You are on page 1of 1

Mendoza vs. Laxina, Jr.

Facts: When Respondent Laxina took his oath of office as Punong Barangay, a protest was subsequently filed by his rival candidate, Fermo, which was favorably granted causing him to vacate his office in favor of Fermo. Respondent then filed petition which was granted in his favor. Petitioner Mendoza and other Kagawads questioned the validity of the official acts discharged by respondent, which includes appropriation of salaries, immediately after re-assumption but prior to re-taking of his oath of office.

Issue: Whether or not the re-taking of oath of office is condition sine qua non before a proclaimed but subsequently unseated local elective official can perform duties with valid effects.

Ruling: No. While it is true that oath of office is a prerequisite to full investiture with the office, the re-taking thereof is not a condition sine qua non to the validity of re-assumption. In the case at bar, when Laxina first took his oath of office, it operated as a full investiture on him of the rights of the office. The re-taking is only a mere formality. Therefore, the appropriation for salaries of petitioners was valid.