Sec. 71.

Election on Recall
  COMELEC sets election within 30 days upon completion of previous section in
barangay/city/municipality proceedings (45 days in case of provinces)
  Officials sought to be recalled are automatically candidates
5 

[Angobung vs Comelec (1997)]

 A petition for recall that is signed only by the petitioner but does not bear the names of
the citizens who have allegedly lost confidence in the official should be dismissed.
10 NOTE: Under RA9244, the Congress removed the Preparatory Recall Assembly as a mode of
recall.
Limitations on the Holding of Recalls Sec. 74.
a. Any elective official may be the subject of a recall election only once during his term of
office for loss of confidence.
15 b. No recall shall take place:
1. Within 1 year from the date of assumption of office of the official concerned
 Rationale: to provide a reasonable basis for judging the performance of an elective local official

2. Within 1 year immediately preceding a regular local election

20  Rationale: a recall election is potentially disruptive of the normal working of the LGU
necessitating additional expenses
  “Recall”, as used in par. b, sec. 74 prescribing the 1-year limitation, refers to
the “election” itself (not the process of initiating the recall proceedings). The purpose of the
1-year limitation from assumption is to prevent premature action without having sufficient time to
25 evaluate the official’s performance.
  As long as the election is held outside the 1- year period, the preliminary proceedings to
initiate recall can be held even before the end of 1 year from assumption.

[Paras v. COMELEC (1996)]

30 A Regular local election is necessary in order to replace the local elective official who is sought to
be recalled. This does not include SK elections.

35  G. Discipline
1. Administrative Action
 Coverage: administrative disciplinary charges against –
 the governors, and members of the sangguniang panlalawigan;
 the mayors, vice mayors, and members of the sangguniang panlungsod of highly
40 urbanized cities, independent component cities, and component cities;
and
  the mayors, vice mayors, and members of the sangguniang panlungsod or
bayan of cities or municipalities in Metropolitan Manila
 Disciplining Authority —The President, who may act through the Executive Secretary
45   May still constitute a Special
Investigating Committee in lieu of the DILG Secretary;
  Nothing shall prevent the President from assuming jurisdiction at any stage of the
proceedings over cases to be preliminarily investigated by the DILG; in
such an event, the same shall immediately be forwarded to the Special
50 Investigating Committee after it may have been constituted by the Disciplining Authority.
  Investigating Authority —DILG Secretary
o may constitute an Investigating Committee in the DILG for the conduct
of investigation
 Grounds for administrative action (discipline,suspension, removal):
55 MAD-VAD-CO
 1. Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines;
2. Culpable violation of the Constitution;
3. Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office, gross negligence, or dereliction of duty;
4. Commission of any offense involving moral turpitude or any offense punishable by at least
5 prision mayor, which is from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment;
5. Abuse of authority;
6. Unauthorized absence for 15 consecutive working days in case of local chief executives and 4
consecutive sessions in the case of members of the sanggunian;
7. Application for, or acquisition of, foreign citizenship or residence of the status of an immigrant
10 of another country; and
8. Such other grounds as may be provided by the Local Government Code of 1991; Republic Act
No. 6713; Republic Act No. 3019; Administrative Code of 1987; Revised Penal Code; and all
other applicable general and special laws.

15   How Initiated
1. by any private individual or any government officer or employee by filing a sworn written
complaint (verified)
2. by the Office of the President or any government agency duly authorized by law to ensure that
LGUs act within their prescribed powers and functions

20
[Joson vs Torres (290 S 279)]
Valid delegation. Under AO 23, the delegation of the power to investigate to the
Sec of Interior is valid. What cannot be delegated is the power to discipline. 

25
2. Penalties
a. Suspension
 Limitations: The penalty of suspension:
  shall not exceed the unexpired term of the respondent
30   shall not exceed a period of 6 months for every administrative offense
  shall not be a bar to the candidacy of the respondent so suspended as long
as he meets the qualifications required for the office. (Sec. 66, LGC)
  When the respondent has been meted 2 or more penalties of suspension for 2 or more
administrative offenses, such penalties shall be served successively (AO No. 159, Amending AO
35 23, Prescribing the Rules and Procedures on the Investigation of Administrative Disciplinary
Cases Against Elective Local Officials, 1994)
b. Removal
 An elective local official may be removed by order of the proper court. (sec. 60)
  The penalty of removal from office as a result of administrative investigation shall be
40 considered a bar to the candidacy of the respondent for any elective position. (sec. 66 c)
[cf. effect of penalty of suspension]

Proper court order

45   Local legislative bodies and/or the Office of the President cannot validly impose the
penalty of dismissal or removal from service on erring local elective officials. It is clear
from Sec. 60 of LGC that an elective local official may be removed from office on
the grounds enumerated above only by order of the proper court.
  Art. 124 (b), Rule XIX of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the LGC, which
 states that “an elective local official may be removed from office by order of the proper
court or the Disciplining Authority whichever first acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other”
is void for being repugnant to Sec. 60, LGC.

5 [Pablico v. Villapando (2002)]
But remember if it’s appointive, OP may remove.  Petitioners contest the administrative action
as being violative of Sec. 60, which mandates that an elective local official may be removed from
office only by order of the court, since the duration of the suspension being 12-20 months
exceeded their remaining terms. The suspension was allegedly tantamount to a removal.
10 
Held: An administrative offense means every act or conduct or omission which amounts to, or
constitutes, any of the grounds for disciplinary action. The offenses for which suspension may be
imposed are

15 .

3. Power of Tribunals
  The Ombudsman

20
  The Courts
 Sandiganbayan
PD 1606, as amended by RA 8249 RA 8249 provides that as long as one of the
accused is an official of the executive branch occupying the position otherwise
25 classified as SG 27 and higher, the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive original
jurisdiction. To vest Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction, public office must be an element
of the crime OR that without the public office, the crime could not have been committed.
[Rodriguez v. Sandiganbayan
(2004)]
30

4. Administrative AppealsSec. 67
  Within 30 days from receipt of decisions:
 5. Effect of Re-election
Ombudsman v CA,Binay
Many of the cases holding that re-election of a public official prevents his removal for acts done in a
5 preceding term of office are reasoned out on the theory of condonation. We cannot subscribe to that
theory because condonation, implying as it does forgiveness, connotes knowledge and in the
absence of knowledge there can be no condonation. One cannot forgive something of which one has
no knowledge.

10 The condonation doctrine is ABANDONED, but the abandonment is PROSPECTIVE in effect; cralawlaw

II. Appointive Officials

A. Appointments
Under the LGC and
15

CSC’s Role in Appointments

It cannot appoint but it can say if a person is qualified or unqualified. If unqualified, it can
remove the person from office (basis is the Omnibus Implementing Rules of RAC).
20
Grounds for RECALL of appointment
(NO-VP)
1. Non-compliance with procedure or criteria provided in the agency’s merit promotion plan
2. Failure to pass through the agency’s selection/promotion board
25 3. Violation of existing collective agreement between management and employees relative to
promotion
4. Violation of other existing civil service law rules and regulations In disapproving or approving
appointments,
CSC’s Role in Appointments
30  It cannot appoint but it can say if a person is qualified or unqualified. If unqualified, it can
remove the person from office (basis is the Omnibus Implementing Rules of RAC).

  The Constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments applies only to presidential
appointments. They do not apply to LGUs. For LGUs, appointments of such nature are
35 valid as long as these meet all the requisites of a valid appointment.
  The Constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments is confined to appointments
made in the Executive Department and does not refer to the Members of the Supreme
Court.

40 JBC (2010)]
[De Rama v. CA (2001)]
Once an appointment has been made and accepted, the appointee acquires a legal right to the
position--the appointing authority cannot unilaterally revoke it without cause, notice and hearing.
But the CSC may do so if it decides that the requirements were not met.
45 B. Discipline
  The appointing authority is generally the disciplining authority.
   Disciplinary Jurisdiction (sec. 87) [Except as otherwise provided by law], the
local chief executive may impose:
  Removal from service (cf. Elective officials)
  Demotion in rank
5   Suspension for not more than 1 year w/o pay
- If not more than 30 days—not appealable
- If more than 30 days—appealable to the CSC
  Fine not exceeding 6 months’ salary Reprimand
  Or otherwise discipline subordinate officials and employees under his jurisdiction.
10   No remedy of appeal if the decision of the administrative case exonerated the officer or
employee. “Party adversely affected” in PD 807 or “The Philippine Civil Service Law”
only refers to the government employee against which the case is filed. [Mendez v. CSC (1991)]
  The City Treasurer has authority to discipline his subordinates. The power to discipline is
specifically granted by the Revised Administrative Code to heads of departments, agencies
15 and instrumentalities, provinces, and cities.

The power to commence administrative proceedings against subordinate officers is granted

by the Omnibus Rules to the secretary of department, head of office, head of LGU, chief of
agency, regional director, or person with sworn written complaint.
20
The City treasurer may also motu proprio institute disciplinary proceedings against subordinates.
These rules must be reconciled with the LGC, which gives the mayor the authority to institute
administrative and judicial proceedings against any official or employee of the city. In
cases involving the employees of the city treasurer’s office, the mayor must file his complaint with
25 the treasurer’s office or with the DOF. [Garcia v. Pajaro (2002)]

C. Removal
In interpreting its own rules as it did, the CSC was acting within its constitutionally delegated
30 power to interpret its own rules. The CSC, by ruling that the employee took an automatic leave of
absence, was merely interpreting its own rule on requirement of approved leave. [City Government
of Makati City v. CSC (2002)]

D. Officials Common to All Municipalities, Cities and Provinces

35 a. Secretary to the Sanggunian
b. Treasurer
c. Assessor
d. Accountant
e. Budget Officer
40 f. Planning and Development Coordinator
g. Engineer
h. Health Officer
i. Civil Registrar
j. Administrator
45 k. Legal Officer
l. Agriculturist
m. Social Welfare and Development Officer
n. Environment and Natural Resources Officer
 o. Architect
p. Information Officer
q. Cooperatives Officer
r. Population Officer
5 s. Veterinarian
t. General Services Officer
  Exceptions as to appointments by local chief executive
  secretary (appointed by vice-governor or vice-mayor)
  treasurer (appointed by secretary of Finance)
10  In the barangay, the mandated appointive officials are the Barangay Secretary and the
Barangay Treasurer, although other officials of the barangay may be appointed by the punong
barangay.

III. Provisions Applicable to Elective and

15 Appointive Officials
A. Prohibited Interests
LGC Sec. 89
Prohibited business and pecuniary interest.
  Unlawful for any local government official/employee to directly or indirectly:
20   Engage in any business transaction with LGU local government unit:
 in which he is an official/employee;
  over which he has the power of supervision;
  with any of its authorized boards, officials, agents, or attorneys,
  if money/property or any thing of value is to be indirectly transferred out of the resources of
25 the LGU to such person or firm;
  Hold interests in any cockpit or other games licensed by an LGU;
  Purchase any realty/property forfeited in favor of the LGU
 for unpaid taxes/assessment; or
  by virtue of a legal process at the instance of the LGU.
30   Be a surety for any person contracting or doing business with the LGU which a surety is
required;
  Possess/use any public property of the LGU for private purposes.
  Other prohibitions governing the conduct of national public officers relating to prohibited
business and pecuniary interest:
35   RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials/EEs)

B. Practice of Profession
LGC, Sec. 90
40   All governors and mayors are prohibited from:
o practicing their profession
o engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief executives.
  Sanggunian Members may
o Practice their profession
 o Engage in any occupation
o Teach in schools
  except during session hours
  Provided, a member of the Bar shall not:
5 (1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or any
office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or local
government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office.
(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local
10 government unit of which he is an official; and
(4) Use property and personnel of the government except when
the sanggunian member concerned is defending the interest of the government.

 Doctors of Medicine may practice their profession even during official hours of work
15 o only on occasions of emergency
  Provided, that the officials concerned do not derive monetary compensation therefrom.

Private Counsel/Lawyers for Elective Local Officials


20 General Rule: A Legal Officer, one of the appointive local officals common to LGUs, is
tasked to represent the LGU in all civil actions and special proceedings wherein the LGU or any
official thereof, in his official capacity, is a party. (sec. 481)

A municipality cannot hire private counsel to file a suit in its behalf. The RAC provides that only
25 the provincial fiscal and the municipal attorney can represent a municipality or its official in its
lawsuits, except in cases where:
1) original jurisdiction is vested in the SC
2) where the municipality is a party adverse to the provincial government or the case is between
two municipalities
30 3) He or his wife/child is pecuniarily involved as heir, legatee, creditor, etc. While a private
prosecutor is allowed in criminal cases, private counsel cannot represent LGU
even if in collaboration with an authorized government lawyer except that in the interest of
substantial justice, the municipality may adopt work already performed in good faith by the private
attorney which was beneficial to it
35 provided.
1) no injustice is heaped on adverse party
2) no compensation of any guise is paid. [Ramos v. CA (1981)]

NOTES:
40   Instances when a private lawyer can represent a LGU
  When the municipality is an adverse party in a case involving the provincial
government or another municipality or city within the province
  Where original jurisdiction is vested with the SC

45  Test as to when a local government official can secure the services of private
counsel: Nature of the action and the relief that is sought

C. Prohibition against Appointment

  No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity
50 to any public office or position during his tenure [Flores v Drilon (1993)]
  Except for losing candidates in barangay elections, no candidate who lost in any
election shall, within one year after such election, be appointed to any office in the
government or any GOCC or their subsidiaries.

55 IV. Local Boards and Councils

 Sec. 98-116
A. Local School Board
  Determines the annual supplementary budgetary needs for the operation and
maintenance of public schools
5   Authorizes the disbursal of funds from the Special Education Fund
  Serves as an advisory committee to the Sanggunian concerned on educational matters
  Recommend changes in the names of public

B. Local Health Board

10   Proposes annual budgetary allocations for the operation and maintenance of health
facilities and services
  Serves as an advisory committee to the sanggunian concerned on health matters
  Creates committees which shall advice local health agencies on personnel and budgetary
matters
15 C. Local Development Council
  Primary duty: to initiate a comprehensive multisectoral development plan for the LGU
which is submitted to the sanggunian for approval and assist the corresponding sanggunian
in setting the direction of economic and social development, and coordinating development
efforts within its territorial jurisdiction.
20 D. Local Peace and Order Council
  Formulate and recommend such measures to improve or enhance peace and order and
public safety
  Monitor the implementation
 Make periodic assessments of the prevailing peace and order situation
25
JOSON V TORRES
petitioner belligerently barged into the Hall; petitioner angrily kicked the door and
chairs in the Hall and uttered threatening words at them; close behind petitioner
were several men with long and short firearms who encircled the area. petitioner
30 requested for extension of thirty (30) days 3times and was grantedThe DILG
granted petitioner's request

Held: 'Preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the

issues are joined, that is, after respondent has answered the complaint,
35 when the evidence of guilt is strong and, given the gravity of the
offense, there is a great possibility that the continuance in office of the
respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety
and integrity of the records and other evidence (Sec. 3, Rule 6 of
Administrative Order No. 23).
40
Respondent who is the chief executive of the province is in a position to
influence the witnesses. Further, the history of violent confrontational
politics in the province dictates that extreme precautionary measures be
taken.'
45
The failure of respondent to file his answer despite several opportunities
given him is construed as a waiver of his right to present evidence in his
behalf (Sec. 4, Rule 4 of Administrative Order No. 23). The requisite of
 joinder of issues is squarely met with respondent's waiver of right to
submit his answer. The act of respondent in allegedly barging violently
into the session hall of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in the company
of armed men constitutes grave
5
Other issue: WON DILG with jurisdiction
The power to discipline evidently includes the power to investigate. As the
Disciplining Authority, the President has the power derived from the Constitution
itself to investigate complaints against local government officials. A. O. No. 23,
10 however, delegates the power to investigate to the DILG or a Special
Investigating Committee, as may be constituted by the Disciplining Authority. This
is not undue delegation, contrary to petitioner Joson's claim. The President
remains the Disciplining Authority. What is delegated is the power to investigate,
not the power to discipline.[54]
15 [Joson vs Torres (290 S 279)]
Valid delegation. Under AO 23, the delegation of the power to investigate to the
Sec of Interior is valid. What cannot be delegated is the power to discipline. 

Pablico v villapando
20
Facts:
 Complainants alleged that respondent, on behalf of the municipality, entered into a
consultancy agreement with Orlando M. Tiape, a defeated mayoralty candidate in the They
argue that the consultancy agreement amounted to an appointment to a government position
25 within the prohibited one-year period

Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan found respondent guilty of the administrative charge

and imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from service.

30
Held: the power to remove erring elective local officials from service is lodged
exclusively with the courts. Where the disciplining authority is given only the power to
suspend and not the power to remove, it should not be permitted to manipulate the law by
usurping the power to remove.16
35
OMBUDSMAN v ROLSON RODRIGUEZ

Facts: a complaint[4] for abuse of authority, dishonesty, oppression,

misconduct in office, and neglect of duty against Rolson Rodriguez, punong
40 barangay in Brgy. Sto. Rosario, Binalbagan, Negros Occidental.Rodriguez
filed a motion to dismiss[7] the case filed in the sangguniang bayanthe
Ombudsman required Rodriguez to file his answer. Rodriguez filed on 24
October 2003 a motion to dismiss[10] the case filed in the Ombudsman on the
 grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping. He alleged that
the sangguniang bayan had already acquired jurisdiction over his person as
early as 8 September 2003.
. The Ombudsman reiterated its order for Rodriguez to file his position
5 paper.
 
In his position paper, Rodriguez insisted that the sangguniang bayan still
continued to exercise jurisdiction over the complaint filed against him.
The Ruling of the Ombudsman
10  
In its 21 September 2004 Decision,[21] the Ombudsman found Rodriguez
guilty of dishonesty and oppression. It imposed on Rodriguez the penalty of
dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits, disqualification to
hold public office, and forfeiture of civil service eligibilities.
15
Issue: (2) whether it was the sangguniang bayan or the Ombudsman that
first acquired jurisdiction.

Ruling: In this case, since the complaint was filed first in the
20 Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman opted to assume jurisdiction over
the complaint, the Ombudsmans exercise of jurisdiction is to the
exclusion of the sangguniang bayan exercising concurrent
jurisdiction.
The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to directly remove [34] an
25 erring public official other than members of Congress and the Judiciary
who may be removed only by impeachment.[35]

Sanggunian bayan of DMM V cap. Martinez

30 Facts: Martinez was administratively charged with Dishonesty and Graft and Corruption by
petitioner through the filing of a verified complaint before the Sangguniang Bayan as the
disciplining authority over elective barangay officials pursuant to Section 614 of Rep. Act No.
7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code. Petitioner filed with the
Sangguniang Bayan an Amended Administrative Complaint against Martinez on 6 December
35 2004 for Dishonesty, Misconduct in Office and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.5 Petitioner alleged that Martinez committed the following acts:

Martinez was declared by the Sangguniang Bayan as in default. Pending the administrative
proceedings, Martinez was placed under preventive suspension for 60 days or until 8 August
 2005.7

On 28 July 2005, the Sangguniang Bayan rendered its Decision which imposed upon
M.artinez the penalty of removal from office.8On 20 October 2005, the trial court issued an
Order declaring the Decision of the Sangguniang Bayan and the Memorandum of Mayor
5 Bagasao void

On 20 October 2005, the trial court issued an Order declaring the Decision of the
Sangguniang Bayan and the Memorandum of Mayor Bagasao void

Held:
Congress clearly meant that the removal of an elective local official be done only after
10 a trial before the appropriate court, where court rules of procedure and evidence can
ensure impartiality and fairness and protect against political maneuverings. Elevating
the removal of an elective local official from office from an administrative case to a court case
may be justified by the fact that such removal not only punishes the official concerned but
also, in effect, deprives the electorate of the services of the official for whom they voted.

15

As a general rule, no recourse to courts can be had until all administrative remedies
have been exhausted. However, this rule is not applicable where the challenged
administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction and where the
question or questions involved are essentially judicial.

20 In this case, it is apparent that the Sangguniang Bayan acted beyond its jurisdiction when it
issued the assailed Order dated 28 July 2005 removing Martinez from office. Such act was
patently illegal and, therefore, Martinez was no longer required to avail himself of an
administrative appeal in order to annul the said Order of the Sangguniang Bayan. 24 Thus, his
direct recourse to regular courts of justice was justified.

25

The reason behind providing an exception to the rule on exhaustion of administrative

remedies is that issues of law cannot be resolved with finality by the administrative
officer. Appeal to the administrative officer would only be an exercise in futility. A legal
question is properly addressed to a regular court of justice rather than to an administrative
30 body.26

In the present case, Martinez raised before the trial court the sole issue of whether the
Sangguniang Bayan has jurisdiction over a case involving the removal of a local elective
official from office.27 In Martinez’s petition before the trial court, only a legal question was
35 raised, one that will ultimately be resolved by the courts. Hence, appeal to the administrative
officer concerned would only be circuitous and, therefore, should no longer be required
before judicial relief can be sought.

F. Recall
 Sec. 69-75, LGC

 Who has the power of recall: Power of recall for loss of confidence is exercised by the
registered voters of the LGU. [S69, LGC]
 Effectivity: Upon the election and proclamation of a successor in the person of the candidate
5 receiving the highest number of votes cast during the election on recall.
Thus, if the official sought to be recalled receives the highest number of votes, confidence in him
is affirmed and he shall continue in office. [S72, LGC]
 Prohibition on resignation: An Elective local official sought to be recalled is not allowed to
resign while the recall process is in progress. [S73, LGC]
10 Expenses: The Annual General Appropriations Act contains a provision for a
contingency fund at the disposal of the COMELEC. [S75, LGC]

RA 9244: An Act Eliminating the Preparatory Recall Assembly as a Mode of Instituting Recall of
Elective Local Government Officials, Amending for the Purpose sec. 70-71 of the LGC of 1991.
15
Sec. 70. Initiation of the Recall Process (PCPVA)
1.Petition of a registered voter in the LGU concerned, supported by a percentage of registered
voters during the election in which the local official sought to be recalled was elected.
(Percentage decreases as population of people in area increases. Also, the supporting voters
20 must all sign the petition)
2. Within 15 days after filing, the COMELEC must certify the sufficiency of the required number
of
signatures. Failure to obtain the required number automatically nullifies the petition.
3. Within 3 days from certification of sufficiency, COMELEC provides the official with a copy of
25 the petition and causes its publication for 3 weeks (once a week) in a national newspaper and a
local newspaper of general circulation.Petition must also be posted for 10 to 20 days at
conspicuous places. PROTEST SHOULD BE FILED AT THIS POINT and ruled with finality 15
days after filing.
4.COMELEC verifies and authenticates the signatures.
30 5. COMELEC announces acceptance of candidates

Sec. 71. Election on Recall

 COMELEC sets election within 30 days upon completion of previous section in
barangay/city/municipality proceedings (45 days in case of provinces)
35  Officials sought to be recalled are automatically candidates

Limitations on the Holding of Recalls

Sec. 74.
a. Any elective official may be the subject of a recall election only once during his term of office
40 for loss of confidence.
b. No recall shall take place:
1. Within 1 year from the date of assumption of office of the official concerned
 Rationale: to provide a reasonable basis for judging the performance of an elective local official
2. Within 1 year immediately preceding a regular local election
45  Rationale: a recall election is potentially disruptive of the normal working of the LGU
necessitating additional expenses

“Recall”, as used in par. b, sec. 74 prescribing the 1-year limitation, refers to the “election”
itself (not the process of initiating the recall proceedings). The purpose of the 1-year
50 limitation from assumption is to prevent premature action without having sufficient time to
evaluate the
official’s performance.
 As long as the election is held outside the 1- year period, the preliminary proceedings to initiate
recall can be held even before the end of 1 year from assumption.
 [Garcia v. COMELEC (1993)]
Recall is a mode of removal of a public official by the people before the end of his term of
5 office. The people’s prerogative to remove a public official is an incident of their sovereign power
and in the absence of constitutional restraint, the power is implied in all governmental operations.
Such power has been held to be indispensable for the proper administration of public affairs.
Angobung v comelec
10  A petition for recall that is signed only by the petitioner but does not bear the names of
the citizens who have allegedly lost confidence in the official should be dismissed. [Angobung vs
Comelec (1997)]
Facts:
Petitioner won as the duly elected Mayor of the Municipality of
15 Tumauini, Isabela in the local elections of 1995. He garnered 55% of all
the votes cast. Private respondent de Alban was also a candidate in
said elections.
Sometime in early September, 1996, private respondent filed with the
Local Election Registrar in Tumauni, Isabela, a Petition for
20 Recall  against petitioner.
[3]

Acting on the petition, Deputy Executive Director for Operations Pio

Jose Joson submitted to the COMELEC En Banc, a
Memorandum  dated October 8, 1996 recommending approval of the
[4]

petition for recall filed by private respondent and its signing by other
25 qualified voters in order to garner at least 25% of the total number of
registered voters as required by Section 69(d) of the Local Government
code of 1991

Held:
30 A petition for recall that is signed only by the petitioner but does not bear the names of
the citizens who have allegedly lost confidence in the official should be dismissed.

Our legislators did not peg the voter requirement at 25% out of caprice
or in a vacuum.
35 it is a power granted to the people who, in concert, desire to
change their leaders for reasons only they, as a collective, can
justify. In other words, recall must be pursued by the people, not
just by one disgruntled loser in the elections or a small percentage
of disenchanted electors.
40
Binay v domingo

Facts:
On July 22, 2014, a complaint/affidavit10 was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against
 Binay, Jr. and other public officers and employees of the City Government of Makati , accusing them
of Plunder11 and violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, 12 otherwise known as "The Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act," in connection with the five (5) phases of the procurement and construction
of the Makati City Hall Parking Building (Makati Parking Building).
5 Held:

In contrast, Section 66 (b) of the LGC states that the penalty of suspension shall not exceed the
unexpired term of the elective local official nor constitute a bar to his candidacy for as long as he
meets the qualifications required for the office. Note, however, that the provision only pertains to
10 the duration of the penalty and its effect on the official's candidacy. Nothing therein states that
the administrative liability therefor is extinguished by the fact of re-election:

Section 66. Form and Notice of Decision. - x x x. 

xxxx
15
(b) The penalty of suspension shall not exceed the unexpired term of the respondent or a period of
six (6) months for every administrative offense, nor shall said penalty be a bar to the candidacy of
the respondent so suspended as long as he meets the qualifications required for the office.

20 Reading the 1987 Constitution together with the above-cited legal provisions now leads this Court to
the conclusion that the doctrine of condonation is actually bereft of legal bases.

To begin with, the concept of public office is a public trust and the corollary requirement of
accountability to the people at all times, as mandated under the 1987 Constitution, is plainly
25 inconsistent with the idea that an elective local official's administrative liability for a misconduct
committed during a prior term can be wiped off by the fact that he was elected to a second term of
office, or even another elective post. Election is not a mode of condoning an administrative
offense, and there is simply no constitutional or statutory basis in our jurisdiction to support the
notion that an official elected for a different term is fully absolved of any administrative liability
30 arising from an offense done during a prior term. In this jurisdiction, liability arising from
administrative offenses may be condoned bv the President in light of Section 19, Article VII
of the 1987 Constitution which was interpreted in Llamas v. Orbos293 to apply to administrative
offenses:

Equally infirm is Pascual's proposition that the electorate, when re-electing a local official, are
35 assumed to have done so with knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or
forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. Suffice it to state that  no such
presumption exists in any statute or procedural rule. 302 Besides, it is contrary to human
experience that the electorate would have full knowledge of a public official's misdeeds. The
Ombudsman correctly points out the reality that most corrupt acts by public officers are shrouded in
40 secrecy, and concealed from the public. Misconduct committed by an elective official is easily
covered up, and is almost always unknown to the electorate when they cast their
votes.303 At a conceptual level, condonation presupposes that the condoner has actual knowledge of
what is to be condoned. Thus, there could be no condonation of an act that is unknown.  As
observed in Walsh v. City Council of Trenton304 decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court:

45 Many of the cases holding that re-election of a public official prevents his removal for acts done in a
preceding term of office are reasoned out on the theory of condonation. We cannot subscribe to that
theory because condonation, implying as it does forgiveness, connotes knowledge and in the
absence of knowledge there can be no condonation. One cannot forgive something of which one has
no knowledge.
50
The condonation doctrine is ABANDONED, but the abandonment is PROSPECTIVE in effect; cralawlawlibrary

De Rama v CA
Facts:

55 Petitioner de Raffia justified his recall request on the allegation that, the appointments of the
 said employees were "midnight" appointments of the former mayor, Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja,
done in violation of Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:

Held:
Once an appointment has been made and accepted, the appointee acquires a legal right to the
5 position--the appointing authority cannot unilaterally revoke it without cause, notice and hearing.
But the CSC may do so if it decides that the requirements were not met.

- "midnight appointments" that are forbidden under Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution.
However, the CSC ruled, and correctly so, that the said prohibition applies only to
10 presidential appointments.

- The grounds for the recall of the appointments that petitioner raised in his supplemental
pleading to the consolidated appeal and motion for reconsideration are that: (1) the rules on
screening of applicants based on adopted criteria were not followed; (2) there was no proper
15 posting of notice of vacancy; and (3) the merit and fitness requirements set by the civil
service rules were not observed.
Grounds for RECALL of appointment
(NO-VP)
1. Non-compliance with procedure or criteria provided in the agency’s merit promotion plan
20 2. Failure to pass through the agency’s selection/promotion board
3. Violation of existing collective agreement between management and employees relative to
promotion
4. Violation of other existing civil service law rules and regulations In disapproving or approving
appointments,
25

There was no previous notice, much less a hearing accorded to the latter. Clearly, it was
petitioner who acted in undue haste to remove the private respondents without regard for the
simple requirements or due process of law. In doing so, he overstepped the bounds of his
authority. While he argues that the appointing power has the sole authority to revoke said
30 appointments, there is no debate that he does not have blanket authority to do so. Neither
can he question the CSC's jurisdiction to affirm or revoke the recall.

Municipality of kananga v madrona

Facts:

35 Facts:A boundary dispute arose between the Municipality of Kananga and the
City of Ormoc.the members of the joint session issued Resolution No. 97-01,
failed to settle amicably their boundary dispute and have agreed to elevate the
same to the proper court for settlement by any of the interested party (sic). [4]

To settle the boundary dispute, the City of Ormoc filed before the RTC of
40 Ormoc City (Branch 35) on September 2, 1999, a Complaint docketed as Civil
Case No. 3722-O.
On September 24, 1999, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the following
grounds:
(1) That the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
45 of the claim;
(2) That there is no cause of action; and
 (3) That a condition precedent for filing the complaint has not been
complied with[.]
[5]

which in part reads:

Ruling of the Trial Court

5 In denying the Municipality of Kanangas Motion to Dismiss, the RTC held

that it had jurisdiction over the action under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
Not satisfied with the denial of its Motion, the Municipality of Kananga filed
this Petition.
[6]

10

Issues:whetherrespondent court may exercise original jurisdiction over the

settlement of a boundary dispute between a municipality and an independent
component city.
15

Held :
Nevertheless, a joint session was indeed held, but no amicable settlement
was reached. A resolution to that effect was issued, and the   sanggunians of both
20 local government units mutually agreed to bring the dispute to the RTC for
adjudication. The question now is: issue:::::::Does the regional trial court have
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim?
We rule in the affirmative.
As previously stated, jurisdiction is vested by law and cannot be
25 conferred or waived by the parties.  It must exist as a matter of law and
[17]

cannot be conferred by the consent of the parties or by estoppel.  It [18]

should not be confused with venue.

30

(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person
or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions[.]
Since there is no law providing for the exclusive jurisdiction of any court or
35 agency over the settlement of boundary disputes between a municipality and an
independent component city of the same province, respondent court committed
no grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Dismiss. RTCs have
 general jurisdiction to adjudicate all controversies except those expressly
withheld from their plenary powers.  They have the power not only to take
[21]

judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action for the first time, but also
to do so to the exclusion of all other courts at that stage. Indeed, the power is not
5 only original, but also exclusive.
Mariano Jr. v. Commission on Elections
Needless to state, any uncertainty in the boundaries of local government units
will sow costly conflicts in the exercise of governmental powers which ultimately
will prejudice the peoples welfare. x x x.
10 the Philippine National Oil Company has withheld the share in the proceeds
from the development and the utilization of natural wealth, as provided for in
Section 289 of the LGC. [23]

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the challenged

Order AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
15 SO ORDERED.
Municipality of sta. Fe v municipality of aritao

Facts:On October 16, 1980, petitioner Municipality of Sta. Fe, in

the Province of Nueva Vizcaya, filed before the RTC of Bayombong, Nueva
20 Vizcaya, Branch 28, Civil Case No. 2821 for the Determination of Boundary
Dispute involving the barangays of Bantinan and Canabuan. As the parties
failed to amicably settle during the pre-trial stage, trial on the merits ensued.
 Said resolution previously resolved to adjudicate the barangays of
Bantinan and Canabuan as parts of respondents territorial jurisdiction and
25 enjoin petitioner from exercising its governmental functions within the
same. Subsequently, as per Resolution No. 357 dated November 13, 1989,
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan approved the Committees recommendation
but endorsed the boundary dispute to the RTC for further proceedings and
preservation of the status quo pending finality of the case.
30  
Back in the RTC, respondent moved to consider Resolution No. 64 as final
and executory. In its Order dated February 12, 1991,[5] the trial court,
however, resolved to deny the motion ruling that since there was no
amicable settlement reached at the time the Provincial Board had exceeded
35 its authority in issuing a decision favoring a party.

Issue: WON the court has jurisdiction to the final determination of the case
is affected by new legislation like the ratification of the LGC 1991
 Held: No. Look at in the exception We are not unmindful of the rule that where a
court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its
jurisdiction to proceed to the final determination of the case is not affected by new
5 legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal or body.
This rule, however, is not without exception. It is not applicable when the change in
jurisdiction is curative in character. As far as boundary disputes are concerned, the 1987
Constitution is the latest will of the people, therefore, the same should be given
retroactive effect on cases pending before courts after its ratification
10
xxx
 
a.)                Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more municipalities
within the same province shall be referred for settlement to the
15 sangguniang panlalawigan concerned;
 
xxx
 
Since the Local Government Code of 1991 is the latest will of the people expressed
20 through Congress on how boundary disputes should be resolved, the same must prevail
over previous ones. It must be emphasized that the laws on the creation of local
government units as well as settling boundary disputes are political in character, hence,
can be changed from time to time and the latest will of the people should always prevail.
In the instant case, there is nothing wrong in holding that Regional Trial Courts no longer
25 have jurisdiction over boundary disputes.[10]
Furthermore, the RTC can still review the decision of
the Sanguniang Panlalawigan under the new set-up, in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction, so no substantial prejudice is caused by allowing
30 retroactivity.
 
The Court, therefore, sees no error, much less grave abuse of
discretion, on the part of the CA in affirming the trial courts dismissal of
petitioners complaint.
35  
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

Ramos V CA
Facts:

40 Baliuag Market Vendors Association, Inc. filed a petition before the court a
quo docketed as Civil Case No. 264-M-9 for the Declaration of Nullity of
Municipal Ordinances No. 91 (1976) and No. 7 (1990) and the contract of lease
 over a commercial arcade to be constructed in the municipality of Baliuag,
Bulacan.

On April 27, 1980, during the hearing on the petitioners' motion for the
issuance of preliminary injunction, the Provincial Fiscal appeared as counsel
5 for respondent Municipality of Baliuag, which opposed the petition.

During the hearing on August 10, 1990, petitioners questioned the personality
of Atty. Romanillos to appear as counsel of (sic) the respondent municipality,
which opposition was reiterated on August 15, 1990, and was put in writing in
petitioners' motion of August 20, 1990 to disqualify Atty. Romanillos from
10 appearing as counsel for respondent municipality and to declare null and void
the proceedings participated in and undertaken by Atty. Romanillos.

It is noted that Atty. Romanillos initially entered his appearance as

collaborating counsel of the Provincial Prosecutor and the Provincial Attorney
when he filed a motion to dissolve injunction under motion dated May 30, 1990
15 and since then despite his active participation in the proceedings, the opposing
counsel has never questioned his appearance until after he made a formal offer
of evidence for the respondents. The acquiescence of petitioners,' counsel of
(sic) his appearance is tantamount to a waiver and petitioners are, therefore,
estopped to question the same. In all the pleadings made by Atty. Romanillos, it
20 was clearly indicated that he was appearing as the collaborating counsel of the
Provincial Attorney.
He added that in the absence of untimely objection by petitioners to Atty.
Romanillos' appearance as the collaborating counsel, petitioners are guilty of
laches for having slept on (sic) their rights and are estopped as their
25 acquiescence may be considered as waiver of such right.

Held

Province of Cebu vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.,  where we ruled that
[16]

private attorneys cannot represent a province or municipality in lawsuits.

30 Section 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:

'Section 1683. Duty of fiscal to represent provinces and provincial subdivisions

in litigation. The provincial fiscal shall represent the province and any
municipality or municipal district thereof in any court, except in cases whereof
 (sic) original jurisdiction is vested in the Supreme Court or in cases where the
municipality or municipal district in question is a party adverse to the
provincial government or to some other municipality or municipal district in
the same province. When the interests of a provincial government and of any
5 political division thereof are opposed, the provincial fiscal shall act on behalf of
the province.

When the provincial fiscal is disqualified to serve any municipality or other

political subdivision of a province, a special attorney may be employed by its
council.' [17]

10

A. The Barangay
LGC Sec. 384-439
The barangay is the basic political unit. Its roles
15 are:
1. Primary planning and implementing unit of government policies, plans, programs, projects and
activities in the community;
2. Forum wherein the collective views may be expressed, crystallized and considered; and
3. Where disputes may be amicably settled. (Sec 384, LGC)
20
1. Katarungang Pambarangay
LGC Sec. 399-422
PD 1508 Local Government Code
Authority over criminal offenses limited to those Authority over criminal offenses limited to those
punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 30 days punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or
or a fine not exceeding P200 a fine not exceeding P5,000
No similar provision Disputes arising from the workplace where the
contending parties are employed or at the institution
where such parties are enrolled for study, shall be
brought in the brgy where such workplace or
institution is located
No similar provision Prescriptive periods of offenses suspended during
the pendency of the mediation, conciliation or
arbitration process

Quick Facts about Katarungang Pambarangay

25 - nature of proceedings is contractual
1) Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement:All cases EXCEPT those listed under Sec.408:
EXCLUSIONS:
a. One party is the government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof
b. One party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official
30 functions
c. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 1 yr or a fine exceeding P5,000.
d. Offenses where there is no private offended party
e. Dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities (UNLESS they submit
their dispute to KP)
35 f. Dispute where parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities (UNLESS
they submit their dispute to KP)
g. Cases as determined by the President.

Other EXCLUSIONS: Cases under Sec 412 (b):

 1) where the accused is under detention
2) where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus
proceedings
3) where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction,
5 attachment, delivery of personal property and support pendente lite
4) where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations

2) Conciliation is a precondition to filing of complaint in court.

10 Initiatory pleadings, if filed without compliance with the precondition MAY be dismissed on motion of
any interested party on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action. [Wingarts vsMejia (1995)]

How should the averments be made? Failure to specifically allege the fact that there was no
compliance with the barangay conciliation procedure constitutes a waiver of that defense. General
15 averments are not enough. [Corpuz vs CA (1997)]

An undated certification that merely states that the case was set for hearing before
the barangay but the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement is not the contemplated Barangay
Certification to File Action. [Mendova vs Afable(2002)]
20
3) In all KP proceedings, the parties must appear IN PERSON without the assistance of counsel
or representative.
EXCEPTION: Minors and incompetents may be assisted by their next-of-kin who are NOT lawyers.

25 Officers Involved
1. Lupong Tagapamayapa.
i. It is composed of the punong barangay as chairman and 10 to 20 members. It is constituted
every 3 years.
ii. Powers:
30 1. Administrative supervision over the conciliation panels
2. Meet monthly to provide a forum for exchange of ideas among its members and the public of
matters relevant to the amicable settlement of disputes, and to enable various conciliation
panel members to share with one another their observations in effecting speedy resolutions of
disputes
35 3. Other powers and duties as may be prescribed by law or ordinance

2. Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo.
 - There shall be constituted for each dispute brought before the lupon a
conciliation panel
40  - Consisting of 3 members who shall be chosen by the parties to the dispute from the members
of the lupon.
 - If the parties cannot agree on the pangkat membership, the same shall be determined by lots
drawn by the lupon chairmen

45 Effect of the settlement agreement and arbitration award

 The amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the force and effect of a final
judgment unless repudiation of the settlement has been made or a petition to nullify the
award has been filed before the proper city or municipal court (Section 416)
 REPUDIATION of the settlement agreement may be made by any party to the dispute
50 within 10 days from the date of settlement

- file with the lupon Chairman a statement to that effect sworn to before him
- may be made when consent is vitiated
by:
55 a) fraud
b) violence
c) intimidation
 - it shall be sufficient basis for issuance of the certification for filing a complaint

2. Sangguniang Kabataan
LGC Sec. 423-439
5 Creation and Composition
There shall be in every barangay a sangguniang kabataan to be composed of a chairman, seven
members, a secretary and a treasurer. An official who, during his term of office, shall have passed
the age of 21 shall be allowed to serve the remaining portion of the term for which he was elected.

10 RA 9164 (2002) amended Sec. 424 and 428 of the LGC by lowering the maximum age of the
members of the Katipunan ng Kabataan and elective officials of the Sangguniang Kabataan from 21 to
18 years of age.