D. SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY V.
ATIENZA personal services; and allows the LGUs to withhold a
RULING:
“The mayor has the mandatory legal duty to
enforce Ordinances because the Local Government
Code imposes upon them the duty, as city mayor, to
“enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the
governance of the city.” As the chief executive of the
city, he has the duty to enforce Ordinances as long as it
has not been repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by
the courts. He has no other choice. It is his ministerial
duty to do so”.
In Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr., it provides that
officers cannot refuse to perform their duty on the
ground of an alleged invalidity of the statute imposing
the duty. It might seriously hinder the transaction of
public business if these officers were to be permitted in
all cases to question the constitutionality of statutes
and ordinances imposing duties upon them and which
have not judicially been declared unconstitutional.
I. PLAZA II VS CASSION
RULING:
Sec.17 of the LGC authorizes the devolution of
personnel, assets & liabilities, records basic services,
and facilities of a national government agency to LGUs.
Under this Code, the term “devolution” refers to the act
by which the government confers power and authority
upon the various LGUs to perform specific functions &
responsibilities.
“A Mayor is empowered to give effect to the
devolution decreed by the LGC. As the local chief
executive of a Mayor has the authority to reappoint
devolved personnel & may designate an employee to
take charge of a department until the appointment of a
regular head”.
III. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
C. PIMENTEL vs. AQUIRRE
FACTS:
Subject of this action is AO 372 requires local
government units to reduce their expenditures by 25%
of their authorized regular appropriations for non-
portion of their internal revenue allotments.
Petitioner filed to the SC a petition for certiorari
and prohibition, contending that the President, in
issuing the said AO, was in effect exercising the power
of control over LGUs; & that the directive to withhold a
portion of their IRA is in contravention of Sec. 286 of
the LGC & Sec. 6, Art. X of the Constitution.
ISSUE:
Whether Secs. 1 & 4 of AO 372 are valid
exercises of the President’s power of general
supervision over LGUs.
RULING:
The Local Government Code also allows the
President to interfere in local fiscal matters, provided
that certain requisites are met:
o (1) an unmanaged public sector deficit of the
national government;
o (2) consultations with the presiding officers of
the Senate and the House of Representatives and the
presidents of the various local leagues;
o (3) the corresponding recommendation of the
secretaries of the Department of Finance, Interior and
Local Government, and Budget and Management; and
o (4) any adjustment in the allotment shall in no
case be less than 30% of the collection of national
internal revenue taxes of the third fiscal year preceding
the current one.
However, Sec. 4 of AO 372 cannot be upheld. A
basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is the automatic
release of the shares of LGUs in the national internal
revenue. This is mandated by the Constitution and the
Local Government Code. Section 4 which orders the
withholding of a portion of the LGU’s IRA clearly
contravenes the Constitution and the law.
J. SECTION 57, LGC
SECTION 57. Review of Barangay Ordinances by the
Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan. - (a)
Within ten (10) days after its enactment, the
Sangguniang Barangay shall furnish copies of all
Barangay ordinances to the Sangguniang Panlungsod or The salaries and personnel-related benefits of the
Sangguniang bayan concerned for review as to whether teachers appointed by the provincial school board of
the ordinance is consistent with law and city or Cebu in connection with the establishment and
municipal ordinances. maintenance of extension classes are declared
chargeable against the Special Education Fund of the
(b) If the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang
province.
bayan, as the case may be, fails to take action on
Barangay ordinances within thirty (30) days from However, the expenses incurred for the college
receipt thereof, the same shall be deemed approved. scholarship grants should not be charged against the
Special Education Fund, but against the General Funds
(c) If the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang
of the province of Cebu. Since salaries, personnel-
bayan, as the case may be, finds the Barangay
related benefits and scholarship grants are not among
ordinances inconsistent with law or city or municipal
those authorized as lawful expenditures of the SEF
ordinances, the Sanggunian concerned shall, within
under the Local Government Code, they should be
thirty (30) days from receipt thereof, return the same
deemed excluded there from.
with its comments and recommendations to the
Sangguniang Barangay concerned for adjustment,
amendment, or modification; in which case, the
effectivity of the Barangay ordinance is suspended until
such time as the revision called for is effected.

0. COA VS PROVINCE OF CEBU

FACTS:

The provincial governor of the province of Cebu

appointed classroom teachers who have no items in the
DECS plantilla to handle extension classes that would
accommodate students in the public schools.

In the audit of accounts conducted by COA of the

Province of Cebu, it appeared that the salaries and
personnel-related benefits of the teachers appointed by
the province for the extension classes were charged
against the provincial SEF. Likewise charged to the SEF
were the college scholarship grants of the province.
Consequently, the COA issued Notices of Suspension to
the province of Cebu, saying that disbursements for the
salaries of teachers and scholarship grants are not
chargeable to the provincial SEF.

Ruling:

The Doctrine of Casus Ommisus (Casus omissus pro

omisso habendus es). A person, object, or thing omitted
from an enumeration in a statute must be held to have
been omitted intentionally. It is not for this Court to
supply such grant of scholarship where the legislature
has omitted it.