You are on page 1of 131

LAW ON PUBLIC

OFFICERS
By
Asst. Omb. Rodolfo M. Elman,
CESO lll
Ateneo de Davao Law School

Public Office

 Definition

 Distinguished from contract
 Elements of a public office

 Basic precept underlying public
office:
Art. Xl, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution
 Meaning of principle

Cases
 Determining whether a position is a public
office or not (Laurel vs. Desierto, 381
SCRA 48)
 Constitutionality of a law (RA 9335)
providing for a system of rewards and
incentives for BIR and BOC officials and
employees (Abakada Guro Party List vs.
Purisima, 562 SCRA 251)
 Membership in the market committee
(Figueroa vs. People, 498 SCRA 298)
 Private sector membership in NBDB under
RA 8047 (Javier vs. Sandiganbayan, 599
SCRA 325)

although the President has the power to create the PTC as an ad-hoc body to investigate reports of graft pursuant to Art. PTC. Truth Commission under EO 1 is unconstitutional as it violates the equal protection clause (Lagman vs. December 7. Vll Sec. . 2010). Creationof the Phil. 17. Ochoa & Biraogo vs.

505 SCRA 849) . Sandiganbayan. 16 February 2005)  Philhealth Manager (Geduspan vs. Sandiganbayan. Classifying Public Officers of GOCCs under RA 3019  PNCC Assistant Manager (Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan. Postal Savings Bank (People vs. People. 376 SCRA 452)  President and COO of Phil. 451 SCRA 187)  VPs and AVP of AFP RSBS (Alzaga vs.

236 SCRA 62)  Election protest continues despite death of public officer. `  Characteristics of Public Office  No express provision depriving incumbent of his office (Segovia vs. VM a real party in interest (De Castro vs. 47 Phil. 543)  Public office not a property which passes to heirs. Comelec & Jamilla. exception (Abeja vs. Noel. 267 SCRA 806) . Tanada & Mayor Radovan.

Oath of Office A qualifying requirement for public office. 561 SCRA 137) . Laxina. Jurado. 406 SCRA 156)  In taking oath. right to enter into office becomes plenary and complete (Mendoza vs. Sr. a prerequisite to full investiture w/ the office. he binds to perform faithfully and act primarily for benefit of public (Ombudsman vs.

 General rule: Individual cannot be forced to accept public office  Exceptions: 1. RPC 3. 1987 Constitution 2. Sec. Art. Art. 234. Posse comitatus . ll. 4.

De Facto Officer  Definition  Requisites  Distinguish from a de jure officer and a usurper  Can an officer de jure recover from the government salary paid to de facto officer?  Can a de jure officer recover the salary from the de facto officer? .

254 SCRA 400 (2000 BQ)  Tarrosa vs. 194 SCRA 317  Malaluan vs. Allas. Executive Secretary. Cases  Arimao vs. Comelec. 197 SCRA 251  Civil Liberties Union vs. Taher. 232 SCRA 553  Mendoza vs. Singson. Petilla. 498 SCRA 76  Menzon vs. 302 SCRA 623 .

. Gordon. petitioners have no legal standing to file the quo warranto petition to declare him as having forfeited his seat in the Senate (Liban vs. 593 SCRA 68). Since they do not claim to be entitled to the Senate office of Gordon.

493 SCRA 324  Gaminde vs. COA. CA. Cases  Engano vs. 13 December 2000  National Amnesty Commission vs. 437 SCRA 670 . COA.

Sec. lX-B. Sec. 2(3) Const. exercises exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving personnel actions xxx *Corsiga vs.. Defensor. 154 SCRA 238)  Scope: Art. lX-B. EO 292 (1999 BQ)  Purpose of the civil service system *Meram vs. Edralin. Sec. 391 SCRA 267 . 2(1) Const. Sec. Civil Service  Art.  Civil Service Commission is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil service. PD807. 46. 36.

CA.e. before the Supreme Court (Go vs. The case involves personnel action. 626 SCRA 180).. i. . petitioner is questioning the summary reallocation and demotion directed by the DBM w/c resulted in the diminution of his benefits. In turn. the CSC resolution may be elevated to the CA under Rule 43 and finally. His proper remedy is not before the OP but to question the DBM denial of his protest before the CSC w/c has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving personnel action.

Law on Administrative Jurisdiction vs. school librarians. industrial arts or vocational instructors and all other persons performing supervisory or administrative functions . public school teachers  Sec. 9 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers (RA 4670)  Coverage of term “teacher”: all persons engaged in classroom teaching on full time basis including guidance counselors.

Exclusions to the term “teacher”  Publicschool teacher in the professional staff of state colleges or universities  School nurses. dentists and other school employees in the category of medical and dental personnel . physicians.

whether offense was committed before or after employment in judiciary. 378 SCRA 143)  Admin supervision over court employee belongs to S. 13 April 2007) . 563 SCRA 293)  Jurisdiction not lost upon instance of parties (Omb vs.C. CSC. but estoppel applies (Ampong vs. Cases  CSC does not have original administrative jurisdiction vs. De Leon. Estandarte. a public school teacher (Emin vs.

23 of RA 6770. Delijero. . While the Ombudsman has concurrent administrative disciplinary authority with the DECS over public school teachers. 10 October 2010). hence the proceedings before the DECS would have been the more appropriate venue to resolve the dispute (Ombudsman vs. the Ombudsman may refer a complaint to the proper disciplinary authority under Sec. Respondent is a public school teacher covered by RA 4670.

 Academic freedom cannot be invoked where there are allegations of CS law and rules violations (CSC vs. 22 May 2008) . Sojor. Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997 (RA 8282)  Power of university’s Board of Regents under RA 8282 to discipline its officials and employees not exclusive but concurrent with CSC.

Lumanta vs. Sandiganbayan. PVB. Bliss Development Corp. PNOC-EDC vs. Phil. GOCCs not covered by Civil Service Law a. 376 SCRA 452 .. (1999 BQ). Macalino vs. 175 SCRA 26 b. Food Terminal Inc. PVBEU vs. Leogardo. 170 SCRA 79 d. National Construction Corp. 237 SCRA 271 (EO 180 not applicable to BDC) c. 24 August 1990 ~PVB (RA 3518) e. Calleja. NLRC. Employees Union vs.

Q. privately funded and privately run charitable organization. *PNRC Board of Governors. w/c exercises all corporate powers of PNRC. 16. What is the status of PNRC? Did Gordon automatically forfeit his Senate seat in holding the post of PNRC Chair? *The Phil. elects the Chair. including students. Art. (Liban vs. *Chairman is not an official or employee of the Government. National Red Cross is not a GOCC but a privately owned. Vll of the Constitution. the elements of gov't ownership and control are lacking in PNRC. *The PNRC Charter is void insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation. hence no violation of Sec. *Unlike water districts. Gordon 593 SCRA 68) . The vast majority of thousands of its members are private individuals.

471 SCRA 776 *Duty Free Phil. BSP vs. 22 April 1991 b. GOCCs covered by Civil Service Law a. DFP vs. Holganza. under EO 46 d. 9 Feb 2000 *PNRC under RA 95 c. NLRC. Alzaga vs. Mojica. Sandiganbayan. 505 SCRA 848 *AFP-RSBS under RA 9182 (Special Purpose Vehicle Act of ’02) . Baluyot vs.

although necessary for final creation of WD. 25 of PD 198 already removed by PD 1479 (Hagonoy Water District vs. CSC. 165 SCRA 272)  Local Sanggunian resolution. is not its charter (DCWD vs. NLRC. 201 SCRA 605) . Sec. PD 198 as amended by PD 1479 and RA 9286  Local water districts subject to Civil Service Law.

COA. 2011) . June 7. COA. COA Audit of GOCCs  Constitution mandates COA to audit GOCCs with original charter like water districts (De Jesus vs.  ’01 BQ: Effect of privatization of PNB on audit jurisdiction of COA  BSP is a public corporation or a government agency or instrumentality with juridical personality under CA 111 as amended by RA 7278 (BSP vs. 403 SCRA 666).

NLRC. Buat. 222 SCRA 831)  Hiring and firing of employees of GOCCs with original charter governed by CS law *ZCWD vs. NLRC. considered resigned upon filing certificate of candidacy (PNOC-EDC vs. 232 SCRA 587 *DOH Dr. Rodriguez Hospital vs. 251 SCRA 700) . even if organized under the general law. An employee of a GOCC.

but its BoD is authorized under RA 7354 to formulate its own compensation structure and position classification (Intia. vs. Jr. Bunag. COA. 397 SCRA 27) . as regards personnel matters. 306 SCRA 610)  DBM has sole power/discretion to administer CPCS of national government  Compensation and benefits received by PRA officials w/o DBM approval are unauthorized and irregular (PRA vs. Civil Service Law applies to Philippine Postal Corp.

monitors their operations  Repeals GOCCs’ charters w/c fix the directors’ term by reducing it to 1 yr. GOCC Governance Act of 2011 (RA 10149)  Promotes financial viability & fiscal discipline in GOCCs thru the Governance Commission for GOCCs  Evaluates performance & relevance of GOCCs.  Incumbents up to 6/30/11  Per diems for actual attendance… incentives as authorized by GCG .

CSC. 31 May 1995)  CSC could rule on administrative decisions on appeal before MSPB (Fernando vs. Tomas. Abolition of Career Executive Service Board (CESB) by CSC is an ultra vires act (Eugenio vs. EO 292 (Rubenicia vs. 234 SCRA 548) . Sto. 17. Book V. 31 March 1995)  Abolition of Merit System and Protection Board (MSPB as created under PD 1409) by CSC is valid. CSC. CSC authority under Sec.

2(2). 1987 Constitution a. Non-competitive positions . lX-B. Non-career service ~meaning & importance of security of tenure (BQ) al. Classification of Civil Service I. Competitive positions b. Under Art. Under PD 807 and EO 292 a. Career service b. Sec.

Career officers other than CES 5. Personnel of GOCC  Importance of security of tenure . Closed Career 3. Career Service  What characterizes the career service? (’99 BQ)  What is included in the career service? (’99 BQ) 1. Open career 2. Commissioned officers/enlisted men in AFP 6. Positions in CES 4.

crafts and custodial services positions 2) Second level includes professional. technical and scientific positions… up to Division Chief level 3) Third level covers positions in the Career Executive Service (EO 1 creating the PTC) . Three major levels/classes of positions in the Career Service 1) First level includes clerical. trades.

 Qualification in an appropriate exam is required for appointment to positions in the first and second levels in the career service. no person who is not an eligible shall be appointed even in a temporary capacity xxx  Exceptions: when immediate filling of vacancy is urgently required … or when vacancy is not permanent … . provided that whenever there is a civil service eligible actually available for appointment.

Cases on Career Service  Illegaldismissal of a career officer (Palmera vs. CSC. Salas. Manglapus & Melchor vs. 274 SCRA 414) . Saez. 235 SCRA 87)  Astraquillo vs. 190 SCRA 281  Proximity rule: Salas’ position as Internal Security Staff was remote from the appointing authority (Pagcor vs.

Department heads and other officials of Cabinet rank xxx 3. Contractual personnel 5. Elective officials and their personal or confidential staff 2. Non-Career Service  What characterizes the non-career service?  What is included in the non-career service? 1. Emergency and casual personnel . Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office and their personal or confidential staff 4.

501 SCRA 303) . Cases on non-career service A non-career service employee is protected from removal without just cause (Jocom vs. Robredo. 201 SCRA 73)  Chair of the Commission on Filipino Language is a non-career official whose tenure of 7 years is fixed by RA 7104. her removal is not at pleasure of appointing authority (Office of President vs. Buenaobra.

Art. Policy determining 3. Executive has power to declare classification of non-competitive position (Sec. Highly technical  Nature – and not label – that makes it competitive. 2 (2)  Competitive positions: appointments made according to merit and fitness  Non-competitive positions 1. Primarily confidential 2. 12. V. EO 292) . Bk. lX-B. Sec.

 Importance of distinction: Constitutional principle of non-removal without due process of law would be negated if Congress could legally make tenure of officials dependent on pleasure of the President. .  Tenure – the term during which the incumbent actually holds office. Tenure of Incumbent  Term – the time during w/c officer may claim to hold office as of right and fixes the interval after w/c the incumbents shall succeed one another. Term of office vs.

Xlll (Bautista vs. 172 SCRA 164). ’10BQ)  Start and end of 7-year term of office of CSC Commissioner (Gaminde vs. 2000) . Pineda. 201 SCRA 792)  Requisites for effective operation of rotational scheme for Constitutional Commissioners (Republic vs. ’99BQ. Imperial. 13 Dec. 96 Phil. COA. Salonga. EO 163-A is unconstitutional  Members of HRET have security of tenure. 17(2). disloyalty to party not a valid ground for expulsion (Bondoc vs. 770. Art. Cases  Term of office Chair & Members of CHR under EO 163 to comply with Sec.

1991)  Permanent Representative to UN (De Perio Santos vs.  City Legal Officer (Cadiente vs. CSC. Santos.Primarily Confidential Positions  Rule: Tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence xxx cessation not a removal but expiration of term. 142 SCRA 280)  Prov’l Attorney (Grino vs. 10 April 1992) . 26 Feb. Macaraig.

residence. Code (20 Nov. lll. education and civil service qualifications  Qualification Standards  Religious qualifications prohibited (Sec. age. . Eligibility to Public Office  Qualifications generally required of public officers * Citizenship. 2175 of old Admin. Constitution)  Ruling in Pamil vs. 1978) superseded by ’87 Const. Teleron on basis of Sec. 5. Art.

 Property qualifications may not be imposed for the exercise of right to run for public office. 39. RA 7160)  Loss of any of the qualifications during incumbency a ground for termination (Labo vs COMELEC. Law requiring candidates for public office to post surety bond of P20T held unconstitutional (Maquera vs. 1965)  Qualifications of local elective officials (Sec. 176 SCRA 1) . Borra. 07 Sept.

Disqualifications for local elective position (Sec. 40. ’99BQ)  Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude …  Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case  Those convicted by final judgment for violating oath of allegiance  Those with dual citizenship  Fugitives from justice …  Permanent residents in a foreign country  The insane or feeble-minded . RA 7160.

258 SCRA 483). 40 (a) subsists & remains unaffected even if he was granted probation. . perfection of an appeal is relinquishment of alternative remedy of availing of Probation Law (Dela Torre vs. Comelec. 498 SCRA 49)  Petitioner’s conviction of fencing which is a crime of moral turpitude (Anti-Fencing Law) & thus falling squarely under the disqualification in Sec. Comelec. Cases  Punong Barangay convicted of arbitrary detention but has not served his sentence because of the grant of probation is not disqualified to seek ’02 local elective office (Moreno vs.

254 SCRA 514)  Where the decision has not become final by reason of his filing a MR. Sulong. dual citizenship not a disqualification (Mercado vs. respondent local elective official is not disqualified to run (Lingating vs. A local elective official who is removed before the expiration of his term is disqualified from being a candidate for local elective position (Reyes vs. Manzano. 391 SCRA 629)  “Dual citizenship” refers to “dual allegiance”. Comelec. 26 May 1999)(note: ruling now modified by RA 9225) .

 Affiant must state in clear and unequivocal terms that he is renouncing all foreign citizenship for it to be effective (Eusebio Lopez vs. citizenship under this Act and seek elective public office shall meet the qualifications xxx and at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy. 23 July 2008) . 5 (2)]. Comelec. make a personal & sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before public officer authorized to administer an oath [Sec. Dual Citizenship Act (RA 9225)  Those who retain or re-acquire Phil.

Quezon (Caasi vs. as manifested by some act(s) independent of and done prior to filing his candidacy for elective office of Mayor of Bolinao. Candidate Merito Miguel who is a green card holder must waive his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country. 191 SCRA 229) . CA.

took his oath in Dec. Petitioner. Comelec. repatriation is effected by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to RP and registration of Certificate of Repatriation in proper civil registry and the Immigration Bureau. hence he is disqualified (Alterejos vs. a candidate for post of Mayor of San Jacinto. Under Sec. Masbate in May ’04 elections. 441 SCRA 655). . of candidacy. 2 of RA 8171. ’97 but registered his Certificate w/the Civil Registry and the Immigration Bureau only after 6 years. He completed all requirements for repatriation only after he filed his cert.

Since the candidate for elective office was a natural born Filipino before he became a naturalized American citizen. HRET. 357 SCRA 545) . Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. he was restored to his former status as a natural born Filipino upon repatriation (Bengson vs.

188 SCRA 154 . 437 SCRA 657 *Binamira vs. Garrucho. Designation  Distinguished from appointment  Cases: *National Amnesty Commission vs. COA.

Macaraig. Appointment  Kinds of appointment: permanent and temporary  Different steps in process of appointment  Acceptance of appointment not essential to its validity but necessary to the full possession of the office  One who holds a temporary appointment has no fixed tenure of office (Achacoso vs. 195 SCRA 237) .

240 SCRA 139) . Buenaseda. 197 SCRA 168)  Resident physician position is not permanent (Felix vs. CSC. 235 SCRA 87)  Acceptance of a temporary appointment on his own volition and in exchange of a permanent appointment (Romualdez vs. CSC. Acceptance of a temporary appointment without intention to abandon permanent position (Palmera vs.

CSC & Despalo. 238 SCRA 572) . Power to Appoint  An exercise of discretion (Patagoc vs. CSC & Caronon. 14 May 1990)  “next-in-rank” rule (Umoso vs. CSC. 234 SCRA 819)  Appointment required to be submitted to CSC (Tomali vs.

RA 6850 (a law granting CS eligibility to employees efficiently serving for at least 7 yrs. CA. Power of CSC to approve or disapprove (Orbos vs.) does not cure a void appointment for being based on petitioner’s false representation of eligibility (Maniebo vs. . CSC & Madarang. 189 SCRA 459)  Even an appointment initially approved by CSC may be subsequently recalled when found to be invalid. 627 SCRA 571).

79. 67.  Exceptions to the rule . 237 SCRA 184). EO 292: prohibition within 3rd degree of consanguinity or affinity  Sec. EO 292: penalty of fine of not more than P1. Nepotism rule  Sec. CSC. 59. RA 7160: prohibition within 4th degree of consanguinity or affinity  A promotional appointment violative of nepotism rule is null and void (Debulgado vs.000 or not more than 6 years imprisonment or both  Sec.

. nepotism would include designation. who had been holding a promotional appointment as Civil Security Officer. the prohibition vs. nepotism: take out of the discretion of the appointing or recommending authority. Although what was extended by petitioner Governor to Benjamin. because what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly (Laurel V vs. 203 SCRA 195). CSC. was merely a designation – and not an appointment – to the position of Provincial Administrator.  Purpose of the rule vs.

did not legally oblige PSCA to reappoint her. vs. appointee need not be previously heard (Debulgado vs. 246 SCRA 283)  Respondent’s success in the CS exam upon end of her temporary appointment as Bd. Where CSC disapproves appointment. 237 SCRA 186)  Passage of CS exam does not transform temporary appointment to permanent (Camarines Prov. There are other considerations like confidence & trust (Gloria vs. CA. 249 SCRA 133). Rosario Cerillo. Sec. . CSC.

353 SCRA 94). Aumentado. CA. CSC. 442 SCRA 507). 570 SCRA 582).  No violation of CSC resolution prohibiting midnight appointment where the filling up resulted from deliberate action and careful consideration of qualifications (Quirog vs. Appointing authority & appointee are real parties to challenge CSC disapproval (Abella vs. Vll. 15 of Constitution applies only to presidential appointments and not to local chief executives (De Rama vs. . Sec.  Prohibition on “midnight appointments” under Art.

15 Constitution  “Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term. Sec. Vll. the President or Acting President shall not make appointments. except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. Art.” .

rank or salary. Quezon City (DECS vs. 183 SCRA 555) . 31 SCRA 637)  Reassignment of Gloria Navarro as Principal in Division of City Schools. CA. Lopez. employee may be transferred or reassigned provided … no substantial change in title. Maria vs.  5 year term Dean of College of Education (Sta. When appointee may be reassigned/transferred  Where appointment indicates no specific station.

EO 292 authorizes the Commission to carry out changes in the organization as the need arises (Fernandez vs. 338 SCRA 10).  Appointments to staff of CSC are not appointments to a specified public office but appointments to particular positions or ranks. 242 SCRA 193). Reassignment that is indefinite violates security of tenure and is in effect constructive dismissal (Gloria vs. Also. Tomas. Sto. . CA & Icasiano. Petitioners were each appointed to the position of Director lV without specification of any particular office or station.

. 435 SCRA 295).  BIR Commissioner is authorized to assign or reassign revenue officers (Vinzons- Chato vs. A reassignment which removes from the officer power of supervision over employees is a diminution of her status (Padolina vs.  Mayor has power to reconstitute CSSDO and devolve national DSWD employees to CSSDO in line w/ devolution under RA 7160 (Plaza vs. Fernandez. 343 SCRA 442). Martinez. 344 SCRA 18). Cassion.

Presumption of regularity does not apply when petitioner’s acts are not within his duties specified by law but pertain to the Board (Reyes. Bad faith is evident by the fact that the reassignment was issued days after the reassigned officials filed a graft case vs. . 596 SCRA 35). Jr. petitioner and that the authority to reassign officers of the LWUA lies with the Board and not with petitioner. Belisario. vs.

 Petitioner’s appointment is not permanent as she does not have the rank appropriate for position of Chief Public Attorney (Cuevas vs. within CES. personnel can be shifted to another position w/o violating their rights to security of tenure because their status & salaries are based on their ranks & not on their jobs. . 347 SCRA 339). Bacal.Career Executive Service (CES)  Security of tenure in CES is acquired w/respect to rank and not to position.

to wit: a) CES eligibility. incumbent of CES position may qualify for appointment to a CES rank. 472 SCRA 577). his appointment may be withdrawn anytime w/o violating right to security of tenure (Caringal vs. 2 requisites must concur in order that an employee in the CES may attain security of tenure. W/o CES eligibility.  Passing CES exam entitles examinee to conferment of CES eligibility. and b) appointment to the appropriate CES rank. Upon conferment. . PCSO.

. 29 April ’09). CSC. Petitioner’s separation from the service w/o cause as Dep. however. Although the law allows the appointment of a non-CES eligible to CES positions in the government in the absence of appropriate eligibles & in the interest of public service. Director for Hospital Support Services is valid as her position belongs to the CES (Amores vs. in all cases the appointment is at best temporary conditioned on the subsequent acquisition of the required CES eligibility.

he acquires no security of tenure even if he is a CES eligible. 371 SCRA 413). 350 SCRA 528). He could thus be reassigned to other positions in the CES as he did not have security of tenure (General vs. though a CES eligible. Respondent. LTO RD Roco. does not possess the appropriate CES rank.Reg. Montesa. w/c is CES rank level V. V. The Integrated Reorganization Plan (PD 1) allows the appointment of non-CES eligibles.  Justification of transfer/reassignment of CESO to other positions: mobility and flexibility. Unless and until an employee in the CES is appointed to the appropriate CES rank. provided they subsequently acquire the eligibility (De Leon vs. . like Montesa as Ministry Legal Counsel. for the position of RD of LTO.

517 SCRA 561). Any express promise of another position is void (Collantes vs. he resigned. Petitioner’s claim that his relief as Undersecretary for Civil Relations of DND violated his security of tenure as CESO is untenable because. but there can be no distinction between resigning from a position and resigning from a rank. Rank of a CESO is deactivated upon resignation from the gov’t service. There is a distinction between position and rank. A CESO may be transferred or reassigned from one position to another without losing his rank. which includes the resignation of a CESO from his position. . CA. by his own deliberate deed.

Contractual personnel & emergency/seasonal staff . Positions Excluded from CES (CESB Res.May ’09) 1. Managerial and executive positions in non-career service w/c include the ff: a. Secretaries and other officials of cabinet rank and their personal/confi staff c. Elective officials & their personal/confi staff b. Managerial and executive positions w/fixed term of office as provided in charter or law 2. 799. Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office & their personal/confi staff d.

Positions excluded from CES 3. PNP. State colleges and universities unless provided in their respective charters. Position of Head Executive Assistant . the Scientific Career Service and the like 4. Managerial and executive positions in the national government belonging to the closed career systems w/c are administered by special bodies such as the Foreign Service.

Ermita. 472 SCRA 589) . President’s issuance of appointments in an acting capacity not impairment of power of Congress (Pimentel vs. Vll. Distinction  Distinction between ad interim appointments from appointments in an acting capacity.). Sec. 16 Const. Presidential Appointments  ad interim and regular (Art.

172 SCRA 160). 380 SCRA 49)  Appointments solely for President to make cannot be ad interim appointments (Bautista vs. Ad interim appointment is permanent. Benipayo. . and not a temporary appointment that can be withdrawn or revoked anytime. Salonga. President can renew ad interim appointment of a by-passed appointee (Matibag vs.

. 3 stages in regular appointments  4 groups of officers whom the President shall appoint  The “other officers” referred to whose appointments are vested in the President under the Const.

Singson. Mison. 312 SCRA 239 (’02 BQ) . Sec. 7 on Sectoral Rep. 232 SCRA 555  Calderon vs. 156 SCRA 549  Tarrosa vs. Sistoza. Carale. XVlll. Cases  Quintos Deles vs.)  Sarmiento vs. 177 SCRA 259 (Art. 208 SCRA 254  Manalo vs. Commission on Appointments.

Vll is equally applicable to appointment of SC members. JBC. Art. 3/17/10). 15. Had the framers intended to. Vlll which is a command to the President to fill up any vacancy within 90 days from its occurrence (De Castro vs. Art. 4. Vll does not apply to appointment of members of the Supreme Court. most likely in Sec. Art. 4. Art. they could have easily and surely written that the prohibition in Sec. . Vlll. 15. Prohibition on midnight appointment in Sec. The express intent of the framers is enshrined in Sec.

these are all subject to the President’s power of control (Rufino vs. Although CCP enjoys autonomy of policy & operation. 6 of PD 15. Endriga. Vll. 16. Sec. . thus giving the Board authority to initiate & formulate policies & undertake activities. Appointments of fourth group of lower- ranked officers may by law be vested in the head of board. 496 SCRA 16). Art. insofar CCP Board to elect their co-trustees is unconstitutional as it violates Sec. The Chair of CCP is vested with power under PD 15 to appoint lower- ranked officers but not the co-trustees of the board.

but a simple revamp of personnel.Modes of Terminating Official Relations  Abolition is neither removal or separation. (Dario vs. or there is mere change of nomenclature of positions.e. Mison. He separated 394 personnel but replaced them w/ 522. 176 SCRA 84) . no actual reorganization took place.  Reorganization is valid when done in good faith. A reorganization is in good faith if it is for purpose of economy or make bureaucracy more efficient. or redundancy of functions. reduction of personnel . But if the abolition is for political reason or to defeat security of tenure. the abolition is void. there is no dismissal since the position itself ceases to exist. If so. i. Here. consolidation of offices or abolition for the purpose of economy.

 RA 6715 which declared vacant NLRC positions & provided for the removal of incumbents upon qualification of their successors is unconstitutional. 194 SCRA 672). Murcia. she was awarded back salaries equivalent to 5 yrs. Arizabal.) and the two new offices created have similar functions. 186 SCRA 109). .. It did not expressly or impliedly abolish petitioners’ offices (Mayor vs. Macaraeg. (Gingson vs. 1988)  Where abolished office (Science Promotion Inst. Considering the lapse of 20 yrs. abolition lacks good faith (Guerrero vs. The municipality’s pretended abolition of petitioner’s position of dentist on ground of lack of funds is void as the municipality approved salary & budget increases and issued new appointments at the time of her dismissal. 08 Feb.

There can be no valid appointments to non-vacant positions. All acts done pursuant to Sec. RA 8551 effected a reorganization of the PNP and not the NAPOLCOM. Its organizational structure. 8 are null & void.*Sec. Aguirre. powers & duties remain the same. being in violation of petitioners’ security of tenure guarantee. 8 of RA 8551 which provides that the terms of the current Commissioners are deemed expired is unconstitutional. The revisions in the new law do not constitute essential changes in the nature of NAPOLCOM as to result in the implied abolition of such office. 323 SCRA 313) . (Canonizado vs.

 When is there incompatibility of offices? Not mere physical impossibility of one person performing… but contrariety arises from nature & relations…  Positions of Inspector General of IAS and NAPOLCOM Commissioner are incompatible. RA 8551 prohibits an IAS personnel from sitting in a committee… . Also. Incompatibility of offices  Acceptance of another office incompatible w/ the first office ipso facto vacates the first office. NAPOLCOM has power of control over PNP.

 The crucial test to determine
incompatibility: whether one office is
subordinate to the other, i.e. one office has
right to intervene w/ the other. The
positions of PCGG Chair and Chief
Presidential Legal Counsel are incompatible
(PICI vs. Elma, 494 SCRA 54).
 Sec. 13, Art. Vl of Constitution was not
violated when respondent Senator got
elected as PNRC Chair. PNRC was created
by RA 95 to comply w/Geneva Convention
(Liban vs. Gordon, 593 SCRA 68).

 Abandonment of an office is the voluntary
& total relinquishment of an office by the
holder, w/intention to terminate his
possession & control
 No abandonment if office is vacated in
deference to requirement of law & despite
acceptance of IAS position (Canonizado case).
 Antonio’s failure to take steps to reassume
office… constitute abandonment (SB of San
Andres vs. CA, 284 SCRA 276; ’00BQ).

 Resignation – expression of incumbent of
an intention to relinquish his office and
acceptance by competent & lawful authority
(Ortiz vs. Comelec, 28 June ’88).
 Abandonment of office before acceptance of
resignation is punishable under Art. 238 RPC
 Submission of resignation of SB Member to
the Mayor is not a valid resignation. Sec. 82
of LGC provides its submission to the
Sanggunian (SB of San Andres case).

566 SCRA 4). Escalona. . DND. Acceptance of courtesy resignation does not does not mean express or implied promise of another position (Collantes vs. it is not lost by resignation of respondent from his office during the pendency of the case.  Resignation cannot be used as an escape to evade administrative liability.  Jurisdiction of the tribunal is acquired at the time of filing of complaint. 517 SCRA 561). Respondent Clerk of Court’s resignation before investigation is indicative of his guilt(Gonzales vs.

3/02/01). Inability to discharge duties of Presidency is political & addressed solely to Congress.  Whether resigned or not is to be determined by totality test. . 533 SCRA 622). Other penalties may still be imposed (Pagano vs. Nazarro. Hasty filing by petitioner cashier of her certificate of candidacy is a ploy to avoid administrative charge. Sec. Desierto. 12 of RA 3019 prohibiting resignation of officer during pendency of charges cannot be invoked by petitioner (Estrada vs. non-issue as Congress has declared GMA de jure President.

An illegally dismissed employee who is reinstated is considered not having left her office & should be given the corresponding compensation at time of reinstatement (not limited to 5 yrs.  Illegally dismissed officer is entitled to reinstatement and payment of back salaries & other monetary benefits from time of dismissal up to reinstatement. CA. 478 SCRA 152] . (Adiong vs. Failure to make a courtesy call to one’s superior or to submit her appointment papers is not an offense.) [Batangas Univ. Cause for removal must be as provided by law. vs. Bonifacio. 371 SCRA 374)  Summary dismissal has been repealed by RA 6654.

212 SCRA 768). .  Aguinaldo inapplicable to criminal case. Jalosjos. Comelec. Official cannot be removed for misconduct during a prior term (Aguinaldo vs. 324 SCRA 692). Reelection to the post of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal enforcement. Functions & duties of his office are not substantial distinctions w/c lift him from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom (Pp vs.

No disenfranchisement as people’s mandate yields to Constitution (Trillanes vs. while in detention (Pp vs.*Prisoners cannot hold office while in detention. all prisoners cannot practice their profession nor engage in business or occupation or hold office. Hon. 1) . elective or appointive. 27 June ’08) *As a necessary consequence of arrest and detention. Judge Pimentel. 380 Phil. Maceda.

 Disloyalty is not a ground for expulsion from HRET (Bondoc vs. . Pineda. the misconduct. ’02 BQ)  2 categories of administrative actions vs. misfeasance or malfeasance must be directly related to performance of official duties  Rule: Where crime is not office related. government employees  To warrant removal from office of an officer. officer may not be charged administratively based thereon until a final judgment of conviction of the crime involving moral turpitude or disqualification to hold office. 201 SCRA 792.

440 SCRA 578).  In grave misconduct as distinguished from simple misconduct. Belagan. are manifest. Exception: when the act or offense also constitutes violation of administrative rules. no conviction is required. constitute grave misconduct (CSC vs. . clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule.  Respondent’s act(s) of stealing a kiss and demanding for a date. as an unlawful consideration for issuance of a permit. the elements of corruption.

dishonesty need not be duty- connected.  If respondent is found guilty of 2 or more charges.  Effects of dismissal  Entitlement of dismissed employee to leave credits.  Willful failure to pay just debts: claims adjudicated by a court or claims the existence & justness of w/c are admitted by the debtor. penalty to be imposed is that corresponding to most serious charge and the rest are aggravating. . To warrant dismissal.

She is reinstated w/payment of back salaries up to reinstatement (Romagos vs. s. There was incomplete cause to drop her. But both result in loss of employment – a property right protected under due process clause. while the second does not. same did not render her incapable of performing her work. While petitioner at time of dropping from the rolls was suffering from protracted mental disorder. 533 SCRA 50).  Mental incapacity due to immoral or vicious habits under Sec. The first carries admin. 26 EO 292. disabilities. . 12. 46 EO 292 is different from mental incapacity under Sec. Metro Cebu Water. 1994). Action dropping public officer from the rolls is non- disciplinary (CSC Circular No.

employee. the Mayor & the CSC are real parties in interest to contest the CA reversal of their decision suspending respondents for 2 months & subsequently dropping them from the rolls (Mayor Dagadag vs. b) Salaries of respondent are drawn from municipal funds. The mayor has right to contest reversal by the CSC or the Court of Appeals of his order suspending or dismissing a mun. Reasons: a) His right to appeal flows from the fact that his power to appoint carries w/it power to remove. . Here. 450 SCRA 446).Tongnawa. He has real & substantial interest.

This refers to betrayal of public trust and includes cronyism w/c involves unduly favoring a crony to the prejudice of public interest (’00BQ). Court may proceed vs. Art. Fernan. 2/17/88)  Cronyism is a legal ground for impeachment of the President. 580 SCRA 106). 2. Impeachment under Sec.  Once impeachable officer retires. . him and impose sanction for misconduct during his tenure (Re: Justice Ruben Reyes. Xl  Observance of fundamental procedural requirement (Cuenco vs.

But here. A determination of what constitutes an impeachable offense is purely political (Francisco vs. 452 SCRA 714). Mojica. NMMP. 425 SCRA 44). .  An impeachable officer who is a member of the Bar cannot be disbarred without first being impeached. 582 SCRA 474). Borra w/c are supposed errors of judgment or grave abuse of discretion in appreciation of facts. Deputy Ombudsman not impeachable officer (OMB vs. since the grounds for the disbarment complaint vs.  Whether offenses in the impeachment complaint constitute valid impeachable offenses is a non- justiciable political question. complainant’s remedy is judicial (Marcoleta vs. Borra. are proper for an appeal.

204 SCRA 464). immediately preceding a regular local election (Sec. 74 RA 7160).  Loss of confidence as ground for recall is a political question where only the people are the judge (Evardone vs. .  No recall within 1 yr. Recall: formal withdrawal by electorate of their trust in elective official’s ability to discharge his office. 73 RA 7160). Comelec.  Elective local official sought to be recalled shall not be allowed to resign while recall process is in progress (Sec. from date of official’s assumption to office or 1 yr.

306 SCRA 287. Preventive Suspension  2 kinds of preventive suspension  Teachers exonerated of the original charges and found guilty only of violation of reasonable office rules are entitled to compensation xxx (Gloria vs. suspension on appeal (Sales vs. ’01BQ)  Postmaster originally dismissed from service but penalty reduced to 6 mos. CA. Mathay. 129 SCRA 321) .

 Modification on appeal of penalty of dismissal from service for gross neglect to 3 mos. reinstatement but no payment of backwages (CSC vs. LGC . Rabang. 14 March ’08)  Grounds for preventive suspension under Sec. 51 EO 292  Preventive suspension under Secs. suspension for simple neglect is not exoneration. 63 & 64.

 Sec. 24 RA 6770
 Sec. 13 RA 3019

 Cases:

*Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 383
*Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan, 173 SCRA 409
*Libanan vs. Sandiganbayan, 233 SCRA
163
*Berona vs. Sandiganbayan, 435 SCRA 306

 Purpose of pre-suspension hearing
 Cases

*Talaga vs. Sandiganbayan, 570
SCRA 622
*Juan vs. Pp, 322 SCRA 126
*Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, 356
SCRA 637 (’02BQ)
*Flores vs. Layosa, 436 SCRA 339

Rights, Duties & Privileges
 Basis of right to salary: legal title to the
office & the law attaches compensation to
the office.
 To be entitled to recover from the public
the salary, officer must show he is the
officer de jure. A mere de facto officer
cannot recover.
 In absence of constitutional prohibition,
legislature has absolute authority to
change the compensation of public officer.

 Compensation of Pres. for the increase shall not take effect after expiration of his term during w/c such increase was approved. & VP. Or VP shall not benefit the incumbent Pres. as fixed by law. Vll). Art. . 6. cannot be increased by Congress during their continuance in office. A law increasing the salary of the Pres. They shall not received during their tenure any other emolument from government or any other source (Sec. or VP.

Vlll). 10. their salary shall not be decreased (Sec. . Art. During their continuance in office. increase in their salary w/c may be made effective immediately. The salary of the members of the SC & judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law.  There is no prohibition vs.

Art. any increase can take effect only after the expiration of the full term of the members approving such increase. Vl). the increase.  Congress is not prohibited from increasing or decreasing the salary of its members. shall be determined by law (Sec. This rule applies also to those who voted vs. However. The salaries of Senators & Members of the House of Rep. . 10.

upon establishing his title to the office. .  He can recover from the public the salary so paid to the de facto officer after notice of the adjudication in favor of the former. cannot recover from the public the amount paid to the de facto officer for services performed by him before adjudication upon the title.Can an officer de jure recover from gov’t salary paid to de facto officer?  De jure officer.

He would not if payment of salary were made before adjudication of title. . Can de jure officer recover from de facto officer salary received by him? A de jure officer can recover from the de facto officer the salary. fees or other emoluments received by him after notice of adjudication of title in favor of the de jure.

a de facto officer who in good faith has had possession of the office & has discharged the duties is legally entitled to emoluments of the office. .  Officer may not retain salary from fees collected by him in his official capacity. Where there is no de jure officer.

double or indirect compensation. unless specifically authorized by law [Sec. 8 (1). lX B] . Art. attachment or assignment.  Agreement affecting compensation is void as vs.  No elective or appointive officer shall receive additional. Salary not subject to garnishment.  Salary cannot be assigned. public policy.

 Double compensation refers to two sets of compensation for two different offices held concurrently by one officer. for instance of a bonus. There is additional compensation when for one and the same office for which a compensation has been fixed there is added to such fixed compensation an extra reward in the form. .

. Tantuico. Domingo. 30 June ’08). 2. 166 SCRA 671.  Retirement pay may not be applied to indebtedness to the government (Cruz vs. GSIS. Tantuico vs. 8 par. Pensions: an act of liberality. Art. lX B)  Only full-time services with compensation are credited for retirement purposes under GSIS Act (Valdez vs. not a salary (Sec. 230 SCRA 391).

RA 3019)  COA can direct withholding of salary pending litigation of public officer’s liability (Santiago vs. 537 SCRA 740) . 13. 441 SCRA 534)  Loss of retirement benefits if public officer is convicted xxx (Sec. Benefits granted under GSIS Act (RA 8291) not subject to judicial & admin processes. COA. Exception (GSIS vs. including COA disallowances . COA.

13. No need to refund benefits received in good faith prior to Baybay ruling(De Jesus vs. 471 SCRA 626.  LWUA Reso granting compensation to BOD of LWDs is contrary to Sec. 403 SCRA 667). 568 SCRA 304). COA. PD 198 (Querubin vs. no matter how long continued. COA. 374 SCRA 482. Barbo vs. cannot give rise to any vested right if it is contrary to law. CSC. COA. Payment of per diem only & no other compensation under Sec. PD 198 (Baybay WD vs. Practice in granting the benefit. 13. 433 SCRA 773). . De Jesus vs. COA.

COA. 371 SCRA 158). . Sec. 13 PD 198 now amended by RA 9286 as approved on 04/02/04 *Apart from per diem. each director shall receive allowances & benefits as the Board may prescribe subject to LWUA approval  Alternates of ex-officio members of NHA Board are not entitled to extra compensation (Dela Cruz vs.

425 SCRA 437). the official has no right to receive additional compensation for his services in said position. retired or separated. RA 6975 considered them as PNP members. 38 of RA 8551. RA 7916 authorizing DOLE Sec. under Sec. 09 May ’07). The ex-officio position being part of the principal office. or representative to receive per diem as PEZA Board member violates Constitution (Dir. Manila’s Finest.  Retirement benefits under RA 8551 are applicable to INP members retired prior to effectivity of RA 6975 since INP was not abolished but merely transformed (PNP vs. . Bitonio vs. Also. the retirement benefits shall have retroactive effect in favor of PNP members. COA.

14 Sept. 444 SCRA 52). Sec.  Right of gov’t employees to organize is limited to formation of unions/assns… . CA. CA. 8 Art. Sec. 200 SCRA 323. 2(5) Art. Gesite vs.  Gov’t employees do not have right to strike xxx (SSS vs. lll. lXB. Xlll 1987 Constitution  Scope under EO 180 (Arizala vs. Sec. Constitutional right to self-organization  Sec. Manila PSTA vs. ’90).. CA. Educ.Terms & conditions of gov’t employment are governed by law. 3 Art. 175 SCRA 686.

CA. 305 SCRA 303).  What are excluded from (included in) negotiation by government employees? . 308 SCRA 781). Suspension by CSC (Alipat vs. CA. CA. Exercise of rights to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances must be exercised w/in reasonable limits xxx without work stoppage (Bangalisan vs. Dela Cruz vs.  No back wages may be awarded to the teachers who were reinstated after the dismissal order issued by the DECS Sec. were commuted to 6 mos. 276 SCRA 619.

i. 337 SCRA 736)  A duty of officialdom even if nobody demands (North Cotabato vs. MOA-AD. GRP. involving as it does the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State. . The subject of information sought. 28 Art. Right to Information  Guarantees right of people to demand information on matters of public concern (Sec.)  Can be invoked by any citizen (Gonzales vs. is of public concern. 568 SCRA 410). Narvasa.ll Const. w/c directly affects the lives of the public at large.e.

09 Dec. Exemptions from compulsory disclosure of information (Chavez vs. Ermita. 488 SCRA 1) . PCGG. Senate. 564 SCRA 153)  Doctrine of executive privilege which includes matters of diplomatic character under negotiation and review (Senate vs. ’98)  Right to information does not extend to ‘privileged information’ (Neri vs.

Art. 7 RA 6713 . Liability of Public Officers  An impeachable officer cannot be charged during his incumbency with any offense w/c carries with it penalty of removal (In re Gonzales. Xl Constitution  Sec. 3 RA 3019  Sec. 160 SCRA 771)  Sections 2 & 3.

RA 6713
 Sec. 4: Norms (code: CPJPRNCS)
 Sec. 5: Duties

 Sec. 8: Submission of SALN (in re
Sec. 7 RA 3019)
 Sec. 9: Divestment (avoid conflict of
interest at all times)

Unexplained Wealth of
Public Officers
 Basis of Lifestyle Check:
*Sec. 1 Art. Xl Constitution
*Sec. 8 RA 3019 in re to RA 1379
 Cases
*PNB vs. Gancayco, 15 SCRA 91
*Banco Filipino vs. Purisima, 161 SCRA
576
*Marquez vs. Desierto, 359 SCRA 773
 Exceptions to the rule vs. disclosure of
bank deposits (UBP vs. CA, 321 SCRA
563)

Liability of Head of Office
 Sec. 102 PD 1405
 Head of office as final approving authority
of disallowed transaction not necessarily
personally liable (Albert vs. Gangan, 353
SCRA 680; Peralta vs. Desierto, 473 SCRA
323)
 Heads have to rely on their subordinates
and on good faith of those who prepared
documents (Arias vs. Sandiganbayan, 180
SCRA 309)

374 SCRA 460). 598 SCRA 342)  General Rule: Superiors cannot be held liable for acts of their subordinates  Exceptions . Guerrero.  Negligence of subordinates cannot always be ascribed to their superior (De Jesus vs. OMB. Administrative liability could not be based on the principle of command responsibility (Principe vs.

officials for acts in performance of their duties. ’00) . 23 Feb. No recovery of damages by official for falsehood charge related to his official conduct unless statement was with actual malice (Banas vs. CA. 325 SCRA 263)  ‘state immunity from suit’ doctrine applies to complaints vs. rule not applicable if sued in his personal capacity (Lansang CA.

331 SCRA 55)  Public officer cannot invoke immunity if complaints vs. CA. Lichauco. State immunity doctrine affording protection to public officers applies only to activities within the scope of their authority done in good faith (Calub vs. her do not impose financial liability vs. Agila Satellite vs. 489 SCRA 160) . the State but merely nullification of state action (Phil.

7 Art. 14 Art. Vl (Incompatible Office & Forbidden Office) *Sec. Disabilities and Inhibitions of Public Officers  Under ’87 Constitution * Sec. Vll . lX-B *Sec. 13 Art. 13 Art. Vl *Sec.

. 13 Art. 494 SCRA 62). VP. 13 Art. 7. 7 Art. But Elma remains covered by the general prohibition under Sec. their deputies or assistants. Vll is the exception applicable only to the Pres. Elma. Vll is not applicable to the PCGG Chairman nor to the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (Public Interest Center vs..  Sec. lX-B lays down the general rule while Sec. `  Sec. Art. lX-B. Cabinet members.

like their principals. Bitonio vs.  Alternates of ex-officio members in gov’t boards. 13 Art. cannot receive additional compensation (Dela Cruz vs. 22 Feb. officials without additional compensation in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of their office (Civil Liberties vs. Vll is not applicable to posts occupied by Exec. 425 SCRA 437). holding dual or multiple offices under Sec. 371 SCRA 157.. Exec. . Prohibition vs. COA. ’91). Sec. COA.

3(2) Art. 8 Art. as ex-officio JBC member (Sec. as head of economic and planning agency (Sec. to wit: 1. Vice Pres. double or indirect compensation. as Cabinet Sec. Xll)  In any case. Vll] 2. Pres. the appointive official is not entitled to received additional. Official may hold any other office or employment only when specifically authorized by Constitution. Vlll) 3. unless specifically authorized by law. Justice Sec. [Sec. . 9 Art.

Cases  Gordon as SBMA Chairman and Mayor of Olongapo City under Sec. 13. 462 SCRA 1) . RA 7227 (Flores vs. Fajardo. 223 SCRA 568)  Practice of law and acceptance of employment as PLEB member and Lupon member by government lawyer (Lorenzana vs. Drilon.

 As an exception. 530 SCRA 759). it will not conflict with her public functions (Query of Atty. 7(b)(2) of RA 6713  Government lawyers cannot handle private cases for they are expected to devote themselves full-time to the work of their office (Ramos vs. it is authorized by Constitution or law. Sec. conditions: 1 st. Imbang. 2 nd. public officer can engage in private practice under the ff. 596 SCRA 379) . Buffe.

end .