate private property.50. 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. as required under Sec. 2.50. Petitioner alleged that the lower court erred in fixing the amount of just compensation at P20. the Municipality of Pque filed on 20 Sept 1993 a complaint for expropriation against VM Realty Corporation over 2 parcels of land.10 per square meter. The petitioner alleged therein that it needed the parcels of land of respondents for a public purpose. purpose. The assessment was approved as the just compensation thereof by the trial court in its Order of 27 December 1996. 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. RATIO: In their Comment. respondents alleged that they have no other land in Cebu City. III of the Constitution and other pertinent laws. Municipality of Parañaque v VM Realty Corp. for their truth is hypothetically admitted by the motion. the price offered was very low in light of the consideration of P20. 7160. On 16 August 1996. Inc.A.826.A law. 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. then pending before Branch 9 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. Res judicata is present in this case since VM Realty is a successor in interest of Limpan Investment Corp. NO. It has a general and permanent character.Loc Gov Reviewer. NO. Resolution. 1st Sem. The total area sought to be expropriated is 1. are unfounded. Petitioner deposited with the Philippine National Bank the amount of P51. The motion was granted by the trial court on 21 September 1994. The courts defer to such legislative determination and will intervene only when a particular undertaking has no real or substantial relation to the public use. Ordinance.. 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 .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. Respondents: The purpose for which their property was to be expropriated was not for a public purpose but for a single private entity. the dispositive portion of the decision was amended to reflect the new valuation. the question submitted before the court is the sufficiency of the ABG allegations in the complaint itself. The purpose was to alleviate the living conditions of the poor by providing homes through socialized housing projects. Finally. 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. An ordinance enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings. 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. the same being an expression of legislative policy. Valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated but that it was rejected. No. 3. (1998) FACTS: Pursuant to SB Res. WON those allegations are true is beside the point. This right should be absolute and unfettered even by prior judgment or res judicata. The fears of private respondents that they will be paid on the basis of the valuation declared in the tax declarations of their property. 19 of RA 7160 which provides that an LGU through its chief executive may exercise the power of eminent domain through an ordinance) Requisites for the exercise of the power of eminent domain: 1. 1528 and fixed it at P12. More specifically. The remaining 315 square meters is the subject of a separate expropriation proceeding in Civil Case No. i.

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

grinding. Rizal (1991) FACTS: Petitioner PPC manufactured lubricated oil basestock which is a petroleum product with its refinery plant in Malaya. is still liable to pay (a) tax on business and (b) storage fees considering Prov. 52 of PD 463. etc. etc. If it is to be considered as a tax ordinance. Its relinquishment is never presumed.. To allow the continuous effectivity of the prohibition would amount to restricting their power to tax by mere admin issuances. Mayor may not waive the payment of the mayor’s permit and sanitary inspection fees. It would include the holding of a public hearing on the measure. and mayor’s permit and sanitary inspection fee unto the respondent Pililia. Jurado filed for an action for mandamus with the RTC to compel the issuance of the mayor’s permit and license. it must be shown to have been enacted in accordance with the requirements of the Local Tax Code. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources granted us a certificate of tax exemption for a period of 5 years. 6-77. Cement is not a mineral product but rather a manufactured product. PD 231: The barrio council may solicit money. Tuzon and Mapagu v. 142 (NIRC of 1939): Manufactured oils and other fuels are subject to specific tax. 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. tools. 5 and 10 apply to petitioner Floro Corporation notwithstanding the limitation provided for in Sec. The framers of PD 426 intended to terminate the effectivity of the provincial circulars.00 plus 25% surcharge. Drilon v. and compounders of liquors. Court of Appeals (1992) FACTS: 14 March 1977: Sangguniang Bayan of Camalaniugan. distilled spirits. Local tax code does not provide for prescriptive period for collection of local taxes. Floro: Not liable since the plaintiff’s powers to levy fees on “Mines. for production.Loc Gov Reviewer. The power of taxation is a high prerogative of sovereignty. 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. Sec. importers or producers of any article of commerce of whatever kind or nature. CA: Mayor Tuzon and Treasurer Mapagu are liable to pay P20T as actual damages and P5T as moral damages. The manufacture and export of cement do not fall under it since it is not a mineral product. and Provincial Circular No. and/ or wines… Finance Secretary: Issued Provincial Circular No. equipment. distillers. it imposed specific tax on refined/ manufactured mineral oils and motor fluids.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. retailing or dealing in petroleum products subject to specific tax under the NIRC. HELD: Pililia can only enforce collection from 1976 to 1986 and not those before 1976. Mining Corporations and Mineral Products” was limited by Sec. RATIO: Municipality’s power to levy taxes on manufacturers and importers is provided in Art.875. 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. 1143 of the Civil Code governs. Municipality of Pililia imposed Municipal Tax Ordinance No. In enforcing the Ordinance. 5(m) of PD 231 and Sec. and Ordinance No. Tanauan: Inapplicable here since it involved a different law. ISSUE: WON a resolution imposing a 1% donation is a valid exercise of the taxing power of an LGU. except those for which fixed taxes are provided on manufacturers. Petitioner Lope Mapagu (treasurer) prepared a document for signature of all thresher/ owner/ operators who applied for a mayor’s permit. including brewers. ABG They based it on Municipal Ordinance No. As for the Resolution. in addition to the requisites for publication of ordinances in general. 29. No Ruling. from which the respondent has not appealed. The exemptions mentioned in Sec. Circular No. wholesaling. 2. The measures have been sustained in the challenged decision. subject to such limitation as may be provided by law. The Ordinance did not become valid by the inaction of the Finance Minister. RATIO: Admin regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law. 19 of PD 231: Municipality may impose a tax on business except those for which fixed taxes are provided for in this Code. Gorospe (1991) FACTS: Municipality of Lugait (Misamis Oriental) filed a complaint for collection of taxes against Floro Cement Corporation. 1st Sem. PPC: Prov. Pepsi Cola v. ISSUE: WON PPC whose oil products are subject to specific tax under the NIRC. mixing. ISSUE: WON Ordinance Nos. The taxes are “manufacturers” and “exporter’s” taxes for 1 Jan 1974. The proceeds will fund the construction of the Sports and Nutrition Center Bldg of the municipality. adopted Resolution No. Lim (1994) 14 . Cagayan. 10.30 Sept 1975 amounting to P161. Philippine Petroleum Corporation v. Rizal. passed pursuant to PD 231. Sec. 53 of the same decree. 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. Pililia filed a complaint against PPC for collection of several taxes from 1979 to 1986. 9: solicited 1% donation of the palay threshed from the thresher operators who will apply for a permit to thresh. Sec. based on the Ordinance. 1 (Pililia Tax Code) 3 June 1977L PD 1158 was enacted. NO. Its minerals had already undergone a chemical change before cement reaches its saleable form. Floro Cement Corporation v. 26-73 declared as contrary to national economic policy the imposition of local taxes on the manufacture of petroleum products as they are already subject to specific tax under the NIRC and that it also covers all ordinances. 52 of PD 463. PD 231: Local Tax Code: Municipality may impose taxes on business. Art. materials. Circular No. Pililia. 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. The implementing agency made the “donation” obligatory. Municipality of Pililia. 5. 52 of PD 463 only refers to machineries. as provided in Sec. Action for obligation created by law prescribes within ten years from time right of action accrues. It only remains in effect if the minister did not comply with what is due him. RTC of Tanay upheld the legality of the ordinance. its subsequent approval by the Secretary of Finance. and other contributions from private agencies and individuals. Private respondent Jurado tried to pay the P285. It is the result of a definite process—crushing of minerals. The exercise of LGUs of the power to tax is ordained in the present Constitution. the Local Autonomy Act. rectifiers. He filed another petition for declaratory judgment against the resolution for being illegal either as a donation or as a tax measure.

The only exceptions are the posting of the ordinances as approved but this omission does not affect its validity. The tax exemptions of bunkhouses under Sec. Although LGUs are charged with fixing the rates of real property tax. In Manila’s petition for certiorari.435. mining. YES as regards public land. As regards the procedural requirements. he is not also permitted to substitute his own judgment for the judgment of the local government that enacted the measure. (2) If the SC were to sanction the interpretation of Benguet. An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. and these are taxable by the state. It set the auction sale of the private respondent’s properties to satisfy the real estate taxes due. then necessarily all real properties exempt by any law would be covered. it does not follow that they also have the authority to determine WON they can impose the tax. Notices of the pubic hearings were sent to the interested parties. at their own expense. Benguet Corporation v. or occupants. CBAA held the exemption was withdrawn so petitioner should have applied for restoration of the exemption with the Fiscal Incentives Review Board. WON the real tax exemption granted under PD 745 was withdrawn by PD 1955. consisting of 4. ABG It is the national government that levies real property tax. they are merely constituted as agents of the national government in the enforcement of the real property tax code. On appeal. YES. RATIO: (1) The provisions of Sec. considering that its publication in three successive issues of a newspaper of general circulation will satisfy due process. should properly be assessed real estate tax as such improvement does not appear to belong to the Republic. CTA & NWSA: Properties of NWSA. 15 . They cannot affect the imposition of the real property tax by the national government. NDC. the minutes are there. Cebu City (1992) FACTS: NDC is authorized to engage in commercial. Province of Tarlac v. the nature of the use of the property. sets. When LGUs are required to fix the rates. order that the act be undone or redone by his subordinate or even decide to do it himself. Consequently. All he said is that it is illegal. He did not pronounce it as unwise or unreasonable. as well as a warehouse subsequently erected thereon are exempt from real property tax. are exempt from real estate tax since the law applies to all government properties whether held in a proprietary or governmental capacity. Although the text was not translated and disseminated. 1940: A warehouse with a floor area of 1. RATIO: To come under the exemption in Article 3. The Municipality of Tarlac assessed taxes in the amount of P532. for collection of real property tax. (g) of PD 464 in relation to PD 551. industrial. and once government ownership is determined. LBAA: affirmed taxability of the bunkhouses. They have ceased to be exempt under the Assessment Law when the government disposed of them in favor of NDC. in his discretion . 4. Secretary Drilon did not set aside the Manila Revenue Code. 4. CBAA: held that the bldgs of petitioner used as dwellings were exempt from real property tax pursuant to PD 745. 10 August 1939: President issued Proclamation No. Judge Alcantara (1992) FACTS: Tarlac Enterprises owned certain properties: parcel of land.: Appealed the decision to the LBAA of Benguet. Reclamation Area No. 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. machinery of diesel elect. The SC has also used the standard of “use” of property rather than “ownership” as basis for real estate taxability. Sol Gen: Benguet is estopped from raising the question of lack of authority as it was never raised before. 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. ISSUE: WON Sec. NWC was succeeded by NDC. becomes immaterial. etc. National Development Corporation v. As regards the warehouse constructed. 187 of the LGC is unconstitutional for granting the Justice Secretary the power of control over LGUs. indeed. as amended” instead of stating clearly realty tax exemption laws. Benguet: LGUs don’t have any authority to levy realty taxes on mines pursuant to Sec. Inc. 1948: Cebu City assessed and collected from NDC real estate taxes on the land and the warehouse. 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. they have all been observed as correctly found by the trial court. 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. RTC of Tarlac: dismissed the complaint filed by the Province against Tarlac Enterprises. 40 par. Cebu: Taxable since no law grants NDC exemption from real estate taxes. for warehousing purposes under the administration of NWC. 430 which reserved Block No. NDC paid under protest. Since the reservation is exempt from realty tax. Respondent must just pay the 2% franchise tax. they are not pertinent to the issue before the SC.Loc Gov Reviewer. 8471 (1985) and 10454 (1986). 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. 3 of PD 745 was withdrawn by PD 1955.940 square meters was constructed on it. but he did not replace it with his own version of what the Code should be. he may. 5 (m) of the Local Tax Code are mere limitations on the taxing power of LGUs. of Cebu City. this requirement applies to the approval of local dev’t plans and public investment programs and not to tax ordinances. and they were published. Benguet Corp. a GOCC. homesteaders and other claimants. 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. 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. it is important to establish that the property is owned by the government or by its unincorporated agency. and there would be no need for congress to specify “Real Property Tax Code. NDC: The Assessment Law exempts properties owned by the Republic from real estate tax. whether for proprietary or government purposes. The intention is to limit the application of the “exception clause” only to those given by the Real Property Tax Code. ice drop factory. NO. 2005-2006 FACTS: Justice Secretary: declared Ordinance No. If they are not followed. 52 of PD 463 and Sec. the Manila RTC sustained the ordinance. 5 (m) of the Local Tax Code. 1st Sem. the warehouse constructed on the reserved land by NWC. 52 of the Mineral Resources Dev’t Decree of 1974 (PD 463) and Sec. RATIO: Sec. 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. the erroneous tax payments collected by Cebu should be refunded to NDC. is liable for payment of ordinary taxes. When he alters or modifies or sets aside a tax ordinance. machinery shed. ISSUE: WON a public land reserved by the president for warehousing purposes in favor of a GOCC. as recipient of the land reserved by the President.55. agricultural and other enterprises needed for economic development. YES. Tarlac Enterprises admitted the demands for the payment but refused to pay it on the ground that it was exempted under Sec.599 square meters.

income and privilege of generation. E. 24 May 1993: Petition was filed with the SB to annul PK 10. The classification led to the cancellation of Casiño’s license to operate. No registration certificate was issued by the PGC. Being the Acting Governor. the Governor is deemed excluded. 378 is invalid. In case of a temporary vacancy. This was renewed a year later. Said proviso is modified and delimited by the phrase “on earnings. de Leon.Loc Gov Reviewer. 2005-2006 ISSUE: WON Tarlac Enterprises is exempt from the payment of real property tax under Sec. the Court answered with a NO. Petitioner: The ¾ requirement is ultra vires and was just a formal requirement. Unlike the old Code where the Governor is not only the provincial Chief Executive but also the presiding officer of the local executive body. 16 . Definitions. In the enactment of ordinances in general. 6. Cockpits shall be constructed and operated within the appropriate areas as prescribed in zoning laws or ordinances. 40 (g) of PD 464 in relation to PD 551 as amended. RATIO: Sections 49(a) and 466(a)(1) of RA 7160 provide that the Vice Governor shall be the presiding officer of the SP. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the Constitution. There are three (3) systems of initiative. No. 1 of PD 551 expressly exempts private respondent from paying real property taxes. he returned it within 10 days. under Sec. Respondent Gingoog Gallera. Ordinance No. and are entirely different from.” 6 July 1993: COMELEC denied the petition for local initiative since its subject is merely a resolution and not an ordinance. and the land on which said bldg is constructed. 378 failed to comply with the votes needed for its validity. HELD: Although the issue is already moot given the expiration of the terms of office of the parties. 49 which classified certain areas of the city as residential zones (it included Block 125. Said enumerated items have no relation to. he shall automatically exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the Governor. wrote the COMELEC requesting a denial of the petition for local initiative as the exercise “will just promote divisiveness. Jr. he becomes the Governor and assumes the higher office for the unexpired term of his predecessor. v. Jr. 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. The Governor is no longer a member of the SP. 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. In addition to that.7 It was a condition precedent to the granting of a mayor’s permit. 12.8 When Congress enacted RA 6735. 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. distribution and sale of electric current and should be exempt from taxation. real properties subject to tax. Thus. Inc: Protested the operation of the Coliseum before the Phil. When the SP held its regular session. are necessary for the operation of its business of generation. the bldg housing said machinery. WON the mayor’s permits are null and void for not obtaining the ¾ votes in passing Resolution No. All cockpits in the Philippines shall register with the Philippine Gamefowl Commission not later than September 30. No cockpit shall be allowed to operate without the proper registration certificate being secured annually. 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. thus allegedly amending Resolution No. A Vice-Governor who is concurrently an Acting Governor is actually a quasi-Governor. that for the purposes of exercising his legislative prerogatives and powers. in case of “permanent vacancy” therein. The PGC did not issue any certificate of registration! PGC OIC: Suspend the operation of the cockpit. RATIO: Resolution No. ISSUE: WON an incumbent Vice-Governor. GGI: Resolution No. counter productive and futility. 49 was therefore not amended. COMELEC FACTS: Sangguniang Bayan of Morong passed Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 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. resolutions) as appropriate subjects of initiative was implemented by Congress when it enacted RA 6735. the Vice Governor only “acts” and does not “become” the governor. 22 Sept 1995: Respondents filed a petition for declaratory relief and prohibition. while concurrently the Acting Governor.. YES. soliciting the number of signatures needed to repeal the resolution. Aguirre. Seven members of the SP voted to allow the petitioner to continue presiding while 4 voted against it. respondents questioned the authority of petitioner to preside in view of his designationas Acting Governor. the application of the LGC is undisputed. 1st Sem. Gamefowl Commission. he is deemed as a non-member of the SP for the time being. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Gingoog City passed Resolution No. ISSUE: WON the PGC controls the Coliseum with respect to cockfights. city and municipal levels except in the Barangay. 378 reclassified Block 125 as within the recreational zone. The Vice Mayor and Presiding Officer of the SB. There is also no merit in the respondent’s contention that the real properties being taxed. the particular enactment must be operative. YES. Sec.3. 10 (1993): It agreed to the inclusion of the municipality as part of the Subic Special Economic Zone in accord with RA 7227. may continue to preside over the sessions of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The lower court erred in exempting the private respondents from paying real property tax on its properties enumerated in the complaint.1. Sec. ISSUE: WON a resolution can be the subject of a local initiative. The mayor’s permits are null and void for violating the PGC rules. 6.44 of the ordinance. receipts. Casiño v. Morong did not take any action on the petition within 30 days after its submission. It is true that in this case. it intended resolutions to 8 7 Rules and Regulations of the PGC state that: Sec. not later than January 31. 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.e. YES. Pvt. without any action. NO. Gamboa. Mayor Lugod (succeeding mayor) issued to petitioner the permit to operate a cockpit dated 2 April 1986. Court of Appeals (1991) FACTS: Casiño owned the Don Romulo Rodriguez Coliseum. stating that his approval was not needed since it did not involve a disposition of city funds. However. Block 125 remains classified as a residential area. 378. Not being included in the enumeration. the location of the Coliseum). the machinery for the generation and distribution of electric power. Petitioners resorted to their power of initiative under the LGC of 1991. 13 August 1985: Res. FACTS: August 1995: Negros Occidental Governor designated petitioner as Acting Governor for the duration of the former’s trip abroad. namely: a. (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 is specific regarding amendments. section 3(a) includes resolutions as subjects of initiatives on local legislation. the new Code delineated the union of the executivelegislative powers in the provincial. The constitutional command to include acts (i. 1981. When it was transmitted to the mayor. This means. 49. RATIO: The Constitution clearly includes not only ordinances but resolutions as appropriate subject of a local initiative. He was the licensee of a cockpit. Garcia v.

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

besides being a presiding officer of a municipal board. Inc. There is no longer a state of emergency which justifies the regulation of house rentals. Fernando: Implementation of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law: Judges were directed to desist from receiving complaints. By explicit statutory command. Seriña case is not at point. the interference upon individual rights must be coextensive and coterminous with the existence thereof. The complainant may go directly to court where the complaint is about to prescribe and be barred by the statute of limitations. 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. as the city treasurer was designated as the “acting mayor” in case of the absence of the mayor. It limits the use of private properties. YES. She operated a beauty parlor. must be for a “definite” period of time. RATIO: The authority of municipal corporations to regulate is essentially police power. It must be reasonable. The law defines the scope of authority of the Lupon.” in relation to the nature and duration of the crisis it seeks to overcome or surmount. 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. NO. 4841. as a means t tide over a critical condition. 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. RATIO: The conciliation process at the barangay level. NO. 21 April 1993: Respondents were examined for alleged injuries inflicted by petitioner.00. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS Homeowner’s Association of the Philippines. 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. 23 April 1993: Respondents filed a complaint with the brgy captain of Valenzuela. WON the Lupon has the authority to settle amicably all types of disputes involving parties who actually reside in the same city or municipality. ISSUE: WON a municipal ordinance that controls the increase in rent for an indefinite period is a valid exercise of police power. A law or ordinance affecting the rights of individuals. petitions. ISSUE: WON the dismissal was proper. the accused already waived his right to a reconciliation proceeding before the barangay given that the two parties are residents of different barangays. the vice mayor of CDO city was made a member of the board. As regards buildings.J. 22 issued by C. is also a member thereof? Can he vote twice.9 The petitioners challenged this and the CFI declared it illegal and void ab initio. 11 May 1993: Office of Prov’l Prosecutor of Rizal filed 2 informations for slight physical injuries against the petitioner. 18 . 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. by express legal mandate. Section 6 of PD 1508 is clear: Conciliation is a precondition to the filing of a complaint. The position of vice mayor was not even provided for. Contreras FACTS: Petitioner subleased from respondent Susanna Atayde the other half of the 2nd F of a bldg located in Makati. 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. then it would have said so. courts are given authority to determine the validity of municipal proceedings. v. or proceedings in cases falling within the authority of said Lupons. CFI: The power to declare a state of emergency exclusively pertains to Congress. Quiem v. 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. It was followed by a scuffle between the petitioner and Atayde and her employees. is compulsory not only for cases falling under the exclusive competence of the metropolitan and municipal trial courts. The judge denied the motion to dismiss. If it was the intention of the law to restrict its coverage only to cases cognizable by the inferior courts. 2005-2006 ISSUE: WON the vice mayor. NO. Municipal Board of Manila FACTS: 21 Dec 1963: City of Manila approved Ordinance No. prescribed by PD 1508 as a precondition for filing a complaint in court. Uy v. those found in the Bill of Rights. It is designed to discourage the indiscriminate filing of cases in court.Loc Gov Reviewer. The exercise of police power is subject to a qualification. If only a portion of the land is leased or subleased. Since emergencies are temporary. a disruptive factor toward unity and cooperation. 15 April 1993: Sublease contract expired but petitioner was not able to remove all of her movable properties. the proportionate value of the leased premises shall be the basis for determining the maximum rental to which the same may be increased. the regulations promulgated must also be temporary. in the increase of the assessed value of the land leased or subleased. The mere fact that the vice mayor was made the “presiding officer” did not ipso jure make him a member thereof. percentage-wise. 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. VIII. the length of which must be “reasonable. 1st Sem. since in that case. The offense occurred in Makati. 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 addition to being the presiding officer thereof. Morata v. the animosity generated by protracted court litigations between members of the same political unit. and the offense is about to prescribe. actions. but for actions cognizable by the regional trial courts as well. In the absence of any statutory authority constituting the vice mayor as a member of the municipal board. Circular No. By compelling the disputants to settle their differences through the intervention of the barangay leader and other respected leaders of the barangay. to create a deadlock and then to break it? NO. The rules of procedure of the municipal board of Naga City exclude the chairman from voting except in case of a tie vote. we cannot read into the law something which is not there. The law makes no distinction with respect to the classes of civil disputes that should be compromised at the barangay level. 17 April 1993: Argument between petitioner and Atayde when the former sough to withdraw her remaining movable properties from the premises. is avoided.400. It is true that RA 2259 created the post of vice mayor. to be valid and legal. Makati. as well the absence of a certification by the Lupon or Pangkat Secretary that no conciliation or settlement had been reached by the parties. but it did not provide that he shall be considered a member of the city council or municipal board. If the demands of the public welfare are brought about by a state of emergency.

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. Alvarado: The affidavit was forged. The judge was also charged with incompetence. The MTC ordered Alvarado to vacate the room. 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. 282 of the Revised Penal Code falls within the purview of that section. its running was tolled by the filing of the respondents’ complaints with the lupon of Valenzuela on 23 April 1993. As regards the non-referral to the Lupon. In the admin complaint relative to the malicious mischief case. NO. If no mediation is reached. Such suspension shall not exceed 60 days. John Wingarts was charged with malicious mischief and grave threats. Dui v. 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. that is. Barredo: Decided to sell his property to the tenants in May 1988. ignorance of the law and abuse of authority for issuing an arrest warrant against Wingarts despite the lack of prior barangay conciliation. or until 22 June 1993. The case was later on dismissed and indorsed to the barangay official concerned. Judge Bellosillo FACTS: Atty. Bonifacio Law Office v. Had Mejia observed the mandate of the law. Salomon of the Bonifacio Law Office charged Judge Bellosillo of the MTC with ignorance of the law. the dispute was not referred to the Lupong Tagapayapa. Corpuz filed an action for unlawful detainer for recovery of possession of the room occupied by Alvarado. 3. RATIO: The MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over ejectment cases. Since the petition involves the issue of possession intertwined with the issue of ownership. Petition was granted. Barredo sold his house to Corpuz for P37. A tenancy relationship was established between Corpuz and Alvarado. and Partiality in connection with a civil case. Mejia FACTS: John Wingarts and Ophelia Wingarts filed three letter complaints against Judge Mejia of the MTC of Pangasinan. However. he could have remanded the case to the lupon instead of taking cognizance thereof and prematurely issuing the warrant of arrest against the accused. the phrase “the complaint or” is not found. such that the resumption of the running of the prescriptive period shall.00. but it is now under the LGC. 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. or arbitration process. Grave Abuse of Discretion. the SC was not persuaded. NO. As to venue. Wingarts v. 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.000. in Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations issued by the SOJ. 2.00. ISSUE: WON the case should be dismissed because of the general averment of Alvarado that the case was not referred to the Lupon. the prescriptive period would have expired 2 mos after.” What is referred to as receipt by the complainant of the complaint is unclear. properly. RATIO: The law on the katarungang pambarangay was originally governed by PD 1508. Munar. the MTC decision was reinstated. ISSUE: WON a complaint that is about to prescribe is exempted from PD 1508. the jurisprudence built thereon regarding prior referral to the lupon as a precondition to the filing of an action in court remains applicable. Corpuz v. 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. Although PD 1508 has already been repealed. it could not resolve the issue of ownership.000.500. 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. The proceeding in PD 1508 is not a jurisdictional requirement and noncompliance therewith cannot affect the jurisdiction which the lower court had already acquired over the subject matter and the parties. The crime of grave threats punishable under Art. The RTC reversed the ruling of the MTC. The third feature is aimed at maximizing the effectiveness of the mediation.00 require prior barangay conciliation. NO. offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding P5. the judge was charged with malicious delay in the administration of justice. Under Art. 408 (c). a certification to file action is issued. conciliation. The only issue to be resolved in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases is the physical or material possession over the real property. shall be brought in the barangay where such workplace or institution is located. PD 1508 was expressly repealed. and automatically suspended for a period of 60 days. be from receipt by the complainant of the certificate of repudiation or the certification to file action issued by the lupon.Loc Gov Reviewer. The answer of Alvarado reveals that no reason or explanation was given to support his allegation. possession de facto. the respondents would still have 56 days within which to file their separate criminal complaints for such offense. 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. 1st Sem. It provides for the suspension of the prescriptive periods of offenses during the pendency of the mediation. The 3rd case involved a charge of rendering an unjust decision. Since the slight physical injuries charged were allegedly inflicted on 17 April 1993. 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. Court of Appeals FACTS: Alvarado and Corpuz: 2 tenants of Lorenzo Barredo. 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. 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. However. ISSUE: WON the judge properly issued the warrant of arrest without the required compliance with the KP law. Accordingly. 19 . The revised katarungang pambarangay law has 3 new significant features: 1. 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. These complaints were an offshoot of 3 criminal cases decided by the judge and involving Wingarts and Col.

the acts did not constitute a crime under the law. Eastern Samar. mayors were authorized to issue arrest warrants. Provided. 2005-2006 When Salomon asked about the order. Greater Balanga Dev. 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. Office of the Court Administrator: Judge is guilty and recommended a P3. 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. DILG: Reversed it and held that the warrant was actually just an “invitation or summons. It was reflected in the minutes submitted by the complainants. the Ombudsman filed a case for usurpation of judicial function against the mayor in the MTC of Loreto. It showed that no personal confrontation took place before a duly constituted Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo took place. Ignalaga: No longer does the mayor have at this time the power to conduct PI. This provision has been repealed by the 1987 Constitution. Section 143 of the LGC has been abrogated by the 1987 Constitution. The instant administrative complaint is premature. After PI. Corp. ISSUE: WON the requirements of the LGC on the lupon were complied with. 3 Nov 1998: Judge dismissed the case on the ground of prescription. or where the respondent fails to appear at the mediation proceeding before the Punong Barangay. The warrant was served by CFC Caballes and Cpl. YES. The ABG undated certification he submitted merely states that the case was set for hearing before the barangay on several dates. Ariño FACTS: 26 December 1989: Mayor Asuero Irisari of Loreto. 14-93 provides: In case mediation efforts have proven to be unsuccessful. When he filed on 4 May 1998. confirmed such fact. the same may not be considered ignorance of the law. Mayor Irisari issued a warrant of arrest against him. the function of determining probable cause and issuing warrants of arrest or search warrants may be exercised only by judges. San Julian. The first hearing was dated 16 Feb 1999 and yet the CFA was issued on 1 March 1996.00 fine. 2. Judge Afable FACTS: 18 Feb 1998: Mendova filed with the Office of the Brgy Chairman of Poblacion. v. or obstructs the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction. Bataan 20 . 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.000. a complaint for slight physical injuries against Robert Palada. The barangay failed to exert enough effort required by law to conciliate between the parties and to settle the case. From the date of the commission of the alleged offense. The defense that the former LGC allowed mayors to issue an arrest warrant will not prosper. Agusan del Sur. Under Art. until the dismissal of the case on 3 November 1998. Under Sec. Bgy Chairman Quintua. directing the defendants to submit their Comment. however. 143 (3) of the former LGC. Limayan. It also faulted him with disregarding the Rules on Summary Procedure by calling for a preliminary conference. summoned Muñez to his office for conference respecting a land dispute which Muñez had with one Tirso Amado. “Complaint in this case dated 20 April 1998 was filed with this Court on 4 May 1998…. 90 of the Revised Penal Code provides that light offenses prescribe in 2 months. In this case. much less issue orders of arrest. 4 May 1998: Complainant filed with the MCTC of San Julian a similar complaint. 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. Pangkat Chairman Cabago also certified that the case was set for hearing but that the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement. NO. The case was later on assigned to Judge Ariño after the 1st judge inhibited himself. The constitutional proscription has thereby been manifested that thenceforth. The alleged offense took place on 15 February 1998. 1st Sem. What he issued was a warrant of arrest. RATIO: The acts alleged in the information constitute a crime. 410 (c) that while the dispute is under mediation. He complied but no action was taken. The complaint in this case did not bother to file a motion for reconsideration of the judge’s decision. NO. Muñez v. he still failed to present proof of his receipt of the BCFA. Mendova v. It can only be an error in judgment. 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. the records fail to show when the complainant received the Barangay Certification to File Action. that such interruption shall not exceed 60 days from the filing of the complaint with the Punong Barangay. Supreme Court Circular No. but the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement. RATIO: The records reveal that such Certification was improperly and prematurely issued. No investigation was conducted afterwards. Offender is an officer of the executive branch. Irisari: Quash the information. more than two months have elapsed… Art. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan found him guilty of misconduct and abuse of authority and suspended him for 8 months. He cannot fault Judge Afable for dismissing his case based on prescription. ISSUE: WON the judge in this case should be deemed administratively liable. and failing to render judgment within the reglementary period. 241 of the Revised Penal Code. Municipality of Balanga. the crime of usurpation of judicial authority involves the following elements: 1.Loc Gov Reviewer. ISSUE: WON the judge should be held administratively liable. in his Certification. he was required to submit the minutes of the hearings. While respondent admitted his mistake.” The respondent judge reconsidered his previous order and dismissed the case. the prescriptive periods for offenses and causes of action under existing laws shall be interrupted upon filing of the complaint with the Punong Barangay. Ponsica v. 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. 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. he assumes judicial powers. These elements were alleged in the information. He alleged that the judge did not apply the provisions of the LGC which state in Sec. there having been no agreement to arbitrate. misconduct in office and abuse of authority with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur. 27 December 1989: Since Muñez failed to attend.” 7 July 1999: Mendova filed with the OCA an admin complaint against the judge.

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

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

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

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. Manzano got 103. the majority of which have positively declared through their ballots that they do not choose him.894 and Daza acquired 54. The LGC requires that an official be a registered voter. Frivaldo should be the one proclaimed. 24 . 3. 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. RATIO: The fact remains that Labo has not submitted in this case any evidence to prove his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. he secured to most number of valid votes. The respondent who filed the petition cannot replace the petitioner as mayor. he was therefore already qualified to be proclaimed. his reception of the winning number of votes notwithstanding.Loc Gov Reviewer. 6 of RA 6646. Manzano FACTS: Ernesto Mercado. 1st Sem. The electorate had no power to permit a foreigner owing his total allegiance to the Queen of Australia. Oscar Deri. The simple reason is that as he obtained only the second highest number of votes in the election. His election does not automatically restore his Philippine citizenship. In the absence of any official action or approval by the proper authorities. did it seasonably cure his lack of citizenship to qualify him to be proclaimed and to become Governor? If not. Up to this point. Decisions declaring the acquisition or denial of citizenship cannot govern a person’s future status with finality. The COMELEC can now legally suspend the proclamation of petitioner Labo. an expatriating act and an intent to relinquish citizenship must be proved by preponderance of evidence. Labo believed that he is a Filipino citizen and so he ran for mayor of Baguio in the 1992 elections. The law does not specify any particular date or time when the candidate must possess citizenship. Jr. Ortega filed a COC for the same office. ABG COMELEC: Annulled Lee’s proclamation and proclaimed Frivaldo as the governor-elect. an election protest or a quo-warranto case. COMELEC FACTS: 20 March 1995: Juan Frivaldo filed his COC for Governor in the 1995 elections. a mere application for repatriation does not amount to automatic reacquisition of the applicant’s Philippine citizenship. 72 if the Omnibus Election Code has already been repealed by Sec. may it be given retroactive effect? 2. Mercado v. There is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and that was not successfully rebutted by Lee. There is a waiver of the validity and efficacy of their votes in such a case. or The incumbent Vice Governor.853 votes. Juan Frivaldo—Obtained the highest number of votes in 3 successive elections but who was twice declared disqualified to hold office due to his alien citizenship but who now claims to have reassumed his lost citizenship through repatriation. There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in canceling his COC. the very day the term of office of governor began. 4. HELD: FRIVALDO. WON Frivaldo’s judicially declared disqualification for lack of Fil citizenship is a continuing bar to his eligibility to run for governor. v. Since Frivaldo reassumed his citizenship. ISSUE: Who should be the rightful governor of Sorsogon? 1. by the ineligibility of Frivaldo. A minority or defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office. WON COMELEC had jurisdiction over the initiatory petition considering that it is not a pre-proclamation case.” SUB-ISSUES: 1. Raul Lee—2nd place in the canvass but who claims that the votes cast for Frivaldo should be considered void. returns. Frivaldo’s MR was unacted upon so he was voted for during the elections. and qualifications of all elective. 4. 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. The legislative intent in PD 725 was to give it a retroactive operation. WON the repatriation of Frivaldo was valid and legal. If yes. There was insufficient evidence presented to show that the people of Sorsogon knew in fact and in law the alleged disqualification. 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. COMELEC FACTS: This is the 2nd time the SC was asked to rule on the citizenship of Labo. he was not the choice of the people of Baguio City. would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. 2. Frivaldo v. provincial officials. the possession of which is an indispensable requirement for holding public office. that the electorate should be deemed to have intentionally thrown away their ballots and that legally. 2005-2006 The people of that locality could not have changed the requirements of the LGC and the Constitution. In Vance v Terrazas: It was held that in proving expatriation. Gabriel Daza III and Eduardo Manzano were candidates for vice mayor of Makati in the 1998 elections. who obviously was not voted directly but who according to prevailing jurisprudence should take over the post inasmuch as. Frivaldo: He took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen on 30 June 1995. his citizenship. 3. ISSUE: WON Sec. 3. or at least a stateless individual owing no allegiance to the Philippines to preside over them as mayor of their city. WON COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction in preventing Frivaldo from assuming the governorship. The Constitution has granted the COMELEC ample power to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections. unlike that for residence and age. 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. 28 March 1995: Raul Lee questioned the COC and moved for Frivaldo’s disqualification. WON the proclamation of Lee was valid. RATIO: 1. 5.275 votes. Jr. it does not require him to actually vote. Lee was proclaimed although Frivaldo got the plurality of votes. Labo: He is a Fil citizen. Mercado garnered 100. Sec. The claim in the 5th issue is now moot and academic as the resolutions are deemed superseded by the subsequent ones issued by the COMELEC. 5. Labo. The SC also held that the repatriation retroacted to the date of the filing of his application on 17 August 1994. or lose. He was disqualified for being an alien. Labo’s status has not changed in this case. A person may subsequently reacquire. Topacio v. the Special Committee on Naturalization has not yet acted on the application of the petitioner for repatriation. 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. No finding was made by the CID or the COMELEC as regards his specific intent to renounce his Fil citizenship. NO. a “permanent vacancy in the contested office has occurred. especially so in this case where Labo failed to present any evidence to support his claim. 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMELEC issued a resolution approving the recommendation of Sumbilla. But the LGC will take effect only on 1 January 1992. Loss of confidence as a ground for recall is a political question. There is nothing in the Constitution that remotely suggests that the people have the sole and exclusive right to decide on whether to initiate a recall proceeding. 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. COMELEC FACTS: Felipe Evardone was the mayor of the Municipality of Sulat. Rule XIX. Hence. 60 of the LGC. 3 provides that all existing laws not inconsistent with it shall remain operative until amended. Whether the electorate of the municipality has lost confidence in the incumbent mayor is a political question. 70 of RA 7160 allowing a preparatory recall assembly is unconstitutional. Evardone: The COMELEC erred since the petitioner was denied due process. The LGC of 1983 provided only one mode of initiating the recall elections of local elective officials. A resolution was passed for the recall of Garcia on the ground of “loss of confidence. The law on suspension and removal of elective public officials must be strictly construed and applied. Sec. 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. a defeated mayoralty candidate in the May 1998 elections. The Election Code contains no special provisions on the manner of conducting elections for the recall of a local official. RATIO: An elective local official may be remove from office on the grounds enumerated above by order of the proper court. A petition for his recall was filed by registered voters of the barangay. The LGC of 1991 provided for a second mode of initiating the recall process through a preparatory recall assembly. however. Eastern Samar. and the authority in whom such power of suspension or removal is vested must exercise it in good faith. finds no application to criminal cases. RATIO: The Constitution. is void for being against the last paragraph of Sec. 14 February 1990: Apelado. Recall is a mode of removal of a public officer by the people before the end of his term of office. Membership of the preparatory recall assembly at the provincial level is not apportioned to political parties. 1 Feb 2000: Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan found him guilty and imposed the penalty of dismissal. and Nival filed a petition for the recall of Evardone with the Office of the Local Election Registrar. 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. The old LGC is still applicable to the present case. during the period material to the case. The rule. COMELEC: Approved the petition and set the recall election on 13 November 1995. it should not be permitted to manipulate the law by usurping the power to remove. HELD: NO. Article 124(b). all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a law. Paras v. there must be a clear and unequivocal showing that what the fundamental law prohibits. COMELEC FACTS: Danilo Paras is the Punong Barangay of Pula. Where the disciplining authority is given only the power to suspend and not the power to remove. It is valid and has legal effect. HELD: YES. insofar as it vests power on the “disciplining authority” to remove from office erring elective local officials. Article XVIII. Since there was. TRTC dismissed the petition. repealed or 34 . The Commission deferred the election to December 6. 2005-2006 It was alleged that Villapando entered into a consultancy agreement with Tiape. HELD: No. It is now barred since the 13 January 1996 falls within one year from the SK election on the first Monday of May 1996. ABG revoked. 1st Sem. RATIO: To strike down a law as unconstitutional. RA 7160. Conducto v.30% of the registered voters signed the petition. of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the LGC. 1 July 1993: Some mayors. No. validly impose the penalty of dismissal on erring local officials. to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefore. Paras filed with the RTC a petition for injunction. 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. Since the SK election is a regular local election. IX-B. Evardone v. 6 of the 1987 Constitution.” ISSUE: WON Sec. The COMELEC also erred since the Resolution is null and void for being unconstitutional. the statute permits. falling within the 1 year prohibition under Art. having been elected in the 1988 local elections. 2272 is constitutional. COMELEC FACTS: 11 May 1992: Petitioner Enrique Garcia was elected governor of Bataan. 29. ISSUE: WON Res. Garcia v. on appeal. specifically repeals BP 337. The power to remove erring elective local officials from service is lodged exclusively with the courts. ISSUE: Whether local legislative bodies and/or the Office of the President. Aclan. There is therefore no basis for the resolution and the recall proceeding is premature. he could not be recalled. It may be decreed only by a court of law.Loc Gov Reviewer. Cabanatuan City who won in the last regular election in 1994. Election Registrar of the municipality. Sec.

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

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

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

RATIO: The validity of the law depends on the nature of the properties. the rest remain patrimonial. public education. PAGCOR PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE V.000.39% for Z. If it is owned in its private or proprietary capacity. Gambling is not illegal per se. 1st Sem.000. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City enacted Ordinances No. The share cannot be paid in lump sum. public health. nothing concrete is said as to what assets are to be traded on the part of NAWASA. It must not prohibit but may regulate trade. Accordingly. All the properties of the OWS are transferred to NAWASA in exchange for an equal value of the latter’s assets. This was met by opposition from various sectors in the locality. It must bot be unreasonable. ISSUE: WON RA 1383 is constitutional in vesting in NAWASA ownership of the OWS without just compensation. NAWASA: They system had always been under the control and operation of the National Government. 2.294. CIR was allowed to deduct 25% of the internal revenue allotment for the city for the quarter ending 31 March 1960. Tests for a valid ordinance: 1.” The properties consisted of 50 lots and some buildings covered by TCTs in the name of Zamboanga Province. granting that it was patrimonial. 6. del Sur.00 loan extended to the municipality by the US. del Norte and Z. It must not contravene the Constitution or any statute. it was public property and within the absolute control of Congress. ABG ISSUE: WON RA 3039 is constitutional for depriving Z. 12 October 1936: Commonwealth Act 39 was approved converting it into a city. to be considered public. Applying the law of Municipal Corporations. a word or phrase should be interpreted in relation to. HELD: NO. WON congress can appropriate the properties in this case. This controversy is more along the domains of Municipal corporations. 1948: RA 286 was approved creating the municipality of Molave making it the new capital.” 38 . 1945: Zamboanga Province capital was transferred to Dipolog. The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue. Cebu applied for and obtained a certificate of public convenience from the PSC. Sec. its transfer to NAWASA was within the competence of Congress. HELD: NO. all those of the 50 properties in question which are devoted to public service are deemed public. It must not be partial or discriminatory. 1952: RA 711 was approved in dividing the province into Z. If the property is owned by the municipality in its public and governmental capacity. It must not be unfair or oppressive. there was proper and just compensation provided in the law. HELD: YES. RA 3039 is valid insofar as it affects the lots used as capitol site. MAGTAJAS V. except at to the money already returned to the City. RATIO: PAGCOR is a corporation created directly by PD 1869. AND FACTS: PAGCOR decided to open a casino in Cagayan City. 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. The System owned properties which are estimated to be worth P10. It results then that Z. etc. 3353 and 3375-93 which prohibited the operation of gambling casinos within the premises of the city. payable within 30 years. 5. it is enough that the property be held and devoted for governmental purposes like local administration. PRYCE PROPERTIES CORP. Finance Secretary ordered the CIR to stop further payments. then it is patrimonial and Congress has no absolute control. del Norte and 45. del Norte of property without due process and just compensation. 1955: Auditor General apportioned the assets and obligations: 54.244. The system pays all who pay the charges. Under the rule noscitur a sociis. words with which it is associated. or given the same meaning of. TC: RA 1383 is unconstitutional in so far as it vests NAWASA ownership over the system without just compensation. school sites and its grounds. Under this norm.00. 6 provided that the funds and assets of the province shall be equitably divided upon the Auditor General’s recommendation. del Norte is still entitled to collect from the City the former’s share in the 26 properties which are patrimonial in nature. the SC held that since the word “gambling” is associated with “and other prohibited games of chance. but upon the payment only of a certain rental (which makes it proprietary). the property is public and Congress has absolute control over it. including PAGCOR-sanctioned ones. Sec. NO. 3. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA FACTS: Before its incorporation as a chartered city. But the law cannot be applied to deprive Z.00. 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. ISSUE: WON local governments are empowered to suppress all forms of gambling. the Municipality of Zamboanga used to be the provincial capital of the then Zamboanga Province.Loc Gov Reviewer. INC. It is open to the public (in this sense it is public service). 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 must not be general and consistent with public policy. qualified. The police power is not without limitations.000.61% for del Sur. 2005-2006 Cebu: This deprives us of our property rights in the Osmeña Waterworks System without due process of law and just compensation. However. The municipality cannot be deprived of it without due process and payment of just compensation. It leased a portion of a building belonging to Pryce Properties and equipped it to be used as a casino. 1949: Appraisal Committee formed by the Auditor General fixed the value at P1. there is the constitutional prohibition against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. The OWS was established out of the $125. 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. 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. 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful