The Real Notes

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
Art. IX, A, Sec. 1

A. COMMON PROVISIONS
Section 1. The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service Commission, the
Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.
Brillantes vs. Yorac, GR No. 93867, Dec 18, 1990

The petitioner is challenging the designation by the President of the Philippines of Associate
Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections, in place of
Chairman Hilario B. Davide, who had been named chairman of the fact-finding commission to
investigate the December 1989 coup d etat attempt.
What is the power of the President of the Philippines to make the challenged designation in view of the
status of the Commission on Elections as an independent constitutional body and the specific provision
of Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of the Constitution that (I)n no case shall any Member (of the
Commission on Elections) be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
* The petitioner invokes the case of Nacionalista Party v. Bautista (President Elpidio Quirino designated
the Solicitor General as acting member of the Commission on Elections and the Court revoked the
designation as contrary to the Constitution.)
The petitioner contends that the choice of the Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections is an
internal matter that should be resolved by the members themselves and that the intrusion of the President
of the Philippines violates their independence.
ISSUE:
W/N the appointment of Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections is
unconstitutional.
RULING: It is unconstitutional
RATIO:
Article IX-A, Section 1, of the Constitution expressly describes all the Constitutional Commissions as
independent. Although essentially executive in nature, they are not under the control of the President
of the Philippines in the discharge of their respective functions. Each of these Commissions conducts its
own proceedings under the applicable laws and its own rules and in the exercise of its own discretion. Its
decisions, orders and rulings are subject only to review on certiorari by this Court as provided by the
Constitution in Article IX-A, Section 7.
The choice of a temporary chairman in the absence of the regular chairman comes under that discretion.
That discretion cannot be exercised for it, even with its consent, by the President of the Philippines.
The lack of a statutory rule covering the situation at bar is no justification for the President of the
Philippines to fill the void by extending the temporary designation in favor of the respondent.
1
The Constitution provides for many safeguards to the independence of the Commission on Elections,
foremost among which is the security of tenure of its members. That guaranty is not available to the
respondent as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections by designation of the President of the
Philippines.
Funa vs. Chairman, GR No. 191672, November 25, 2014

Funa questioned the constitutionality of EO 864, as well as Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A,
Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (The Administrative Code of 1987) and the designation of Duque
(Chair of CSC) as a member [in an ex officio capacity] of the Board of Directors or Trustees of the
GSIS, PHIC, ECC and HDMF for being clear violations of Section 1 and Section 2, Article IX-A of the
1987 Constitution.
ISSUE:
Does the designation of Duque as member of the Board of Directors or Trustees of the GSIS,
PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF, in an ex officio capacity, impair the independence of the CSC and
violate the constitutional prohibition against the holding of dual or multiple offices for the Members of
the Constitutional Commissions?
RULING: (Partially Granted)

Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292 = CONSTITUTIONAL
EO 864 = UNCONSTITUTIONAL
designation of Duque = UNCONSTITUTIONAL
RATIO:
[Not the MAIN issue] The Court notes, however, that during the pendency of this petition, Duques
designation as Director or Trustee of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and PHIC could have terminated
or been rendered invalid by the enactment of Republic Act No. 10149,26 thus causing this petition and
the main issue tendered herein moot and academic.
The situation now obtaining definitely falls under the requirements for the review of a moot and
academic case. For the guidance of and as a restraint upon the future.
Vote Requirement
Art. IX A, Sec. 7
Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members, any case or matter
brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case
or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or
memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise
provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, 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.
Sevilla, Jr. vs. COMELEC, GR 203833, March 19, 2013

Sevilla and So were candidates for the position of Punong Barangay
Sevilla won.
2
So filed an election protest with the MeTC on the ground that Sevilla committed electoral fraud,
anomalies and irregularities in all the protested precincts
Petition for certiorari filed by Sevilla to nullify COMELEC en banc Resolution which set aside
the order of MTC dismissing Sos election protest against Sevilla.
The Comelec en banc, by a vote of 3-3, affirmed the Comelec Second Divisions ruling in its
October 6, 2012 Resolution whose dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration

is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Respondent judge is directed to conduct
another revision of the contested ballots in Election Protest Case No. SP-6719
with dispatch.
ISSUE:
W/N the COMELEC Resolution have legal effects
RULING: NONE
RATIO:
We resolve to DISMISS the petition for having been prematurely filed with this Court, and remand the
case to the COMELEC for its appropriate action.
The October 6, 2012 Comelec en bancs Resolution lacks legal effect as it is not a majority decision
required by the Constitution and by the Comelec Rules of Procedure
Article IX-A of the Constitution requires that [e]ach Commission shall decide by a
majority vote of all its members, any case or matter brought before it within sixty days
from the date of its submission for decision or resolution
Section 5(a), Rule 3 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure:
o Section 5. Quorum; Votes Required. - (a) When sitting en banc, four (4) Members
of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting
business. The concurrence of a majority of the Members of the Commission shall
be necessary for the pronouncement of a decision, resolution, order or ruling.
...majority vote requires a vote of four members of the Comelec en banc.
In Marcoleta v. Commission on Elections, the Court ruled that both Article IX-A and the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure require that a majority vote of all the members and NOT only those who participated
and took part in the deliberations, is necessary for the pronouncement of a decision, resolution, order or
ruling. 3-3 not a majority vote.
To break the legal stalemate in case the opinion is equally divided among the members of the Comelec
en banc, Section 6, Rule 18 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure mandates a rehearing where parties
are given the opportunity anew to strengthen their respective positions or arguments and convince the
members of the Comelec en banc of the merit of their case.
A. Civil Service Commission

1. Composition & Qualifications of Commissioners
Art. IX, B, Sec. 1 (1)
B. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
3
Section 1. (1) The civil service shall be administered by the Civil Service Commission composed of a
Chairman and two Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the
time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, with proven capacity for public
administration, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the elections
immediately preceding their appointment.
Art. VII, Sec. 13

Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants
shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during
their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession,
participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or
special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid
conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
2. Appointment & Term of Office

(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first
appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a Commissioner for five years, and another
Commissioner for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for
the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in
a temporary or acting capacity.
Gaminde vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 140335, Dec 13, 2000

FACTS:
The President of the Philippines appointed petitioner Thelma P. Gaminde, ad interim, Commissioner, Civil
Service Commission. She assumed office on June 22, 1993, after taking an oath of office. On September 07,
1993, the Commission on Appointments, Congress of the Philippines confirmed the appointment. On February
24, 1998, petitioner sought clarification from the Office of the President as to the expiry date of her term of
office. In reply to her request, the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel, in a letter dated April 07, 1998, opined that
petitioner's term of office would expire on February 02, 2000, not on, February 02, 1999. Relying on said
advisory opinion, petitioner remained in office after February 02, 1999. On February 04, 1999, Chairman
Corazon Alma G. de Leon; wrote the Commission on Audit requesting opinion on whether or not Commissioner
Thelma P. Gaminde and her coterminus staff may be paid their salaries notwithstanding the expiration of their
appointments on February 02,1999. On February 18, 1999, the General Counsel, Commission on Audit, issued an
opinion that "the term of Commissioner Gaminde has expired on February 02, 1999 as stated in her
appointment conformably with the constitutional intent." Consequently, on March 24, 1999, CSC Resident
Auditor Flovitas U. Felipe issued notice of disallowance No. 99-002-101 (99), disallowing in audit the salaries and
emoluments pertaining to petitioner and her co-terminus staff, effective February 02, 1999. Petitioner appealed
the disallowance to the Commission on Audit en banc. On June 15, 1999, the Commission on Audit issued
Decision No. 99-090 dismissing petitioner's appeal. The Commission on Audit affirmed the propriety of the
disallowance, holding that the issue of petitioner's term of office may be properly addressed by mere reference
to her appointment paper which set the expiration date on February 02, 1999, and that the Commission was
bereft of power to recognize an extension of her term, not even with the implied acquiescence of the Office of
the President. Petitioner moved for reconsideration; however, on August 17, 1999, the Commission on Audit
denied the motion in Decision No. 99-129. Hence, the present petition.
ISSUE:
4
Whether the term of office of Atty. Thelma P. Gaminde, as Commissioner, Civil Service Commission, to which
she was appointed on June 11, 1993, expired on February 02, 1999, as stated in the appointment paper, or on
February 02, 2000, as claimed by her.
HELD:
The term of office of Ms. Thelma P. Gaminde as Commissioner, Civil Service Commission, under an appointment
extended to her expired on February 02, 1999. However, she served as de facto officer in good faith until
February 02, 2000, and thus entitled to receive her salary and other emoluments for actual service rendered.
The term of office of the Chairman and members of the Civil Service Commission is prescribed in the 1987
Constitution, as follows: "SECTION 1 (2). The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the
President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a Commissioner for five
years, and another Commissioner for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be
only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity." In Republic vs. Imperial, we said that "the operation of the rotational plan
requires two conditions, both indispensable to its workability: (1) that the terms of the first three (3)
Commissioners should start on a common date, and, (2) that any vacancy due to death, resignation or disability
before the expiration of the term should only be filled only for the unexpired balance of the term."|||
Consequently, the terms of the first Chairmen and Commissioners of the Constitutional Commissions under the
1987 Constitution must start on a common date, irrespective of the variations in the dates of appointments and
qualifications of the appointees, in order that the expiration of the first terms of seven, five and three years
should lead to the regular recurrence of the two-year interval between the expiration of the terms.| Applying
the foregoing conditions to the case at bar, we rule that the appropriate starting point of the terms of office of
the first appointees to the Constitutional Commissions under the 1987 Constitution must be on February 02,
1987, the date of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution. In the law of public officers, there is a settled
distinction between "term" and "tenure." "The term of an office must be distinguished from the tenure of the
incumbent. The term means the time during the officer may claim to hold office as of right, and fixes the interval
after which the several incumbents shall succeed one another. The tenure represents the term during which the
incumbent actually holds the office. The term of office is not affected by the hold-over. The tenure may be
shorter than the term for reasons within or beyond the power of the incumbent."| Given the foregoing common
starting point, we compute the terms of the first appointees and their successors to the Civil Service Commission
under the 1987 Constitution by their respective lines, as follows First line: Chairman Seven-year term.
February 02, 1987 to February 01, 1994.|| Second line: Commissioner Five-year term. February 02, 1987 to
February 02, 1992.||| Third line: Commissioner Three-year term. February 02, 1987 to February 02, 1990.|||
Thus, we see the regular interval of vacancy every two (2) years, namely, February 02, 1994, for the first
Chairman, February 02, 1992, for the first five-year term Commissioner, and February 02, 1990, for the first
threeyear term Commissioner. Their successors must also maintain the two year interval, namely: February 02,
2001, for Chairman; February 02, 1999, for Commissioner Thelma P. Gaminde, and February 02, 1997, for
Commissioner Ramon P. Ereeta, Jr.
3. Appointment of Personnel of CSC

Art. IX, A, Sec. 4
SECTION 4. The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint their officials and employees in accordance
with law.
De Guzman vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 129118, July 19, 2000

FACTS:
Comelec reassigned petitioners to other stations pursuant to Section 44 of the Voters registration
act. The act prohibits election officers from holding office in a particular city or municipality for more
than 4 years. Petitioners claim that the act violated the equal protection clause because not all election
5
officials were covered by the prohibition.
Petitioners contend that RA 8189 Section 44 is unconstitutional as it violates the equal protection
clause enshrined in the constitution; that it violates constitutional guarantee on security of tenure of civil
servants; that is constitutes a deprivation of property without due process of law; that it undermines
the constitutional independence of COMELEC and COMELECs constitutional authority; that it
contravenes the basic constitutional precept(THAT EVERY BILL PASSED BY CONGRESS SHALL
EMBRACE ONLY ONE SUBJECT WHICH MUST BE EXPRESSED IN THE TITLE THEREOF) ;
that it is void for its failure to be read on 3 separate readings
ISSUE: W/N Sec. 44 of RA 8189 is unconstitutional
HELD:
No, RA 8189 Sec 44 is not unconstitutional. It has not violated the equal protection clause. It is intended
to ensure the impartiality of election officials by preventing them from developing familiarity with the
people of their place of assignment. The guarantee of security of tenure under the Constitution is not a
guarantee of perpetual employment. It only means that an employee cannot be dismissed (or transferred)
from the service for causes other than those provided by law and after due process is accorded the
employee. But, where it is the law-making authority itself which furnishes the ground for the transfer of
a class of employees, no such capriciousness can be raised for so long as the remedy proposed to cure a
perceived evil is germane to the purposes of the law. Section 44 is relevant to the subject matter of
registration as it seeks to ensure the integrity of the registration process by providing a guideline for the
Comelec to follow in the reassignment of election officers.
[IMPORTANT PART] Untenable is petitioners contention that Section 44 of RA 8189 undermines the
authority of COMELEC to appoint its own officials and employees. As stressed upon by the Solicitor
General, Section 44 establishes a guideline for the COMELEC to follow. Said section provides the
criterion or basis for the reassignment or transfer of an election officer and does not deprive the
COMELEC of its power to appoint, and maintain its authority over its officials and employees. As a
matter of fact, the questioned COMELEC resolutions and directives illustrate that it is still the
COMELEC which has the power to reassign and transfer its officials and employees. But as a
government agency tasked with the implementation and enforcement of election laws, the COMELEC is
duty bound to comply with the laws passed by Congress.
4. Salary
Art. XVIII, Sec. 17
SECTION 17. Until the Congress provides otherwise, the President shall receive an annual salary of
three hundred thousand pesos; the Vice-President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, two hundred forty thousand pesos each;
the Senators, the Members of the House of Representatives, the Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court, and the Chairmen of the Constitutional Commissions, two hundred four thousand pesos
each; and the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, one hundred eighty thousand pesos
each.
Art. IX, A, Sec. 3

SECTION 3. The salary of the Chairman and the Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall not be
decreased during their tenure.
5. Disqualifications
6
Art. IX, A, Sec. 2
SECTION 2. No Member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office
or employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management or
control of any business which in any way be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be
financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted
by the Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned
or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
6. Impeachment
Art. XI, Sec. 2
SECTION 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of
the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment
for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption,
other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be
removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
7. Functions of the CSC

Art. IX, B, Sec. 3
SECTION 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government,
shall establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity,
responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. It shall strengthen the merit and
rewards system, integrate all human resources development programs for all levels and ranks, and
institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability. It shall submit to the
President and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs.
Art. IX, A, Sec. 7- 8

SECTION 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or matter
brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case
or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or
memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise
provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, 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.
SECTION 8. Each Commission shall perform such other functions as may be provided by law.
Lazo vs. CSC, GR No. 108824, September 14, 1994

Doctrine: Under the Constitution, the Civil Service Commission is the central personnel agency of the government
charged with the duty of determining questions of qualifications of merit and fitness of those appointed to the civil
service. Its power to issue a certificate of eligibility carries with it the power to revoke a certificate for being null and
void.
Facts:
On November 11, 1988 the Civil Service Commission received a letter reporting that petitioner Dennis C. Lazo
had boasted to him that he had bought his career service (subprofessional) eligibility from the Civil Service
Commission for P7, 000.00, P4, 500.00 of which had been paid to the examiner.
The CSC ordered the examination answer sheets of petitioner to be retrieved and hand-checked by the Office
7
of Recruitment, Examination and Placement.
The rechecking disclosed that petitioner's actual score was 34.48%, not 76.46% as indicated in his certificate of
eligibility.
The CSC filed, but later dismissed the administrative charges against petitioner for lack of evidence linking
petitioner to the irregularity. However, it revoked his eligibility for being null and void.
When the CSC denied his motion for reconsideration, he filed a petition for certiorari alleging that the CSC
acted with grave abuse of discretion and denied petitioner's right to due process by unilaterally revoking
petitioner's eligibility without a formal investigation or an opportunity given to him to examine and go over his
answer sheet in the Civil Service Examination
Issues:
1. W/N petitioners right to due process was violated when his certificate of eligibility was revoked without
notice or hearing
Held/Ratio:
1. NO, While it is true as a general proposition that the CSC cannot motu propio revoke a certificate of
eligibility without notice and hearing to the examinees concerned, in the context of this case, which
simply involves the rechecking of examination papers and nothing more than a reevaluation of
documents already in the records of the CSC according to a standard answer key previously set by it,
notice and hearing was not required. Instead, what applied was the rule of res ipsa loquitur (the thing
speaks for itself)
2. Petitioner could have shown that his actual score was 76.46%, and not 34.48%, but instead, he argues in
his petition that he should not be made to answer for an irregularity in which he had no participation and, on
this basis, asked the CSC for a formal investigation.
3. The fact is that he failed the civil service examinations. This fact is not affected by the fact that his
participation in the grade-fixing has not been proven. The certificate being void, it did not confer upon him
any vested right to be appointed to a position in the government service.
Ruling: the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Digest by: Nico Mendiola
Cruz vs. CSC, GR No. 144464, November 27, 2001

FACTS:
On September 9, 1994 it was discovered by the Civil Service Commission that Paitim, Municipal
Treasurer of Bulacan took the non-professional examination for Cruz after the latter had previously
failed in the said examination three times.
The CSC found after a fact finding investigation that a prima facie case exists against you for
DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT and CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST
OF THE SERVICE.
The petitioners filed their Answer to the charge entering a general denial of the material averments of
the "Formal Charge." They also declared that they were electing a formal investigation on the matter.
The petitioners subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss averring that if the investigation will continue,
they will be deprived of their right to due process because the Civil Service Commission was the
complainant, the Prosecutor and the Judge, all at the same time.
On November 16, 1995, Dulce J. Cochon issued an "Investigation Report and Recommendation" finding
the Petitioners guilty of "Dishonesty" and ordering their dismissal from the government service
Petitioners maintain that the CSC did not have original jurisdiction to hear and decide the administrative
8
case. Allegedly, in accordance with Section 47(1), Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title 1, Book V,
Administrative Code of 1987, the CSC is vested with appellate jurisdiction only in all administrative
cases where the penalty imposed is removal or dismissal from the office and where the complaint was
filed by a private citizen against the government employee.
*ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners right to due process was violated when the CSC acted as investigator,
complainant, prosecutor and judge all at the same time.
HELD: NO.
The fact that the complaint was filed by the CSC itself does not mean that it could not be an impartial
judge. As an administrative body, its decision was based on substantial findings. Factual findings of
administrative bodies, being considered experts in their field, are binding on the Supreme Court. The
records clearly disclose that the petitioners were duly investigated by the CSC.
After a careful examination of the records, the Commission finds respondents guilty as charged. The
photograph pasted over the name Gilda Cruz in the Picture Seat Plan (PSP) during the July 30, 1989
Career Service Examination is not that of Cruz but of Paitim. Also, the signature over the name of Gilda
Cruz in the said document is totally different from the signature of Gilda Cruz.
Petitioners' contention that they were denied due process of law by the fact that the CSC acted as
investigator, complainant, prosecutor and judge, all at the same time against the petitioners is untenable.
The CA correctly explained that the CSC is mandated to hear and decide administrative case instituted
by it or instituted before it directly or on appeal including actions of its officers and the agencies
attached to it pursuant to Book V, Title 1, Subtitle A, Chapter 3, Section 12, paragraph 11 of the
Administrative Code of 1987.
It cannot be denied that the petitioners were formally charged after a finding that a prima facie case for
dishonesty lies against them. They were properly informed of the charges. They submitted an Answer
and were given the opportunity to defend themselves. Petitioners can not, therefore, claim that there
was a denial of due process much less the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the CSC to take cognizance
of the case.
Torregoza vs. CSC, GR No. 101526, July 3, 1992

FACTS
The petitioner has been working as Staff Aide position in the Legal Office, Office of the President,
Malacanang, Manila, since January 18, 1978, to the present. His original appointment was for only six
months. On June 5, 1978, less than five months after the first appointment, petitioner was given another
appointment to the same position effective "as of June 18, 1978" and with a notation that "This
appointment is declared confidential." Then on March 5, 1990, respondent Commission issued the
"Rules Implementing Republic Act No. 6850, enabling the petitioner to file her application for the
appropriate eligibility to the position she has been occupying for the last thirteen (13) years and having
accordingly rendered efficient service. The petitioners request returned unacted for the reason that the
position held was declared confidential. After the Salary Standardization Law (Republic Act No. 6758)
was passed, the same position was reclassified as Clerk II in July 1989.
Subsequently, Deputy Executive Secretary Mariano Sarmiento sent a letter to the respondent dated
November 7, 1990, requesting that based on the present certified function and actual duties of the
petitioner, the position be restored to the career service and that said petitioner be granted the civil
service eligibility under R.A. No. 6850. Respondent commission denied the request stating the position
was declared confidential in nature by the Office of the President. The respondent however restored
the position of Clerk II to career service but still denied the petition for reconsideration of the petitioner.
9
ISSUE
Whether or not the writ of mandamus may be issued by the Court to compel the respondent Commission
to grant the petitioner the privilege of securing an appropriate civil service eligibility under Republic Act
No. 6850.
RULING
The court cannot compel the commission to grant the privilege of civil service eligibility under RA
6850. The simple reason being that under the law granting the privilege to government employees, there
is a wide latitude of discretion given to the Commission which determines in Section 1 thereof, "who are
qualified to avail themselves of the privilege granted under this Act." With such discretion, Section 2 of
the same law requires the Civil Service Commission to promulgate the rules and regulations to
implement this Act using certain standards. Besides what the law granted is a privilege and not a right,
therefore the discretion lies with the commission itself. As provided by Sec 1 of RA 6850 ; "The Civil
Service Commission shall formulate performance evaluation standards in order to determine those
temporary employees who are qualified to avail themselves of the privilege granted under this Act.
"The civil service eligibility herein granted may apply to such other positions as the Civil Service
Commission may deem appropriate.
Petition was hereby dismissed due to lack of merit.
Olanda vs. Bugayong, GR No. 140917, October 10, 2003

FACTS:
Twelve officers and employees of the Philippine Merchant Marine Academy (PMMA) including
petitioner Manelieto A. Olanda (Olanda), then Dean of the College of Marine Engineering and former
PMMA Complex Project Officer, filed a verified complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against
respondent Leonardo G. Bugayong (Bugayong), President of the PMMA, charging him with violation of
Section 3 (g) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, for entering into a grossly disadvantageous contract with the Philippine National
Construction Corporation (PNCC) on behalf of PMMA. Respondent Pedro S. Dulay, Jr. (Dulay), chief
security officer of the PMMA, by a letter addressed to Bugayong, stated that he heard the radio
interview of Olanda and that in discussing publicly without any clearance from Bugayong the
Memorandum of Agreement between PMMA and PNCC, Olanda violated the PMMA Faculty
Handbook and other civil service rules. Bugayong relieved Olanda as the dean of the PMMA by a
special order and designated him as an acting executive assistant in the Graduate School Program at the
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Makati (PLM). Bugayong, by decision, suspended petitioner for three
months for violation of the PMMA Faculty Handbook and the civil service rules. Olanda filed a petition
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba, Zambales for quo warranto, mandamus and prohibition with
prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction and damages, claiming that there was no valid
cause to deprive him of his position as Dean and that Bugayong was usurping his position. However, the
RTC dismissed the case for lack of cause of action and that Olanda has not exhausted all administrative
remedies.
ISSUE:
W/N the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
HELD: NO
As a rule, the Court reviews only the specific issues or errors raised by the parties. However, even if not
10
raised, an error in jurisdiction may be taken up.
The PMMA was created pursuant to Republic Act No. 3680. It is a government institution, hence,
falling under the jurisdiction of the CSC.
The test to determine whether a corporation is government-owned or controlled, or private in nature is

simple. Is it created by its own charter for the exercise of a public function, or by incorporation under
the general corporation law? Those with special charters are government corporations subject to its
provisions, and its employees are under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission
Disciplinary cases and cases involving personal actions affecting employees in the civil service
including appointment through certification, promotion, transfer, reinstatement, reemployment, detail,
reassignment, demotion and separation are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service
Commission which is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil services. It was thus error
for the trial court, which does not have jurisdiction, to, in the first place, take cognizance of the petition
of Menelieto Olanda assailing relief as Dean and his designation to another position. This leaves it
unnecessary to dwell on the issues herein raised by Olanda.
It is the intent of the Civil Service Law, in requiring the establishment of a grievance procedure in Rule
XII, Section 6 of the same rules, that decisions of lower level officials be appealed to the agency head,
then to the Civil Service Commission. Decisions of the Civil Service Commission, in turn, may be
elevated to the Court of Appeals. Under this set up, the trial court does not have jurisdiction over
personnel actions and, thus, committed an error in taking jurisdiction over the civil case.
8. Scope of the Civil Service

SECTION 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies
of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.
Art. XII, Sec. 16

SECTION 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation, organization, or
regulation of private corporations. Government-owned or controlled corporations may be created or
established by special charters in the interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic
viability.
* GOCCs without original charters refer to corporations created under the Corporation Code but are
owned or controlled by the government. (Feliciano vs COA)
** The phrase "government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters" means GOCCs
created under special laws and not under the general incorporation law. There is no difference between
the term "original charters" and "special charters." (Feliciano vs COA) (Intent of the framers)
MR. FOZ: Just one question, Mr. Presiding Officer. By the term "original charters," what
exactly do we mean?
MR. ROMULO: We mean that they were created by law, by an act of Congress, or by
special law.
MR. FOZ: And not under the general corporation law.
11
National Service Corp. vs. NLRC, GR No. L-69870, Nov 29, 1988
(Differentiated original and special charter GOCCs)
National Service Corp. v. NLRC, 168 SCRA 125 (1988) -- The civil service does not include
Government owned or controlled corporations (GOCC) which are organized as subsidiaries of GOCC
under the general corporation law.
F: Eugenio Credo was an employee of the National Service Corporation. She claims she was illegally
dismissed. NLRC ruled ordering her reinstatement. NASECO argues that NLRC has no jurisdiction to
order her reinstatement. NASECO as a government corporation by virtue of its being a subsidiary of the
NIDC, which is wholly owned by the Phil. National Bank which is in turn a GOCC, the terms and
conditions of employment of its employees are governed by the Civil Service Law citing National
Housing v Juco.
ISSUE: W/N employees of NASECO, a GOCC without original charter, are governed by the Civil
Service Law.
HELD: NO. The holding in NHC v Juco should not be given retroactive effect, that is to cases that
arose before its promulgation of Jan 17, 1985. To do otherwise would be oppressive to Credo and other
employees similarly situated because under the 1973 Consti but prior to the ruling in NHC v Juco, this
court recognized the applicability of the Labor jurisdiction over disputes involving terms and conditions
of employment in GOCC's, among them NASECO.
In the matter of coverage by the civil service of GOCC, the 1987 Consti starkly differs from the 1973
consti where NHC v Juco was based. It provides that the "civil service embraces all branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government owned or
controlled corporation with original charter." Therefore by clear implication, the civil service does not
include GOCC which are organized as subsidiaries of GOCC under the general corporation law.
TUPAS vs. National Housing Corp, GR No. L-49677, May 4, 1989

FACTS:
Respondent National Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as NHC) is a corporation organized in
1959 in accordance with Executive Order No. 399, otherwise known as the Uniform Charter of
Government Corporations, dated January 1, 1951. Its shares of stock are and have been one hundred
percent (100%) owned by the Government from its incorporation under Act 459, the former corporation
law. The government entities that own its shares of stock are the Government Service Insurance System,
the Social Security System, the Development Bank of the Philippines, the National Investment and
Development Corporation and the Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation. Petitioner Trade Unions
of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) is a legitimate labor organization with a chapter in
NHC.
On July 13, 1977, TUPAS filed a petition for the conduct of a certification election with Regional Office
No. IV of the Department of Labor in order to determine the exclusive bargaining representative of the
workers in NHC. It was claimed that its members comprised the majority of the employees of the
corporation. The petition was dismissed by med-arbiter Eusebio M. Jimenez in an order, dated
November 7, 1977, holding that NHC being a government-owned and/or controlled corporation its
employees/workers are prohibited to form, join or assist any labor organization for purposes of
collective bargaining pursuant to Section 1, Rule II, Book V of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Labor Code.
12
From this order of dismissal, TUPAS appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations where Director
Carmelo C. Noriel reversed the order of dismissal and ordered the holding of a certification election.
This order was, however, set aside by Officer-in-Charge Virgilio S.J. Sy in his resolution of November
21, 1978 upon a motion for reconsideration of respondent NHC.
Issue:
Whether or not the employees of NHA are NOT COVERED by Civil Service law, rules and regulations
and have therefore the right to unionize
Held: YES.
The civil service now covers ONLY government owned or controlled corporations with original
or legislative charters, that is, those created by an act of Congress or by special law, and not those
incorporated under and pursuant to a general legislation. The Civil Service does not include
government-owned or controlled corporations which are organized as subsidiaries of government-owned
or controlled corporations under the general corporation law.
The workers or employees of NHC undoubtedly have the right to form unions or employees
organizations. The right to unionize or to form organizations is now explicitly recognized and granted to
employees in both the governmental and the private sectors.
There is, therefore, no impediment to the holding of a certification election among the workers of
NHC for it is clear that they are covered by the Labor Code, the NHC being a government-owned and/or
controlled corporation without an original charter. Statutory implementation of the last cited section of
the Constitution is found in Article 244 of the Labor Code, as amended by Executive Order No. 111,
thus:
... Right of employees in the public service Employees of the government corporations established under the Corporation
Code shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their respective employers. All other employees in the
civil service shall have the right to form associations for purposes not contrary to law.
*Alliance of Govt Workers vs. Minister of Labor and Employment, GR No. L-60403, Aug 3, 1983
FACTS:
Petitioner is a federation of unions in govt-owned corps. and in govt schools. It petitioned the SC for a
ruling that PD 851, requiring "all employers... to pay their employees receiving a basic salary of not more
than P1,000 a month... a 13th month pay," applies to govt employees.
HELD:NO.
It is an old rule of statutory construction that restrictive statutes and acts w/c impose burdens on the
public treasury or w/c diminish rights and interests, no matter how broad their terms do not embrace the
Sovereign, unless the Sovereign is specifically mentioned. The Republic of the Phil. as a sovereign
cannot be covered by a general term like "employer" unless the language used in the law is clear and
specific to that effect.
ISSUE 2:
May government employees act through a labor federation which uses the collective bargaining power
to secure increased compensation for its members?
HELD: NO.
13
The terms and conditions of employment in the Government including any political subdivision or
instrumentality thereof are governed by law. And this is effected through statutes or administrative
circulars, rules and regulations and not through Collective Bargaining agreements.
Under the 1973 constitution, ALL TYPES of

GOCC's were part of the civil service, thus, not allowed to use concerted activities to get other benefits or
higher salaries different from that provided by law and regulation.
*National Housing Corp. vs. Juco, GR No. L-64313, Jan 17, 1985 [SEE YEAR IF <1987]
FACTS: Juco was an employee of the NHA. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal w/ MOLE but his
case was dismissed by the labor arbiter on the ground that the NHA is a govt-owned corp. and
jurisdiction over its employees is vested in the CSC. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision and
remanded the case to the labor arbiter for further proceedings. NHA in turn appealed to the SC.
ISSUE: Are employees of the National Housing Corporation, a GOCC without original charter, covered
by the Labor Code or by laws and regulations governing the civil service?
HELD: Sec. 11, Art XII-B of the Constitution specifically provides: "The Civil Service embraces every
branch, agency, subdivision and instrumentality of the Government, including every government owned
and controlled corporation.
The inclusion of GOCC within the embrace of the civil service shows a deliberate effort at the framers
to plug an earlier loophole which allowed GOCC to avoid the full consequences of the civil service
system. All offices and firms of the government are covered.
This consti provision has been implemented by statute PD 807 is unequivocal that personnel of GOCC
belong to the civil service and subject to civil service requirements.
"Every" means each one of a group, without exception. This case refers to a GOCC. It does not cover
cases involving private firms taken over by the government in foreclosure or similar proceedings.
For purposes of coverage in the Civil Service, employees of govt- owned or controlled corps. whether
created by special law or formed as subsidiaries are covered by the Civil Service Law, not the Labor
Code, and the fact that pvt. corps. owned or controlled by the govt may be created by special charter
does not mean that such corps. not created by special law are not covered by the Civil Service. [THIS IS
NO LONGER THE CASE UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION]
The infirmity of the resp's position lies in its permitting the circumvention or emasculation of Sec. 1,
Art. XII-B [now Art IX, B, Sec. 2 (1)] of the Consti. It would be possible for a regular ministry of govt t
o create a host of subsidiary corps. under the Corp. Code funded by a willing legislature. A govt-owned
corp. could create several subsidiary corps. These subsidiary corps. would enjoy the best of two
worlds. Their officials and employees would be privileged individuals, free from the strict
accountability required by the Civil Service Dec. and the regulations of the COA. Their incomes would
not be subject to the competitive restraint in the open market nor to the terms and conditions of civil
service employment. Conceivably, all govt-owned or controlled corps. could be created, no longer by
special charters, but through incorp. under the general law. The Constitutional amendment including such
corps. in the embrace of the civil service would cease to have application.
Certainly, such a situation cannot be allowed.
14
University of the Philippines vs. Regino, GR No. 88167, May 3, 1993
FACTS:
Angel Pamplina, a mimeograph operator at the University of the Philippines School of Economics, was
dismissed on June 22, 1982, after he was found guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct for causing
the leakage of final examination questions in Economics 106 under Prof. Solita Monsod.
UP contends that under its charter, to wit, Act 1870, enacted on June 18, 1906, it enjoys not only
academic freedom but also institutional autonomy. Section 6(e) of the said Act grants the UP Board of
Regents the power "to appoint, on recommendation of the president of the university, professors,
instructors, lecturers, and other employees of the university, to fix their compensation and to remove
them for cause after an investigation and hearing shall have been had." Pamplina was dismissed by
virtue of this provision.
ISSUE:
W/N UP BOR enjoys institutional autonomy.
HELD:
NO
The Civil Service Law (PD 807) expressly vests in the Commission appellate jurisdiction in
administrative disciplinary cases involving members of the Civil Service. Section 9(j) mandates that
the Commission shall have the power to "hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases instituted
directly with it in accordance with Section 37 or brought to it on appeal." And Section 37(a), provides
that, "The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the
imposititon of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty (30) days, or fine in an amount exceeding
thirty days' salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office."
As a mere government-owned or controlled corporation, UP was clearly a part of the Civil Service under
the 1973 Constitution and now continues to be so because it was created by a special law and has an
original charter. As a component of the Civil Service, UP is therefore governed by PD 807 and
administrative cases involving the discipline of its employees come under the appellate jurisdiction
of the Civil Service Commission.
The case cited repeatedly by the petitioners, viz., University of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals,9
cannot apply to the present controversy. The reason is that at the time it was promulgated on January
28, 1971, PD 807 had not yet been enacted. PD 807 took affect only in 1975.
In ruling in that case "that the President and Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines
possess full and final authority in the disciplining, suspension and removal of the civil service
employees of the University, including those of the Philippine General Hospital, independently of the
Commissioner of Civil Service and the Civil Service Board of Appeals," Justice J.B.L. Reyes relied
on the Civil Service Law of 1959, which then empowered the Civil Service Commission:
Except as otherwise provided by law, to have final authority to pass upon the removal, separation and suspension of all permanent officers
and employees in the competitive or classified service and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline, and efficiency of such
officers and employees; and to prescribe standards, guidelines and regulations governing the administration of discipline; (Emphasis
supplied)
15
Article V, Section 9(j), of PD 807 simply gives the Commission the power to "har and decide
administrative disciplinary cases instituted directly with it in accordance with Section 37 or brought to it
on appeal," without the qualifiying phrase appearing in the above-quoted provision. The petitioners
cannot invoke that phrase to justify the special power they claim under Act 1870.
CSC vs. Sojor, GR No. 168766, May 22, 2008

FACTS:
Herein respondent, Henry Sojor, president of Negros Oriental State University (formerly known as
Central Visayas Polytechnic College) was charged of nepotism, dishonesty, falsification of official
documents, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service before the Civil
Service Commission.
Herein petitioner moved to dismiss these cases on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Academic freedom
was also invoked.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a president of a State University is outside the reach of the disciplinary jurisdiction
constitutionally granted to the Civil Service Commission
Whether or not the assumption by the Civil Service Commission of jurisdiction over a president of a
State University violate academic freedom
RULING:
No, the president of a State University is still within the reach of the disciplinary jurisdiction
constitutionally granted to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
As explained by the court, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the CSC shall
have the final authority to pass upon the removal, separation and suspension of all officers and
employees in the civil service and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline, and efficiency of
such officers and employees.
In the case at bar, it is clear that while the Board of Regents (BOT) of the Negros Oriental State
University (NORSU) has the sole power of administration over the university, such power is not
exclusive in the matter of disciplining and removing its employees. Instead, such power is concurrent
between the BOT and the CSC.
Hence, herein respondent Henry Sojor, the president of NORSU, a non-career civil servant, is within
the disciplinary jurisdiction of the CSC.
No, the assumption by the CSC of jurisdiction over a president of a State University does not violate
academic freedom.
While it is certain that academic institutions and personnel are granted with wide latitude of academic
freedom, such freedom does not give an institution the unbridled authority to perform acts without any
statutory basis. For that reason, as the court explained in its ruling, a school official, who is a member of
the civil service, may not be permitted to commit violations of civil service rules under the justification
that he was free to do so under the principle of academic freedom.
16
In the case at bar, the respondent is facing charges of grave offenses punishable with suspension or even
dismissal. And evidently, these cases have not been acted upon by the university officials based on the
re-appointment they have given to respondent. And according to the law, in complaints against civil
service officials and employees which are not acted upon by the agencies and such other complaints
requiring direct or immediate action, in the interest of justice the CSC may take over.
Hence, the assumption of the CSC of jurisdiction over herein respondent State University president is
only deemed proper and not in violation of academic freedom.\
IMPORTANT DOCTRINE:
I. Jurisdiction of the CSC
The Constitution grants to the CSC administration over the entire civil service.28 As defined, the civil
service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the government, including
every government-owned or controlled corporation.29 It is further classified into career and non-career
service positions. Career service positions are those where: (1) entrance is based on merit and fitness or
highly technical qualifications; (2) there is opportunity for advancement to higher career positions; and
(3) there is security of tenure. These include:
(1) Open Career positions for appointment to which prior qualification in an appropriate examination is
required;
(2) Closed Career positions which are scientific, or highly technical in nature; these include the faculty
and academic staff of state colleges and universities, and scientific and technical positions in scientific
or research institutions which shall establish and maintain their own merit systems;
(3) Positions in the Career Executive Service; namely, Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary, Bureau
Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional Director, Assistant Regional Director, Chief of
Department Service and other officers of equivalent rank as may be identified by the Career Executive
Service Board, all of whom are appointed by the President;
(4) Career officers, other than those in the Career Executive Service, who are appointed by the
President, such as the Foreign Service Officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs;
(5) Commissioned officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces which shall maintain a separate merit
system;
(6) Personnel of government-owned or controlled corporations, whether performing governmental or

proprietary functions, who do not fall under the non-career service; and
(7) Permanent laborers, whether skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled.30
Career positions are further grouped into three levels. Entrance to the first two levels is determined
through competitive examinations, while entrance to the third level is prescribed by the Career
Executive Service Board.31 The positions covered by each level are:
17
(a) The first level shall include clerical, trades, crafts, and custodial service positions which involve non-
professional or subprofessional work in a non-supervisory or supervisory capacity requiring less than
four years of collegiate studies;
(b) The second level shall include professional, technical, and scientific positions which involve
professional, technical, or scientific work in a non-supervisory or supervisory capacity requiring at least
four years of college work up to Division Chief level; and
(c) The third level shall cover positions in the Career Executive Service.32
On the other hand, non-career service positions are characterized by: (1) entrance not by the usual tests
of merit and fitness; and (2) tenure which is limited to a period specified by law, coterminous with the
appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or limited to the duration of a particular project for which
purpose employment was made.33 The law states:
The Non-Career Service shall include:
(1) Elective officials and their personal or confidential staff;
(2) Secretaries and other officials of Cabinet rank who hold their positions at the pleasure of the
President and their personal or confidential staff(s);
(3) Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office and their personal or
confidential staff;
(4) Contractual personnel or those whose employment in the government is in accordance with a special
contract to undertake a specific work or job, requiring special or technical skills not available in the
employing agency, to be accomplished within a specific period, which in no case shall exceed one year,
and performs or accomplishes the specific work or job, under his own responsibility with a minimum of
direction and supervision from the hiring agency; and
(5) Emergency and seasonal personnel.34
The jurisdiction of the Regional Office of the CSC and the Commission central office (Commission
Proper) is specified in the CSC rules as:
Section 4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission shall hear and
decide administrative cases instituted by, or brought before it, directly or on appeal, including contested
appointments, and shall review decisions and actions of its offices and of the agencies attached to it.
Except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the Civil Service Commission shall have
the final authority to pass upon the removal, separation and suspension of all officers and employees in
the civil service and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline and efficiency of such officers
and employees.
Section 5. Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission Proper. The Civil Service Commission Proper
shall have jurisdiction over the following cases:
18
A. Disciplinary
1. Decisions of Civil Service Regional Offices brought before it on petition for review;
2. Decisions of heads of departments, agencies, provinces, cities, municipalities and other

instrumentalities, imposing penalties exceeding thirty days suspension or fine in an amount exceeding
thirty days salary brought before it on appeal;
3. Complaints brought against Civil Service Commission Proper personnel;
4. Complaints against third level officials who are not presidential appointees;
5. Complaints against Civil Service officials and employees which are not acted upon by the agencies
and such other complaints requiring direct or immediate action, in the interest of justice;
6. Requests for transfer of venue of hearing on cases being heard by Civil Service Regional Offices;
7. Appeals from the Order of Preventive Suspension; and
8. Such other actions or requests involving issues arising out of or in connection with the foregoing
enumerations.
B. Non-Disciplinary
1. Decisions of Civil Service Commission Regional Offices brought before it;
2. Requests for favorable recommendation on petition for executive clemency;
3. Protests against the appointment, or other personnel actions, involving third level officials; and
4. Such other analogous actions or petitions arising out of or in relation with the foregoing enumerations.
Section 6. Jurisdiction of Civil Service Regional Offices. The Civil Service Commission Regional
Offices shall have jurisdiction over the following cases:
A. Disciplinary
1. Complaints initiated by, or brought before, the Civil Service Commission Regional Offices provided
that the alleged acts or omissions were committed within the jurisdiction of the Regional Office,
including Civil Service examination anomalies or irregularities and the persons complained of are
employees of agencies, local or national, within said geographical areas;
2. Complaints involving Civil Service Commission Regional Office personnel who are appointees of
said office; and
19
3. Petitions to place respondent under Preventive Suspension.
B. Non-Disciplinary
1. Disapproval of appointments brought before it on appeal;
2. Protests against the appointments of first and second level employees brought before it directly or on
appeal. (Emphasis supplied)
Respondent, a state university president with a fixed term of office appointed by the governing board
of trustees of the university, is a non-career civil service officer. He was appointed by the chairman
and members of the governing board of CVPC. By clear provision of law, respondent is a non-career
civil servant who is under the jurisdiction of the CSC.
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. Hernandez, GR No. 71818, Aug 19, 1986
Facts: A case was filed against the MWSS before an arbitration branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) on charges of failure to pay wage differentials, allowances and other monetary benefits to
its contractual employees numbering 2,500 or so. MWSS asserted:
1. it is a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC), and therefore the NLRC has no
jurisdiction over the case
2. assuming the contrary arguendo, the terms and conditions of the complainants who are all contractual
employees are governed by their respective contracts
Hernandez, the Labor Arbiter, ruled against MWSS, observing that:
1. If the complainants were regular employees, the NLRC would have no jurisdiction; but since the
complainants were non-regular or contractual employees, the NLRC has jurisdiction.
2. The Civil Service Decree applies to employees in government corporations in all matters except
monetary claims, which is governed by the Labor Code.
MWSS filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition at the Supreme Court to invalidate the decision of the Labor
Arbiter.
Issue: Are contractual employees of the MWSS covered by the Labor Code or by laws and regulations governing
the civil service?
Decision: The decision and order of the Labor Arbiter, having been rendered without jurisdiction, are declared
void and set aside.
National Housing Corporation vs. Juco: employees of the GOCCs are governed by civil service law, rules and
regulations; the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over them.
It is uncontested that MWSS is a GOCC; therefore, employment in the MWSS is governed by the civil service law,
rules and regulations; and controversies arising from or connected with that employment are not cognizable by
the NLRC.
There is no legal or logical justification for the distinction made by the Labor Arbiter between regular and non-
regular employees of the MWSS in order to justify its jurisdiction. Positions in the civil service are classified into
20
career and non-career service, the latter of which includes contractual personnel
Quimpo vs. Tanodbayan, GR No. 72553, Dec 2, 1986

Tanodbayan Has Jurisdiction over all Government Owned Firms Regardless of How Organized.
FACTS:
F. Quimpo filed a complaint w/ the Tanodbayan (TB) charging G. Dimaano and D. Remo, manager and
analyst of Petrophil, w/ viol. of RA 3019 for their refusal to pay Quimpo's fees as surveyor. The TB
dismissed the complaint, however, on the ground that his jurisdiction extended only to govt owned
corps. organized under a special law. Petrophil is a corp. organized under the Gen. Corp. Code; it was
acquired by the govt to carry out its oil and gasoline programs.
Quimpo filed a petition for certiorari, questioning the decision of the TB. The new TB confessed judgm
ent.
ISSUE: WON PETROPHIL is a government owned or controlled corporation whose employees fall
within the jurisdictional purview of the Tanodbayan for purposes of the Antigraft and
Corrupt Practices Act?
HELD: YES.
Uphold the Tanodbayan jurisdiction. While it may be that PETROPHIL was not originally
"created" as a GOCC, PETROPHIL became a subsidiary of PNOC and thus shed-
off its private status. It is now funded and owned by the government as in fact, it was acquired to
perform functions related to governmental programs and policies on oil. It was acquired not temporarily
but as a permanent adjunct to perform essential government related functions. Adapted. xxx The
meaning thus given to "govtowned or controlled corps." for purposes of the civil service provision [Art.
IX, B, Sec. 2 (1)] should likewise apply for purposes of the TB and SB provisions [Art. XI, Secs. 4 and
12], otherwise, incongruity would result; and a govtowned corp. could create as many subsidiary corps.
under the Corp. Code it wishes, w/c would then be free from strict accountability and could escape the
liabilities and responsibilities provided by law. xxx
Khan, Jr. vs. Ombudsman, GR No. 125296, July 20, 2006

Carandang vs. Desierto, GR No. 148076, Jan 12, 2011
Torres vs. De Leon, GR No. 199440, Jan 18, 2016
LRT Authority vs. Pili, GR No. 202047, June 8, 2016
*LRT Authority vs. Alvarez, GR No. 188047, Nov 28, 2016
National Transmission Commission vs. COA, GR No. 223625, Nov 22, 2016
a. Terms, Conditions of Employment in the Civil Service
i. Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution
Art. IX, B, Sec. 4
Sec. 4. All public officers and employees shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold
and defend the Constitution.
Art. XI, Sec. 18

Sec. 18. Public officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution allegiance at all
times, and any public officer or employee who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an
21
immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by law.
ii. Merit System

a) Appointment of Defeated Candidates
Art. IX, B, Sec. 6
Sec. 6. No candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one year after such
election, be appointed to any office in the Government, or any government-owned or controlled
corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.
Art. 244, Revised Penal Code

Art. 244. Unlawful appointments. Any public officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to
any public office any person lacking the legal qualifications therefor, shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
People vs. Sandiganbayan & Villapando, GR No. 164185, July 23, 2008
b) Ban on Holding Multiple Positions
Art. IX, B, Sec. 7
Sec. 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any
capacity to any public office or position during his tenure.
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official
shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
Art. VII, Sec. 13

Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies
or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employme
nt during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other
profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any
franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly
avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the
President shall not during his tenure be appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the
Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Under-secretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices,
including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
Art. VI, Sec. 13

Sec. 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other
office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without
forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the
emoluments thereof
increased during the term for which he was elected.
22
Art. VIII, Sec. 8 (1) (3) and Sec. 12
Sec. 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the
Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice, as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice and a
representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor
of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.
xxx
(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep
a record of its proceedings.
Sec. 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be
designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
Debulgado vs. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 111471, Sept 26, 1994
*CLU vs. Executive Secretary, GR No. 83896, Feb 22, 1991
FACTS:
The petitioner challenged Ex. Order No. 284 which in effect allowed Cabinet members, their
undersecretaries and asst. secretaries and other appointive officials of the Executive Department to hold
other positions in the govt., albeit, subject of the limitations imposed therein. The respondents, in refuting
the petitioners' argument that the measure was violative of Art. VIII, Sec. 13, invoked Art. IXB, Sec. 7,
allowing the holding of multiple positions by the appointive
official if allowed by law or by the pressing functions of his positions.
HELD: By ostensibly restricting the no. of positions

that Cabinet members, undersecretaries or asst. secretaries may hold in addition to their primary position
to not more than 2 positions in the govt. and GOCCs, EO 284 actually allows them to hold multiple
offices or employment in direct contravention of the express mandate of Art. VIII, Sec. 13 prohibiting
them from doing so, unless otherwise provided in the 1987 Constitution itself. If maximum benefits are
to be derived from a dept. head's ability and expertise, he should be allowed to attend to
his duties and responsibilities without the distraction of other govt. offices or employment.
xxx
The stricter prohibition applied to the Pres. and his official family under Sec. 13, Art. VII as
compared to the prohibition applicable to appointive officials in general under Art. IX, B, Sec. 7, par. 2
are proof of the intent of the 1987 Consti. to treat them as a class by itself and to impose upon
said class stricter prohibitions.
Thus, while all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office or
employment in the govt during their tenure when such is allowed by law or by the primary functions of
their positions, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants may do so only when expressly
authorized by the Consti. itself.
Xxx
However, the prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices or employment under Art. VII,
Sec. 13 must not be construed as applying to posts occupied by the Executive officials specified therein
w/o addition compensation in an exofficio capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary
functions of said official's office. The reason is that these posts do not comprise "any other office" w/in
the contemplation of the constitutional prohibition but are properly an imposition of additional duties and
23
function on said officials. Adapted.
*Flores vs. Drilon, GR No. 104732, June 22, 1993

FACTS:
Mayor Richard Gordon of Olongapo City was appointed Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) under
Sec. 13, par (d) of RA 7227 "Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992. ISSUE: W/N proviso in
Sec 13 par (d) of RA 7227 which states, "Provided, however that for the first year of its
operations from the effectivity of this Act, the mayor of the City of Olongapo shall be appointed as the ch
airman and chief executive officer of the Subic Authority," violates the constitutional proscription against
appointment or designation of elective officials to other government posts.
HELD: YES.
Sec 7 of Art IXB of the Consti provides: "No elective official shall be legible for appointment or
designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure."
In the case at bar, the subject proviso directs the President to appoint an elective official, i.e.
Mayor of Olongapo City, to other governmental post. Since this is precisely what the constitutional
proscription seeks to prevent, it needs no stretching of the imagination to conclude that the proviso
contravenes Sec. 7, 1st par of Art IXB. While the second par. authorizes the holding of multiple offices
by an appointive position, there is no exception to the first paragraph
except as are particularly recognized in the Constitution itself.
Futhermore, the proviso is a legislative encroachment on appointing authority to only one eligible
i.e. the incumbent Mayor of Olongapo City. The conferment of the appointing power is a perfectly valid
legislative act but the proviso limiting his choice to one is an encroachment to his prerogative.
Thus, Mayor Gordon is ineligible for appointment throughout his tenure but may resign first from
his elective office before he may be considered for appointment. He has a choice.
Sec. 13 par (d) is declared unconstitutional and the appointment of Mayor Gordon is invalid but
his previous acts as Chairman of SBMA shall be considered that of a de facto officer. Adapted.
Lorenzana vs. Fajardo, AC No. 5712, June 29, 2005

iii. Standardization of Pay & Ban on Double Compensation
Art. IX, B, Sec. 13
Art. IX, B, Sec. 5
Art. IX, B, Sec. 8
Book V, Title I, Chapter 8, Sec. 56 of Admin Code of 1987
Santos vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 139792, Nov 22, 2000
iv. Ban on Partisan Political Activities
Trinidad vs. Valle, Jr., AM No. 2258-CFI, July 20, 1981
Vistan vs. Nicolas, AM No. MTJ-87-79, Sept 13, 1991, Dec 2, 1991
Art. XVI, Sec. 5 (3)
Cailles vs. Bonifacio, GR No. L-45937, Feb 25, 1938
Section 2, Art. XI of the 1935 Constitution
24
Santos vs. Yatco, GR No. L-16133, Nov 6, 1959
v. Removal or Suspension only for Cause
De los Santos vs. Mallare, GR No. L-3881, Aug 31, 1950
Salazar vs. Mathay, Sr., GR No. L-44061, Sep 20, 1976
Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Sr., GR No. L-23721, Mar 31, 1965
Ingles vs. Mutuc, GR No. L-20390, Nov 29, 1968
Cristobal vs. Melchor, GR No. L-43203, July 29, 1977, Dec 29, 1980
PAGCOR vs. Angara, GR No. 142937, Nov 15, 2005, July 25, 2006
Pinero vs. Hechanova, GR No. L-22562, Oct 22, 1966
PAGCOR vs. Rilloraza, GR No. 141141, June 25, 2001
Provincial Government of Camarines Norte vs. Gonzales, GR No. 185740, July 23, 2013
Grio vs. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 91602, Feb 26, 1991
Samson vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. L-43182, Nov 25, 1986
Borres vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. L-36845, Aug 21, 1987
Astraquillo vs. Manglapus, GR No. 88183, Oct 3, 1990
Tamano vs. Manglapus, GR No. 102787, Oct 13, 1992
Civil Service Commission vs. Salas, GR No. 123708, June 19, 1997
Pat-og, Sr. vs. CSC, GR No. 198755, June 5, 2013
Dimapilis-Baldoz vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 199114, July 16, 2013
UP and De Torres vs. CSC, GR 132860, April 3, 2001
Carbonel vs. CSC, GR No. 187689, Sep 7 2010
Gonzales vs. Gayta, GR No. 143514, Aug 8, 2002
Garcia vs. Molina, GR No. 165223, Jan 11, 2016
*Ombudsman vs. Delos Reyes, Jr. GR No. 208976, Oct 13, 2014, Feb 22, 2016
Alfornon vs. Delos Santos, GR No. 203657, July 11, 2016
Yamson vs. Castro, GR No. 194763-64, July 20, 2016
Campol vs. Balao-As, GR No. 197634, Nov 28, 2016
vi. Right of Self-Organization
Art. III, Sec. 8
Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 6, Sec. 38 of Administrative Code of 1987
*Alliance of Govt Workers vs. Minister of Labor, GR No. L-60403, Aug 3, 1983
*National Service Corp. vs. NLRC, GR No. L-69870, Nov 29, 1988
*TUPAS vs. National Housing Corp, GR No. L-49677, May 4, 1989
vii. Right to Strike
SSS Employees Association vs. CA, GR No. 85279, July 28, 1989
EO 180
*Manila Public School Teachers Assn vs. Laguio, GR No. 95445, Aug 6, 1991
viii. Permissible Concerted Mass Action
Davao City Water District vs. Aranjuez, GR No. 194192, June 16, 2015
ix. Right to Privacy
Pollo vs. Constantino-David, GR No. 181881, October 18, 2011
b. Representation by Counsel
BSP vs. Legaspi, GR No. 205966, Mar 2, 2016
25
First Mega Holdings Corp. vs. Guiguinto Water District, GR No. 208383, June 8, 2016
Land Bank vs. Sps. Amagan, GR No. 209794, June 27, 2016
*Onate vs. COA, GR No. 213660, July 5, 2016
9. Review of the Decisions of the CSC
Art. IX, A, Sec. 7
Dario vs. Mison, GR No. 81954, Aug 8, 1989
Manalansang vs. CSC, GR No. 93500, Feb 5, 1991
Mancita vs. Barcinas, GR No. 98120, Dec 22, 1992
Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson, GR No. 191787, June 22, 2015
10. Fiscal Autonomy
Art. IX, A, Sec. 5
Civil Service Commission vs. Department of Budget and Management, GR No. 158791, July 22, 2005,
Feb 10, 2006
11. Appointments
Approval of Appointments by the CSC
Barrozo vs. CSC, GR No. 93479, June 25, 1991
Abad vs. Dela Cruz, GR No. 207422, March 18, 2015
Luego vs. Civil Service Commission, GR No. L-69137, Aug 5, 1986
Central Bank vs. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 80455-56, Apr 10, 1989
Aquino vs. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 92403, Apr 22, 1992
Temporary Appointments
Romualdez vs. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 94878-81, May 15, 1991
Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 104639, July 14, 1995
Decano vs. Edu, GR No. L-30070, Aug 29, 1980
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila vs. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 107590, Feb 21, 1995
Padilla vs. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 149451, May 8, 2003
Lack of Eligibility after Reorganization
National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration vs. CSC, GR No. 84301, Apr 7, 1993
De Tavera vs. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 95915, Aug 16, 1991
Imposition of Additional Qualifications by the CSC
Juliano vs. Subido, GR No. L-30825, Feb 25, 1975
Declaration of Vacancy
Mayor vs. Macaraig, GR No. 87211, Mar 5, 1991
CAAP Employees Union vs. CAAP, GR No. 190120, November 11, 2014
Demotion
Alim vs. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 99391, Dec 2, 1991
Gayatao vs. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 93064, June 22, 1992
Unclassified Service
Balquidra vs. Court of First Instance of Capiz, GR No. L-40490, Oct 28, 1977
Orcullo vs. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 138780, May 22, 2001
Effect of Acceptance of Separation Pay
Dytiapco vs. Civil Service Commission, GR No. 92136, July 3, 1992
Validity of Appointment Dependent on Legality of Dismissal
Costin vs. Quimbo, GR No. L-32271, Jan 27, 1983
Transfers
26
Department of Education, Culture and Sports vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 81032, Mar 22, 1990
*De Guzman vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 129118, July 19, 2000
Cario vs. Daoas, GR No. 144493, Apr 9, 2002
Pastor vs. City of Pasig, GR No. 146873, May 9, 2002
Rualo vs. Pitargue, GR No. 140284, Jan 21, 2005
Appointment of ARMM Regional Governor
Buena, Jr. vs. Benito, GR No. 181760, October 14, 2014
Good Faith Appointments
Posadas vs. Sandiganbayan, GR Nos. 168951 & 169000, July 17, 2013, November 27, 2013
B. Commission on Elections
1. Composition & Qualifications of Commissioners
Art. IX, C, Sec. 1 (1)
Art. VII, Sec. 13
*Macalintal vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 157013, July 10, 2003
Cayetano vs. Monsod, GR No. 100113, Sept 3, 1991
2. Appointment & Term of Office and Rule against Reappointment
Nacionalista Party vs. Angelo Bautista, GR No. L-3452, Dec 7, 1949
Brillantes vs. Yorac, GR No. 93867, Dec 18, 1990
Art. IX-A, Sec. 1
Nacionalista Party vs. COMELEC, GR No. L-3521, Dec 13, 1949
Republic vs. Imperial, GR No. L-8684, Mar 31, 1955
*Matibag vs. Benipayo, GR No. 149036, Apr 2, 2002
3. Appointment of Personnel
Art. IX, A, Sec. 4
4. Salary
Art. IX, A, Sec. 3
Art. XVIII, Sec. 17
5. Disqualification
Art. IX, A, Sec. 2
6. Impeachment
Art. XI, Sec. 2
7. Powers & Functions of the COMELEC
a. Enforce Election Laws
Gallardo vs. Tabamo, GR No. 104848, Jan 29, 1993
Bagumbayan-VNP Movement Inc. vs. COMELEC, GR No. 222731, March 8, 2016
Jalosjos vs. COMELEC, GR No. 205033, June 18, 2013
Bankers Association vs. COMELEC, GR No. 206794, November 26, 2013
Svetlana Jalosjos vs. COMELEC, GR No. 193314, February 26, 2013, June 25, 2013
Arroyo vs. Department of Justice, GR No. 199082, September 18, 2012, July 23, 2013
Social Weather Station vs. COMELEC, GR No. 208062, April 7, 2015
1-UTAK vs. COMELEC, GR No. 206020, April 14, 2015
Aquino vs. COMELEC, GR No. 211789-90, March 17, 2015
27
Timbol vs. COMELEC, GR No. 206004, February 24, 2015
Aksyon MagsasakaTinig ng Masa vs. COMELEC, GR No. 207134, June 16, 2015
Kabataan Party-List vs. COMELEC, GR No. 221318, December 16, 2015
Caballero vs. COMELEC, GR No. 209835, September 22, 2015
Rappler, Inc. vs. Bautista, GR No. 222702, Apr 5, 2016
Chong vs. Senate, GR No. 217725, May 31, 2016
Bagumbayan-VNP vs. COMELEC, GR No. 222731, Mar 8, 2016
b. Decide Administrative Questions re Election except Right to Vote
Pungutan vs. Abubakar, GR No. L-33541, Jan 20, 1972
*Jalosjos vs. COMELEC, GR No. 205033, June 18, 2013
Querubin vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 218787, December 8, 2015
Abayon vs. HRET and Daza, GR No. 222236, May 3, 2016
c. Petition for Inclusion or Exclusion of Voters
Omnibus Election Code, Art. XII, Sec. 117-118
Cristobal vs. Labrador, GR No. L-47941, Dec 7, 1940
Omnibus Election Code, Art. XII, Sec. 138, 139, 142
d. Prosecute Election Law Violators
*BP Blg. 881, Sec. 265
EO 134, Sec. 11, February 27, 1987
De Jesus vs. People, GR No. L-61998, Feb 22, 1983
Corpus vs. Tanodbayan, GR No. L-62075, Apr 15, 1987
People vs. Basilla, GR No. 83938-40, Nov 6, 1989
People vs. Inting, GR No. 88919, July 25, 1990
Art. III, Sec. 2
Kilosbayan vs. Comelec ,GR 128054, Oct 16, 1997
People vs. Delgado, GR No. 93419-32, Sept 18, 1990
Commission on Elections vs. Silva, GR No. 129417, Feb 10, 1998
Commission on Elections vs. Tagle, GR No. 148948, Feb 17, 2003
Bedol vs. COMELEC, GR No. 179830, Dec 3 2009
e. Recommend Pardon, Amnesty, Parole or Suspension of Sentence of Election Law Violators
Art. IX, C, Sec. 5
f. Deputize Law Enforcement Agents & Recommend Their Removal
People vs. Basilla, GR No. 83938-40, Nov 6, 1989
Tan vs. Commission on Elections, GR 112093, Oct. 4, 1994
g. Registration of Parties, Organizations & Coalitions & Accreditation of Citizens Arms
LDP vs. Comelec, GR No. 161265, Feb 24, 2004
Atienza vs. Comelec, GR No. 188920, Feb 16, 2010
*Magdalo para sa Pagbabago vs. COMELEC, GR No. 190793, June 19 2012
Art. IX, C, Sec. 7
28
Art. IX, C, Sec. 8
Art. VI, Sec. 5 (2)
Art. XVIII, Sec. 7
h. Regulation of Public Utilities & Media of Information
Art. IX, C, Sec. 4
Unido vs. Comelec, GR No. 56515, April 3, 1981
National Press Club vs. COMELEC, GR No. 102653, March 05, 1992
*R.A. 6646
Chavez vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 162777, Aug 31, 2004
Adiong vs. COMELEC, GR No. 103956, Mar 31, 1992
GMA Network, Inc vs. COMELEC, GR No. 205357, Sept 2, 2014
*Fair Election Act (RA 9006)
Art. IX, C, Sec. 9
i. Decide Election Contests
Art. IX, C, Sec. 3
R.A. 7166, Sec. 22
Relampagos vs. Cumba, GR 118861, April 27, 1995
Lagumbay vs. COMELEC, GR No. L-25444 (January 31, 1966)
Omnibus Election Code, Sec. 242
COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, Rule 6, Sec. 1
Bulilis vs. Nuez, GR No. 195953, August 9, 2011
Villarosa vs. Festin, GR No. 212953, Aug 5, 2014
Filipinas Engineering & Machine Shop vs. Ferrer, GR No. L-31455, Feb 28, 1985
Cagas vs. COMELEC, GR No. 194139, Jan 24, 2012
Baytan vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 153945, Feb 4, 2003
Commission on Elections vs. Silva, GR No. 129417, Feb 10, 1998
Manzala vs. Comelec, GR 176211, May 8, 2007
Masangcay vs. Comelec, GR No. L-13827, Sept 28, 1962
Legaspi vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 216572, September 1, 2015, April 19, 2016
Ty-Delgado vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, GR No. 219603, January 26, 2016
Poe-Llamanzares vs. COMELEC, GR No. 221697, Mar 8, 2016
Diambrang vs. COMELEC, GR No. 201809, Oct 11, 2016
Chua vs. COMELEC, GR No. 216607, Apr 5, 2016
Dano vs. COMELEC, GR No. 210200, Sep 13, 2016
Engle vs. COMELEC, GR No. 215995, Jan 19, 2016
Labao, Jr. vs. COMELEC, GR No. 212615, July 19, 2016
Javier vs. COMELEC, GR No. 215847, Jan 12, 2016
8. Rule-Making
Art. IX, A, Sec. 6
Art. IX, C, Sec. 3
Aruelo, Jr. vs. CA, GR No. 107852, Oct. 20, 1993
*Lokin vs. COMELEC, GR No. 193808, June 26 2012
9. Other Functions
Art. IX, A, Sec. 8
29
10. Act as National Board of Canvassers for Senators
EO 144, Sec. 2, March 2, 1987
11. Review of COMELEC Decisions, Orders, and Resolutions
Art. IX, A, Sec. 7
Flores vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 89604, Apr 20, 1990
Sarmiento vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 105628, Aug 6, 1992
*Milla vs. Balmores-Laxa, GR No. 151216, July 18, 2003
*Munoz vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 170678, July 17, 2006
*Bautista vs. Commission on Elections, GR Nos. 154796-97, Oct 23, 2003
Baytan vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 153945, Feb 4, 2003
*Jaramilla vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 155717, Oct 23, 2003
*Mutilan vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 171248, Apr 2, 2007
Galido vs. COMELEC, GR No. 95346, Jan 18, 1991
*Rivera vs. COMELEC, GR No. 95336, July 12, 1991
12. Fiscal Autonomy
Art. IX, A, Sec. 5
*Bulilis vs. Nuez, GR No. 195953, August 9, 2011
CSC vs. Dacoycoy, GR No. 135805, Apr 29, 1999
Premature Campaigning
Penera vs. Comelec, GR No. 181613, Sept 11, 2009, Nov 25, 2009
Goh vs. Bayron, GR No. 212584, Nov 25, 2014
Aratea vs. COMELEC, GR No. 195229, October 9, 2012
Maquiling vs. COMELEC, GR No. 195649, April 16, 2013, July 2, 2013
Jalosjos, Jr. vs. COMELEC, GR No. 193237, October 9, 2012
Pabillo vs. COMELEC, GR No. 216098, April 21, 2015
C. Commission on Audit
1. Composition and Qualifications
Art. IX, D, Sec. 1 (1)
Art. VII, Sec. 13
2. Appointment and Term of Commissioners
Art. IX, D, Sec. 1 (2)
3. Appointment of COA Personnel
Art. IX, A, Sec. 4
4. Salary
Art. IX, A, Sec. 3
Art. XVIII, Sec. 17
Art. IX, A, Sec. 2
6. Impeachment
Art. XI, Sec. 2
7. Powers and Functions
Art. IX, D, Sec. 2
COA Circular 2009-002, May 18, 2009
30
Veloso vs COA, GR No. 193677, September 6, 2011
Feliciano vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 147402, Jan 14, 2004
Laguesma vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 185544, January 13, 2015
Duty Free Philippines vs. COA, GR No. 210991, July 12, 2016
Paraiso-Aban vs. COA, GR No. 217948, Jan 12, 2016
Verceles, Jr. vs. COA, GR No. 211553, Sep 13, 2016
Zamboanga City Water District vs. COA, GR No. 213472, Jan 26, 2016
Metropolitan Naga Water District vs. COA, GR No. 218072, Mar 8, 2016
PHIC vs. COA, GR No. 213453, Nov 29, 2016
Onate vs. COA, GR No. 213660, July 5, 2016
Art. IX, D, Sec. 3
Art. VI, Sec. 20
8. Rule Making
Art. IX, A, Sec. 6
9. Other Functions
Art. IX, A, Sec. 8
Yap vs. COA, GR No. 158562, April 23, 2010
*Veloso vs COA, GR No. 193677, September 6, 2011
10. Review of Decisions of COA
Art. IX, A, Sec. 7
Daraga Press, Inc. vs. COA, GR No. 201042, June 16, 2015
Fontanilla vs. Commissioner Proper, GR No. 209714, June 21, 2016
PHIC vs. COA, GR No. 213453, Nov 29, 2016
11. Fiscal Autonomy
Art. IX, A, Sec. 5
Re-appointment
Funa vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 192791, Apr 24, 2012
i. Post-Audit of Pre-Audited Contract
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. L-107016, Mar 11, 1994
ii. Audit of Private Entities: Instances
Blue Bar Coconut Philippines, Inc. vs. Tantuico, GR No. L-47051, July 29, 1988
Phil. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 169752, Sept
25, 2007
iii. Scope of Powers and Functions
a. Intra Vires
Euro-Med Laboratories, Phil., Inc. vs. Province of Batangas, GR No. 148106, July 17, 2006
Dingcong vs. Guingona, GR No. 76044, June 28, 1988
Danville Maritime, Inc. vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 85285, July 28, 1989
Laysa vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 128134, Oct 18, 2000
National Electrification Administration vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 143481, Feb 15, 2002
Caltex Philippines. Inc. vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 92585, May 8, 1992
National Housing Corporation vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 101370, Sept 2, 1993
Polloso vs. Gangan, GR No. 140563, July 14, 2000
b. Ultra Vires
Aguinaldo vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 124471, Nov 28, 1996
31
Ramos vs. Aquino, GR No. L-28594, June 30, 1971
F.F. Manacop Construction Co. Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 122196, Jan 15, 1997
Uy vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 130685, Mar 21, 2000
iv. Prohibition against Exemption from Audit
Bustamante vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 103309, Nov 27, 1992
v. Audit by Private Auditor
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 88435, Jan 16, 2002
Commission on Audit vs. Link Worth International, Inc., GR No. 182559, Mar 13, 2009
Parreno vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 162224, June 7, 2007
D. Sandiganbayan
Art. XI, Sec. 4
PD 1606 as Amended by R.A. 7975
Nunez vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. L-50581-50617, Jan 30, 1982
POTC vs. Africa, GR No. 184622, July 3, 2013
Duncano vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 191894, July 15, 2015
PCGG vs. Dumayas, GR No. 210901, August 11, 2015
POTC vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 174462, Feb 10, 2016
Duque, Jr. vs. Brillantes, AC No. 9912, Sep 21, 2016
Inocentes vs. People, GR No. 205963-64, July 7, 2016
E. Office of the Ombudsman

P.D. 1603, June 11, 1978
R.A. 6770, Nov 17, 1989
1. Composition
Art. XI, Sec. 5
2. Qualifications
Art. XI, Sec. 8
3. Appointment and Term
Art. XI, Sec. 9, 11
4. Rank and Salary
Art. XI, Sec. 10
Art. XI Sec. 8
Art. IX, A, Sec. 2
Art. XI, Sec. 16
6. Jurisdiction
Art. XI, Sec. 12
Quimpo vs. Tanodbayan, GR No. 72553, Dec 2, 1986
7. Powers and Functions
Art. XI, Sec. 13
PCGG vs. Ombudsman, GR No. 206357, November 12, 2014
Ampil vs. Ombudsman, GR No. 192685, July 31, 2013
Busuego vs. Ombudsman Mindanao, GR No. 196842, October 9, 2013
32
People vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 188165, December 11, 2013
People vs. Sandiganbayan, GR Nos. 185729-32, June 26, 2013
Orais vs. Almirante, GR No. 181195, June 10, 2013
Ombudsman vs. de Chavez, GR No. 172206, July 3, 2013
Dagan vs. Ombudsman, GR No. 184083, November 19, 2013
Ombudsman vs. delos Reyes, Jr., GR No. 208976, October 13, 2014, Feb 22, 2016
Bueno vs. Ombudsman, GR No. 191712, September 17, 2014
Ombudsman vs. Valencerina, GR No. 178343, July 14, 2014
Carpio-Morales vs. CA, GR No. 217126-27, November 10, 2015
Ciron vs. Gutierrez, GR No. 194339-41, April 20, 2015
Gonzales vs. Serrano. GR No. 175433, March 11, 2015
Aguinaldo vs. Ventus, GR No. 176033, March 11, 2015
Ombudsman vs. Castro, GR No. 172637, April 22, 2015
Morales, Jr. vs. Carpio-Morales, GR No. 208086, July 27, 2017
Cambe vs. Ombudsman, GR No. 212014-15, Dec 6, 2016
Joson vs. Ombudsman, GR No. 210220-21, Apr 6, 2016
8. Fiscal Autonomy
Art. XI, Sec. 14
9. Appointment of Personnel
Art. XI, Sec. 6
F. Office of the Special Prosecutor
Art. XI, Sec. 7
Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 79690-707, L-80578, Apr 27, 1988, Oct 7, 1988, Feb 1, 1989
Sec. 10, 12-15 and 17 of PD 1630, July 18, 1979
Office of the Ombudsman vs. CSC, GR No. 162215, July 30, 2007
Perez vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 166062, Sept 26, 2006
Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 140199-200, Feb 6, 2002
People vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 147706-07, February 16, 2005
Deloso vs. Domingo, GR No. 90591, Nov 21, 1990
Almonte vs. Vasquez, GR No. 95367, May 23, 1995
Raro vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 108431, July 14, 2000
Presl Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee vs. Desierto, GR No. 130140, Oct 25, 1999
Laxina vs. Office of the Ombudsman, GR No. 153155, Sept 30, 2005
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Estandarte, GR No. 168670, Apr 13, 2007
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Madriaga, GR No. 164316, Sept 27, 2006
33

The Real Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Real Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

Art. IX, A, Sec. 1

Brillantes vs. Yorac, GR No. 93867, Dec 18, 1990

Funa vs. Chairman, GR No. 191672, November 25, 2014

RULING: (Partially Granted)

Sevilla, Jr. vs. COMELEC, GR 203833, March 19, 2013

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration

...majority vote requires a vote of four members of the Comelec en banc.

A. Civil Service Commission

Art. VII, Sec. 13

2. Appointment & Term of Office

Gaminde vs. Commission on Audit, GR No. 140335, Dec 13, 2000

3. Appointment of Personnel of CSC

De Guzman vs. Commission on Elections, GR No. 129118, July 19, 2000

ISSUE: W/N Sec. 44 of RA 8189 is unconstitutional

Art. IX, A, Sec. 3

7. Functions of the CSC

Art. IX, A, Sec. 7- 8

Lazo vs. CSC, GR No. 108824, September 14, 1994

Ruling: the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Digest by: Nico Mendiola

Cruz vs. CSC, GR No. 144464, November 27, 2001

Torregoza vs. CSC, GR No. 101526, July 3, 1992

Petition was hereby dismissed due to lack of merit.

Olanda vs. Bugayong, GR No. 140917, October 10, 2003

The test to determine whether a corporation is government-owned or controlled, or private in nature is

8. Scope of the Civil Service

Art. XII, Sec. 16

TUPAS vs. National Housing Corp, GR No. L-49677, May 4, 1989

Under the 1973 constitution, ALL TYPES of

CSC vs. Sojor, GR No. 168766, May 22, 2008

(6) Personnel of government-owned or controlled corporations, whether performing governmental or

(7) Permanent laborers, whether skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled.30

The Non-Career Service shall include:

(1) Elective officials and their personal or confidential staff;

(5) Emergency and seasonal personnel.34

2. Decisions of heads of departments, agencies, provinces, cities, municipalities and other

3. Complaints brought against Civil Service Commission Proper personnel;

7. Appeals from the Order of Preventive Suspension; and

1. Decisions of Civil Service Commission Regional Offices brought before it;

2. Requests for favorable recommendation on petition for executive clemency;

1. Disapproval of appointments brought before it on appeal;

Hernandez, the Labor Arbiter, ruled against MWSS, observing that:

Quimpo vs. Tanodbayan, GR No. 72553, Dec 2, 1986

Khan, Jr. vs. Ombudsman, GR No. 125296, July 20, 2006

Art. XI, Sec. 18

ii. Merit System

Art. 244, Revised Penal Code

Art. VII, Sec. 13

Art. VI, Sec. 13

HELD: By ostensibly restricting the no. of positions

*Flores vs. Drilon, GR No. 104732, June 22, 1993

Lorenzana vs. Fajardo, AC No. 5712, June 29, 2005

E. Office of the Ombudsman

You might also like