rrf @fficr tltrlpleribent of thell]hilippitres

q rr Jllalacann
G , I ] O N .G R E G O R I O . S A N C I I E ZJ R . , Province Cebu, of Vice-Governor, Complainant,



O.P.CaseNo. 10-K-504

F. HON.GWENDOLYN GARCIA, of Governor, Province Cebu Respondent. DECISION Vicecase filed by complainant Beforethis Office is an administrative Governor Gwendolyn F. G. Jr. Governor Gregorio Sanchez, againstrespondent powers, gravemisconduct abLtse and encroachment legislative of Garcia alleged for of authority. of conrplaint filedwith the Officeof the Secretary was The administrative 2010 Pr.rrsLtant Rule 3 of to Government 08 November on lnterior and Local was the complaint Adnrinistrative Order (A.O.) No 23 (1992),as amended, receipt respondent's of Answer for actiontJpon forwarded thisOffice appropriate to of and LocalGovernnrent case was referred backto the Departrnent Interior tl-le (DILG) investigatjon recom nrendatio t.t. for and gravely abusecl aLrthotity (1) her by. alleged that respondent The complaint of authority the complainant employees the of over encroaching the appointing on (2) the budgetof the Officeof the ViceOfficeof the ViceGovernor, slashing of Gaveland nonthe Governor 61%, (3) stopping publication the Legislative by (4) transferring funding the publication of paynrent the honoraria the staff, the of of to Project front Office theViceGovernor the of Research Codification and Legislative (5) priorauthority from the without the Officeof the Governor, hiringconsultants (SP), pay the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (6) withholding overttme of the personnel 000,000 00 and, a worthPhP10 of of theOffice theVice-Governor, (7) issuing check prior from without authority theSP. in Wtth denred the allegations the complaint all ln her Answer, respondent invol(ed caseof the before June2010,respondent 30 to lespect actsthatoccurred

to re-election officeoperates y. which held that a publicofficial's AgLtinalcloSarrlosr, priorterrn On the dtrringa cornmitted misconcluct of as a condonation the otllcial's that the issue has beconremoot whelr claimecl respondent slashingof the bucjget, action to enloin the the Re!ional Trial Courl of Cebu City derliedcomplainant's 1 the Province of Cebu (201 implemlntationof the 2011 ExecutiveBudget of has furtherarguedthat complainant lost any causeof actionto Respondent Budget). u,.uiIt|-''"hiringofconsLl|tantsaSaprev|o|]SciviIcase,involvingtl)esanlesUbject also claimedthat the SP Respondent matter,has been dismissedwith preJudice thenl as items in the by the ar.rthorized contractsof these consultants inserting of that all the acts complained are reasoned approvedbudget.Finally,respondent and controlover all progranrs' generalpowers of sr:pervision wrthina governor's government of and activities the provincial pr6Jects, services, died The DILG nonetheless complainant Prior to the actual Investigation' and requiredthe partiesto submlt thelr proceededwith the formal investigation respectivenlemoranda'lnrespondent,sMemorandttnlofAtlthorities'shec|airrled thatthedeathofthecontp|ainantshou|dfesultinthedismrssaIoftheadnlIn|Strat|Ve of furtheraverredthat in the absenceof a valid strbstitLltion Respondent complaint. and the lack of interestto proceed on the part of complainant's complainarlt, ln successor office the caseshouldbe dtsmissed the reportof the late DILG Secretary this Officereceived On 31 Jirly 20'12, gulltyof grave abuse of Jesse M Robredodated 26 July 2012 findingrespondent authoritywitharecommendedpenaltyofsuspensionforapertodofSiX(6)nlonthS and the reportof the DILG pleadings respective of With the submission the parties' '10 underRule of A'O No 23 for the Secretary, casewas stlbmitted decision issuesaTe The pertinent IWhetherornottheadministrativecompIaintsurvivesthedeathofthe civilcases' of and contplainant the dismissal related under the doctrlnetn of ll. Wlretheror not the acts complained are protected Y. AgLtirtalclt>Sarlos, and lll'Whetherornotrespondentisguiltyofgraveabuseofdiscrettonin'(1) (2) of authority the complarnant slashlngthe on encroaching the appointing officeoftheVice-Governor,sbudget;(3)StoppingthepubIicationofthe LegislativeGave|andnon.paymentofthehonorariaofthepub|icationstaff. (4)transferringthefundingoftheLegislativeResearchandCodification (5) to Projectfrom the office of the Vice-Governor the office of the Governor, of from the SP, (6) withholding prior aUthority W|thout hirino of conSultants


1 , 1 G . R N o .9 4 1 1 1 5 , 2 A u g u s t 9 9 22 l 2 S C R A 7 6 8

and, (7) of overtimepay of the personnel the Office of the Vice-Governor, priorauthority fronrthe SP withotrt a issuing checkworthPhP10,000,000.00 RULING L The aclninistrativecase sttNives tlte cleath of the cornplainarrla/]d is /)ol renciered noot by lhe dlsnlss:/ of relate(lcivil cases does not warrant the cases. the death of a complainant ln administrative render doesthis development Neither the respondent. of withdrawal chargesagainst is proceedings' complainant only the thE complaintmoot becausetn this class of is complaint given due course,the Once an administrative treatedas a witness2. death partyand the complainant's as government transformeci the real aggrieved is chargesJ of the will not exonerate publicofficial adnrinistrative are itrbued with pttbltc proceedings againstpublicemployees Adrninistrative office is a public trust. The need to maintainthe faith and interest,as pLrblic proceedings that administratrve requires of confidence the peoplein the government acts of a As whinrsand caprices'. such,unilateral of be independent a complainant's authority in its exercise of orivate complainantwill not bind the disciplining there is no need for a Concomitantly, powerover erringptrblic officials5. disciplinary as for of substitution the complainant he cannot be considered an indlspensable his party and the case may still be resolvednotwithstanding demise. Ihus, the the despite deathof the conlplainant case proceeds administrative petitionfor inlunctive relief and the the denial of complainant's Similarly, 1 of implementation the 20'1 Budget,do not renderthis adnrinistratjve subsequent only when there is no more actual moot and academic case moot.A case becomes upon can or the parties no usefulpLlrpose be servedin passlng controversy between grave for culpability alleged administrative the merits of the case6.Respondent's of Budget is independent its subsequent in abuse of authority enactingthe 2011 of reliefis not deterrninative The implementatior.t denialof the prayerfor injunctive and causes subiectmatters liabillty thereare different as respondent's adrninistrative the civilcase assailing hiringof consultants of of action The dismissal the previous the matter,either. Res iLtclicata on investigation is no baf to an administrative proceedtngs not to the exerclse and generally to judicial quasi-.ludicial or only applies


2 M e r c a t l o S a l c e d oA [ , 4 N o R T J - 0 31 7 8 1 ,1 6 O c t o b e r 0 0 9 ,F e n e r v . I e b e l t A C N o 6 5 9 0 2 7 v J u n e2 0 0 5 4 6 1 S C R A2 0 7 2 15 ' 1 r O p e i a v l i r n a , A M . N o P ' 0 2 - 1 5 . 1 9 6 D e c e m b e 2 0 0 5 , 4 7 8S C R A 1 5 3 ,1 5 9 20 " B u l a t l c t vT i u ,J t . A l \ , 4 . o P 9 6 1 2 1 1 , 3 1l \ . 4 a r c h 0 0 , 3 2 9S C R A 3 0 8 3 1 3 N ' 1 S a n d o v av M a n a l a A M N o I M T J ' 9 6 0 8 0 2 2 A u g u s t19 9 6 ,2 5 0 S C R A6 1 1 6 2 0 l ' 2 v , P a g a r t o N a z a r a . l L , G R f ' l o 1 4 9 0 7 2 2 1 S e p t e n r b e r0 0 7 5 3 3 S C R A 6 2 2 . 6 2 8

of withdrawal a volLlntary complainant's powersT. Mofeilnportantly, of admjnistrative authority its civilcasewill not deterthis office fromexercising dlsciplinary related body" doesnotbindthedisciplining act a srnce unilateral of a party
Il. The Agttnalclo Doctrne does not shieldtespondelll'sactlo/rsafter 30 Jttne 2010 to re-election official's the ln AgLtinalclos, Supremecourt held that a pr.rblic dtlrlnga committed nriscondtlct of office operatesas a condonation administrative prlortefn']andcutsofftherighttoremovethepub|icoffic|alfortheSanleact rheAgLtinatdodoctl.ineshreIdsactspr|ortorespondent,sre-eIectionon30 after. \ /hlle the complainantalleged that June 2010, but not those conlnritted to employees the Officeof the Vice Governorway appointed arbitrarily respondent appolntments made sinrilar found that respondent back July 2007, the investigation viceof on ot July 2010 and thereafterThe reductton the budgetof tlre office of the of assumedofficeon 30 Jtrne2010 The stoppage came after respondent Governor Gavel and the transferof fundingof the ['eglslatlve publication the Legislative of contracts on Prolectoccurred July 2010.The constlltancy and codification Research terms in office enteredinto dtrringall of respondent's of complairred were allegedly pay of on the last being her re-election 2O10 Lastly,the non-payment overtime of tssLtance a pertained the periodof september201O The allegedunaLrlhortzed to 2009 on on candidate, the otherhand,occtrrred october checkto a presidential dLirlng lndeed,some of the chargeswere allegedto have been comnrltted actlon However,this adnlinistratlve previousterm, hence protected. respondent's belng nlay proceedagainstthose acts that were committedand are continLlously s afterrespondent re-election commrtted liability adrninistrative tll. Responc.lent's for grave abuse of a!tthoritv has the btlrdento prove,wltll proceedings, complainant tlte In admtnistrative in evidence,the allegations tlte complaintor in the formal charges". substantral mind nrtght substantialevidenceas such relevantevidencewhich a reasonable even if other minds equallyTeasonable a to acceptas adequate jLtstify conclusion, valtles, might conceivablyopine otheTwise'r.In the lrierarchyof evidential-y
l J v , M o n t e u t a y o r B u u d a l n t )G R N o 1 4 9 3 3 5 , 0 1 u l y 2 0 0 3 '4 0 5 S C R A 2 6 4 2 7 2 8 r Mal/d/o slrPranote 5 SolrJoia/ e S u p r an o t e l '0 G . Genera/Servrce lnsutauLeSyslen v Vitlaviza, R No 180291 27 July 2010 11 supra note 7 at 271 Monlentayorv. Bundalian,


of Courtand irl of ls eviclence tlle loweststandard proofunderthe Rtlles substantial theaSsessmentotst]bstantiaIevidenceinadminiStratlveinvestigations,technicaI applied'' are and rulesof procedLti'e evidence not strictly enconlpassing The va ous acrs complainedof are all predicatedon tlle llr exerclslngner on charge of grave abuse of atrthority the part of respondent functionsaSgoveTnor'GraveabuseofarlthorityisdefinedaSa''mISden,leanor comrnittedbyapublicofficerwho,ttndercolorofhisoffice'wrongfullyinflictsupon an act of cruelty' or any person any bodily harm imprisonment other injury' it is " means to make extravagant, severityor excessiveLlse of authofity'3 Abr.rse" ary to the contl or excessive improperuse of a thing,or to employ it in a manner "grave, " nrodifier or natural legalrulesfor its use'' The ternrtnclttdesnrisuse" The Thus grave nleans wantonand capriciotis"'' as akin to,,graveabuse of cliscretion' abuseofauthorityhasa|sobeendefined''astheuseormisttseofone'sauthorityln awanton|yandcapricious|yexcessiveorextravagantma|-]|leTcolltrarytothenatllraI or legalrttlesfor its use" (a)RESPoNDENTUSURPEDTT|EAPPO|NT|NGPOWERoFTt|EoFFiCE VICE GOVERNOR OF TI-IE cirarge of Both parties invoked the case of Atrenza v. villarosatoon the powersof the Offlceof the Vice Govertror In the of encroachment the appointing powerto appolnt has said case,the supremecourt held that the Vice-GovefnoT the and Sangguniang offrcialsand employeesof the Office of the Vice-Governor C t n P a n l a l a w i g aIn s o r u l i n gt.h e S u p r e m e o L l is a r d and to of The authority the Vice-GovernoT appointthe officials iang Panlalawiga'is anchoredon of employees the Sanggirl are of theseemployees derivedfrom the fact that the salaries the said local legislatlve for specifically the appropriation is body. indeed,the budgetsourceof theirsalaries what sets the employeesand officialsof the Satggl/' iang Panlalawigan of and officials the province apartfrom the other employees is power of tlre Vice-Governor the appointing Accordingly, Panlalawigatl' limitedto those employeesof the Sanggtrrliang as well as those of the Office of the Vice-Governortvltose salaries are paid out of the fLtrtdsappropriated for the Panlalawigan As a corollary,if the salary of an Sanggtrniang funds, employeeor officialis chargedagainstthe provincial or even if this employee reports to the Vice-Governor ls
t' 2 2 , D e l aC r u , v M a l u n a oA . M . N o P - 1 1 - 2 0 1 9 0 N / a r c h 0 1 2 1 3R a f a evl . S u a / o gA N , 4 o P - 0 7 2 3 3 01 2 J u n e 2 0 0 8 ' 5 5 1 S C R A 2 7 8 , 2 8 7 N , r 1B l a c k ' s a w D i c t i o n a r y r t t hE d . ,p 1 1 F L 15 Cly of Ballinore v Conellsville& S P Ry. Co, 6 Phils 190 191 3 Pitt 20' 23' ,. l-aw Dictionafy p 270 Phitlppine v. Ca'orle puno, Sp-O022 19 June 1971, cited in lvlofeno's r7 r A d n r i n i s t r a t r Oe d e rN o 3 7 , 3 0 S e p t e m b e 1 9 8 7 vr 'u , G R N o 1 6 1 0 8 11 0 M a v 2 0 0 5 4 5 8 S C R A3 8 5 .

to to assignecl hrs office,the Governorretainsthe authorlty 465(b)(v)of upp6intthe said employeepursuantto Section A R e P . c t N o . 7 1 6 0" of powerover employees the office that the appointirrg clarified Attenza by is Panlalawigan' determitred the oT of the vice'governoT, of the Sanggtlniang budgetsotrrceoftheseemp|oyees,salariesanclnotsimp|ybythetrnittoWhichthey belong. TherecordstransmittedbytheDILGshowthatrespondentslgneoVar|ot]S on for employees the Officeof the Vice-Governor papersof contractual appointment nrade by were r O1 July 2010"' and O1 Octobe 2A10" While the appointrnents that the budget for the reipondentin her capacityas governor the DILG found would be sourced fr'om the Office of the Vice salaries of these contractuals and Basedon the obligationReqLrests:' tlre officialPayrolls"for July and Governor. october20lO,theDILGfoundtI]attl-reSalariesofthesecontractuaIsWerecharged or against takenfromthe budgetof the Officeof the Vice-Governor' drawn,from the budgetof were to be drawn,and were actually As )e salaries powerto appoint who it the office of the Vice-Governor, is the vice-governor had the the DILG porntedoLltthat a number of corltractuals Likewise, these contractuals. appointedbyrespondenrareLocalLegislativeStaffASsistantsandarepartoftlre to the authority appointthesecontractuals with Atienza, officeof the sP. consistent Clearly, respondentusurped the viceor casuals is with the vice-governor'" overtheseemployees governor powerof appointment s ThisofficeSharestheobservattonoftheDlLGthatinthebtrdgetfortheoffice or for the and of the Vice-Governor of the sP for year 2011'?u, allocation contractLlal ,.casual,'employees removedfor unknownreasons. to This is in starkcontrast was "other" and and wages of "casual" yearswhefe salaries the budgetfor the previous and SP members were given an employeesin the Office of the Vice-Governor a allocation,". fact attestedto by a provincialboard member, Mr Peter John tlle same dated 3 1 Attgust2011'7.Meanwhile, calderon.in his Sworn Statement year2O11" increasedfor sharply for budget-item the Officeof the Governor 'fhus,

Mr. Interestingly, Calderonalso admittedthat after the death of the
tn trr. al 406 407 'o ' L E x h i b i t"s L -4 , 6 , I 1 2 1 5 1 9 , 2 2 , 2 5 2 8 , 3 1 , 3 4 . 3 74 0 4 3 , 4 6 a n d 4 9 " E x h i b i r s " L 3 , 5 , 8 , 1 1 ,1 4 1 8 , 2 1 , 2 42 7 3 0 3 3 , 3 6 3 9 , 4 2 ' 4 5 a o d 4 8 ' L " '1 1 " Exhibrts I'Jl'.1 4 10 and 3 N " E x h i b r t"s N -2 5 , 1 1a n d 1 4 " 2 N D I L GO p i n r o n o 7 7 s 2 0 0 7 0 4 S e p t e n r b e r0 0 7 " . " E x h i b i t ' s s - 1 6 "" s s - 1 8 t o 8 o ' 'o , t 1 o E x h i b i t o - 1 5 " , ' P P - 1 7 '" Q Q - 1 3 " R R - ] 8 " , " P P 9 t o 7 9 ' , Q Q - 2 0 o 8 0 "a n d R R 2 0 t o 7 8 ' '1 ' Exhrbrt1o " 2 8E x h i b r"ts s ' l1 '

budget a to of and complainant, the asstlmption his successor office, suppletnental WaSsubmittedbyrespondentprovrding,amongothersforthereturnofthebudget to enlployees the officeof theViceor and for salarres wagesof contractual casual and amongrespondent the by and this was prornpted a consenstls, Governor", that meetings, the offlceof regLllar of of malority the menrbers the sP in oneof tl.leir 'close partner ally"of the respondent and/or a has the vice Governor now become for of and malice badlaithin thepreparation thebtldget Thisevokes andof theSP3'. of suggestive an arbitrary and the office of the Vice-Governor sP, and is eqr,rally of exercise aLtthoritY O O ( b ) T F ] E E D U C T I OO F T H E B U D G E T F T H E O F F I C E F T F j EV I C E R N P N A G Q V E R N O R N D T I I E S A N G G U N I A N G A N L A L A W I G AB Y 6 1 % M A Y O I N D I C A TA B U S E FA U T F I O R I T Y E for allocation the officeof the vlcethat the 2011bLrdget It is not disputed reditced From the a|ilorlnt of Governor and the SP was substantially to redi.]cecj in PhP47,567'O0O'00 2010, the budget WaS sLrbstantia||y tlh a t h e (6 pe p h P 1 8 , 1 4 6 , 0 0 0 . r b y a s m u c h s s i x t y - o n e r c e n t 1 % )l.t i s n o t i c e a b e a o 00 Fund Assistance of was due to the renroval the Legislative reduction substantial (t-RCP) the to Project codification Research (l,AF), transfer the Legislative of the arld wagesfor for of and office of the Governor, the transfer allotment salaries to from the office of the vice-Governof the and/orcasualemployees contractLlal of Offrce theGovernor''. of tirat the scrapping the LAF and the averred On this point,respondent powerof s a governor general itemsin the budgetare within of transfer certain Respondent of and overthe programs activities theprovince. and supervision control of as for exception anyliability it is theSP, nottheOffice theGovernor, takes further the thatapproves budget. itemswere that Whileadmitting the budgetary is This Office not convinced. of of the office theVice2008,2009and2010budgets in included the 2007, indeed well is, that the suddenremoval anyway, merely reasoned respondent Governor, before In powers the officeof the Governor. her submisstons of within general the that never showed thetransfer respondent Authority, thisofficeandthe Investigating the Moreimportantly by itemswas warranted the circumstances of appropriation 1' when,in the earlypartof 20.i justification to appears be a mereprelense alleged after to werereverted the office of the Vice-Governor allocations thesebudgetary aily of to to died-and the sLlccessor the officeappeared be an complainant point,respor.ldent's wltness own the and respondent the SP. lf only to highlight the for budget 20'l1 thatreturned a submitted supplemental stated thatrespondent
2!Supranote27 at p. 5. ""Supra " Supra ote 2. n 2

'r il

to or and wages of contractual casualemployees the Officeof the itemsfor salaries by when confrontecl the hearing officer during the clarificatory Vice Governor.3' hearingconductedby the DIL-Gon 0l september2oll in cebu city, the same power,or capabilityfrom removedthe appointing that respondent witnessadmitted patly in the 2010 to becausethe lattertransferred anotherpolrtical the complainant not by nrightbe encountered reasonof the complalllant and that problems elections beingana||y'Evident|y,thisindicatesmaliceandbadfaithintheSuddenand atrd of reduction the budgetof the office of the vice-GoveTnor the SP for substantial of she causedthe transfer claimgood faithwhen cannotpossibly 2011.Respondent budgetitemsto her office certain excuse herself fronr liabilityby Similarly,respondentcannot conveniently claimingthatitisthesPthatapprovesthebudget'Forone'ltlsthegovernorWho the same to the SP for approval'' The and subnrits prepares the budgetproposal of comingfrom the sP, is on the basts of the estlrnates authorization, legislative in by sr.tbmitted the local chief executive, this case the income anci expenditrlres also took note that the removalof the governor3'. The DILG, in its investigation, of by was effected a majofity of allocations the office of the vice-Governor budgetary upon of the respondent, the membersof the SP, wlro were alliesand party-mates in of died,the manipulation the allocations the when complainant direction. the latter' were reverted allocations when the removedblrdgetary more evident budgetbecarne to the office of the vice,Governorand the sP. complainant'sopposltlonto as whilesottnd,provedto be fLltile he was against budgetformulation, respondent's of manipulation the budgetthat this office of the majority the SP lt is in this seenring for that culpability the while this office agrees with respondent finds distLrrbing to not in a positlon lies with the membersof the sP, this office is chargesintilarly . passjLrogmenl the same in thrscomplaint. on and the SP, of The redLrction the budgetof the Officeof the Vice-Governor and the subsequent reversion of the removed budgetary allocationsafter was replaced,lends itselfto the belief that a scherneto restfictthe comolainant term was under complainant's functioningof the Office of the Vice-Governor, and the SP' and by allowing the By employed. impairing Officeof the Vice Governor the office of the Governorto perform certain functionsthat are originallyand practically committedto the Office of the Vice Governorand the SP, respondent branch officefrom the legislative of character the executive the undernlined separate of the unit.This counters very purpose R A No 7160'which of the localgovernment allow a check and balance powers among electivelocal officials, is to distribute branch, and the governoror mayor, as the betweenthe SP, as the legislative without any undue executive,and to enable each to exercise thejr fr-inctions
-S u p r an o t ez / a l p . 5 3 A " Republic ctNo 7160 Section '18 3 " R e p u b l rA c t N o 7 1 6 0 S e c t i o n 1 9 . c

fronr one by the other" interference ( ( c ) R E S P O N D E N T i R A V E l . YA B U S E D l l E R A U T | I O R I T YW f I E N S l l E F R o Ml - l l E S P P W l l l R E D C o N S U L T A N T S I T | 1 o L l l ' T H E R I o RA U T H o R | Z A T l o N prior exptess and At the otitsel respondentadmits that there was no at appolnted least nineteen fronr the SP when respondent separateauthorization daterl certification by Tlris was even supported an uncontrovertecl (1g) consultants 22 Secretary'"Sectiott (c) 2010 as issuedby the Officeof tlle Pfovincial 11 October In authorlzatlon of the inclispensability the sanggunian's of R.A. No. 7160 provides to wlt: to whichbindthe localgovernrrlent new obligations' of the execution contracts ' l'lrl'17 iiLllrls oode rl' { orr|raL'l otherwisc (c) [Jtlless 1lr'-''vieled tir entererjinro by the local cnlef e;ier'Lltive irehalfof tllc loL'al i y it.t^ i l i l t op rtlto ' a t l l l r o f l z a t i oln l l L cS a t r g g t t t L l ' r L q o v e l n l r e f rtt. r t t al slrallLe poste(] a lf cop,v strch'orrtract A icrtrcerned iegilrle (i r f t l c ' t ' l l y r l r r l l r \ r i ) ' l al o o n s p l c t l o tpsa c ei t rt f r ep t i l ' l t t t c tc a p j t o ll aY or llaranE nall.

a ls tlre servicesof a consultant made throLlgh contractand the Retaining fronl the SP evenlyapplies" Clearly'then' the of reqLrirentent a priorauthorization to ls of absence a prtorauthorizatlon contrary law raised Respondent, Dy way of an afftrnrativedefense' nolletheless by was of and arguedtlratthe hirirrg consLlltants authorized v. Qrtisttr}bing Garciatu ordinance ordtnance'and that an appropriatiorr the SP though the appropriation passedbythesanggunjanmayvaIidIyServeaStheexpressaLltholIZat|ollLlnCler 22(c)of R A No 7'160 Section ThisofficeagreesWiththepronoLlncementinQtllstltnbi/lg}]owever,the the as itenlbe identified to constlttlte bLrdget that the specific requires sanredecision The Supreme Cotlrt was explicit that (r)esoft to tlle requireclauthorization. ptovtstotl ls appropriationorclinance rrecessary itl or(let ta deterntineif tl)erc is a r coyerc l/te expense to be trtcuretl ut llrc cd tltact to he therein which specificatty detarl in shouldcotrtain sllfficient Sufficeit to statethat the provisior-t inlo,n." enterecl describes nlerely ordtnance or the expenseitem.otherwise, when the approp[iation Responderlt is approval requiredo'. sangguniatr the item in genericterms,a specific the ar.lthorizing hiringof ordinance that therewas no expressanclseparate admttted item appropriation able to pointoLltany specific was respondent neither consultants, cottrt As the that would authorize hiringof consultants. pointedout by tlle stlpreme
supra note 15 at 408 "" Alie'tzav Vtllatosa, ' E x h i b i" L L L ' t tt Erhibit "ttltMti,1" 'o 2 G R N o 1 7 5 5 2 7 0 8 D e c e n ' t b e f0 0 8 ,5 7 3 s c R A 2 6 6 3' v Garcia,supra note 33 at 288 Quisuntbing 1' l(1 at 289

in Quisuntbtrtg. be Note shoLlld taken of the fact that Gov Garcia'both in her on petition declaratory reliefand in lrerConrnrent the instant for petition, has failed to point out the specific provisions irr the general and sttpplemerrtal appropriation ordittances copiously mentioned in her pleadings which srrpposedly authorized her to enter into the qltestioned contracts'' ( E m P h a s is t r P P l i e d ) s this ordinanceo'?, Office failed to fltld a l.Jponreview of the appropriation the prior and express sullstittrte item that can aclequately sp€cificappropriation contracts.fhe most that this office for authorizatior.r the consLtltancy sanggunian underthe Prograntnted Seruices" of fouriJ*as a genericclassification Consultancy Appropria|iotlandot)|igatlonbyobjectofExpetrclitureforthePtovitlctalGovenlaf'. elucidated ftlrther As item is not sLtfftcient Qrrlstrniblrrg This generic ordinance, for irrstance alleady Should the approprlation otltlay and cost of a capital detailthe project in contain sirfficient needs to do after such that all that the local chief exectttive undergoingthe reqtlisitepublic bidding is to execute the the approprlatlon is contract no furthefatlthorization reqtlired, beingsttfficient" already ordinance It'ttheabsenceofaproperexpenseitemthatmaySllbstitutethereqtl|red gravelyabtlsedhel that respondent this aLtthorizatton, office concludes sanggunian contracts lntothe consultancy in authority entering Governrnelrt practice the cebu Provincial of Meanwhilethe allegedprevious no that the governorcould enter into contractswitlrouta separatesP resoluttotr, as matter how long, cannot be given imprimatur it is in dlrect vlolatlonof law an does not jLlstify illegalact and no vested.ightcan be accltllred continuedpractice of constluclion the law fl'onlan erroneotls officials by adrlinistrative of of, As to the other acts complainecl ie. stoppingthe publicatlon the staff, and, of of Gavel and non-payment the honoraria the publication Legislative the of pay of the personnel the office of the Vice-Governor, of withholcling overtime findings and the to absenceof any evidence sUpport allegations the lack of pertinent on any Judgment the this constrains office fronl making authority, by the investigating


Qrtisurnbig v Gatcra,supra note 33 at 279 " E x h i b i tS S ' t o S S 8 0 ' ot E x h i b r"ts s 1 2 ' aa v. Quisruttbing Garcla,supra note 33 at 288


gavedue consjderationthe to findings, Office this at In arriving tlreforegoing is body.ThisOffice awarethat underthe of findings the DILGas the investigating Authority, may as case, governing rules thisadministrative the DILG, lnvestigating cf jLrdicially factsand suchotherfactswithinits specialjzed cognizable of takenotice or withgross unsLtpportedtainted are Unless these findings marifestly knowledgea5. is to of frar:d error law,thisOffice notinclined setthemaside. or abuse discretion, of has a sacredduty to observethe law. As a publicofficer,respondent and of of employees the Office theVice-Governor SP actions hiring in Respondent's and poweris lodgedin the Officeof the Vice-Governor, itr when the appointing of without the priorauthority the SP, were in contracts into enterinE consultancy of The to viglation law amounting graveabuseof authority. slashing tlrebLtdget, of wjth oppression, vindictiveness and of is whilenot illegal, suggestive harassnrent, to of andaffinity theSP the Lrtiltztng powers heroffice respondent penalty, 1 Rule '1 of the sameA.O No. 23 the In determining appropriate presctibes penalty exceedlng not (1992), relation Section of R.A.No.7160, a to 66 in period six (6) months for of or term of the respondent, a maximum the unexpired offense every adminrstrative Gwendolyn F premises Governor considered, respondent WHEREFORE, otlt and is n.leted the foundguiltyof GraveAbuseof Authority Garciais hereby penalty SIX(6)MONTHS from SUSPENISION Office of

Manila hilippines 7 tit t. P i

./' ,,' tI I \


I of the ByTAuthority President.

PAOU|r9.N. ocHoA, JR. Executive Secretaryl
----, --'-'---'-_-


Administfative Order No. 23 (1992) as amended Rule 8 Section 11


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful