ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |1

DUE PROCES CASES

First Batch

ADMIN AND ELECTION

 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |2

1. filed for a motion for reconsideration but it

was denied. Her appeals to the Commission,
VILLA vs. LAZARO
and subsequently to the Office of the
DOCTRINE: President, were likewise denied. It must be
stressed that neither the respondent nor the
Administrative proceedings are not
Commission ever made known the
exempt from the operation of certain basic
complaint ledged by the respondent to the
and fundamental procedural principles, such
petitioner until much later, after the
as the due process requirements in
Commissioner has rendered several adverse
investigations and trials. An earlier
rulings against her.
judgment on the merits by a competent
court cannot be negated by a result of
administrative proceedings.
ISSUE:

Was the petitioner denied of due

FACTS: process against which the defense of failure
of AV to take timely appeal will not avail?
Petitioner was granted a building
permit issued by the City Engineer to
construct a funeral parlour. The court
HELD:
rendered a judgment in favour of the
petitioner. Following the adverse decision of All of the foregoing translate to a
the court, respondent, instead of appealing denial of due process against which the
the judgment lodged a complaint with the defense of failure to take timely appeal will
Human Settlement Regulatory Commission not avail. Administrative proceedings are
(HSRC) on substantially the same ground not exempt from the operation of certain
litigated in the action relative parlour’s basic and fundamental procedural
distance from hospitals. Petitioner received principles, such as the due process
a telegram from the HSRC through its requirements in investigations and trials.
Commissioner requesting transmittal of And this administrative process is
proof of location clearance granted by the recognized to include: (a) the right to
office. The petitioner sent a telegram notice, be it actual or constructive, of the
containing the required locational clearance. institution of the proceedings that may
Subsequently, the petitioner received a affect a person’s legal right; (b) reasonable
Show Cause order requiring her to show opportunity to appear and defend his rights,
cause why a fine should not be imposed on introduce witnesses and relevant evidence
her or a cease-and-desist order issued in his favor; (c) a tribunal so constituted as
against her for her failure to show proof of to give him reasonable assurance of
locational clearance. In spite of her honesty and impartiality, and one of
communication that she had already mailed competent jurisdiction; and (d) a finding or
all the necessary documents, he was still decision by that tribunal supported by
fined at the amount of P 10,000.00 and was substantial evidence presented at the
required to cease operations. The petitioner hearing, or at least contained in the records
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |3

or disclosed to the parties affected. And it was assigned as the Sec of Agri. And
being clear that some, at least, of those Natural Resources. He did not inhibit
essential elements did not obtain or were himself from deciding on the appeal but he
not present in the proceedings complained instead affirmed his earlier decision when
of, any judgment rendered, or order issued, he was still the director of mines.
therein was null and void, could never
ZCM then appealed before the CFI
become final and could be attacked in any
of Zambales. The CFI affirmed the decision
appropriate proceeding. Also, an earlier
of Gozon. It held that the disqualification of
judgment on the merits by a competent
a judge to review his own decision or ruling
court cannot be negated by a result of
(Sec. 1, Rule 137, Rules of Court) does not
administrative proceedings. What the record
apply to administrative bodies; that there is
shows is that the petitioner responded
no provision in the Mining Law, disqualifying
promptly to orders and communications
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
sent to her. At any rate, this court will not
Resources from deciding an appeal from a
permit the result of an administrative
case which he had decided as Director of
proceeding riddled with serious defects
Mines; that delicadeza is not a ground for
already pointed out to negate an earlier
disqualification; that the ZCM did not
judgment on the merits on the same matter
seasonably seek to disqualify Gozon from
regularly rendered by competent court.
deciding their appeal, and that there was no
2. evidence that Gozon acted arbitrarily and
with bias, prejudice, animosity or hostility to
G.R. No. L-49711 November 7, ZCM. ZCM appealed the case to the CA.
1979
The CA reversed Gozon’s finding
ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING and declared that ZCM had the rights earlier
VS. CA GR NO. 49711 11/07/1979 attributed to Martinez et al by Gozon.
Martinez et al appealed averring that the
factual basis found by Gozon as Director of
Due Process – Administrative Due Process Mines be given due weight. The CA
FACTS: reconsidered after realizing that Gozon
cannot affirm his own decision and the CA
remanded the case to the Minister of
ZCM filed an administrative case Natural Resources. Now both parties
before the Director of Mines Gozon to have appealed urging their own contentions; ZCM
them be declared the rightful and prior wants the CA’s earlier decision to be
locators and possessors of 69 mining claims reaffirmed while Martinez et al demanded
in Sta. Cruz, Zambales. They are asserting that Gozon’s finding be reinstated. The CA
their claim against the group of Martinez denied both petition.
and Pabiloňa. Gozon decided in favor of
Martinez et al. ZCM appealed the case
before the Secretary of Agriculture and ISSUE: 
Natural Resources. During pendency, Gozon
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |4

Whether or not Gozon can validly committee found him guilty. PAL then
affirm his earlier decision w/o disturbing dismissed Singson from employment.
due process. Singson then filed a case before NLRC
against PAL for illegal dismissal. Labor
Arbiter Raul Aquino ruled in favor of
RULING:  Singson as he found PAL’s side insufficient
to dismiss Singson. PAL appealed to the
National Labor Relations Commission
The SC annulled the decision of
(NLRC) and his case was raffled to the 2nd
Gozon calling it as a mockery of justice.
Division thereof.
Gozon had acted with grave abuse of
discretion. In order that the review of the The 2nd Division, however, was
decision of a subordinate officer might not composed of Commissioners Victoriano
turn out to be a farce, the reviewing officer Calaycay, Rogelio Rayala, and former Labor
must perforce be other than the officer Arbiter Raul Aquino – same arbiter which
whose decision is under review; otherwise, decided Singson’s case. The commissioners
there could be no different view or there deliberated on the case and thereafter
would be no real review of the case. The reversed the decision of Aquino.
decision of the reviewing officer would be a
biased view; inevitably, it would be the
same view since being human, he would not Singson moved for reconsideration.
admit that he was mistaken in his first view This time, only Commissioners Calaycay and
of the case. The SC affirmed the Rayala deliberated on the motion. The
2nd decision of the CA. motion was denied.

3. ISSUE:

Whether or not Singson was denied

of due process.
MIGUEL SINGSON, petitioner,
vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), respondents. RULING:

FACTS: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that

Singson was denied due process. The SC
Miguel Singson was an employee of held that Singson was denied due process
the Philippine Air Lines (PAL). In 1991, a when Aquino participated, as presiding
Japanese national alleged that Singson commissioner of the 2nd Division of the
extorted money from her ($200.00) by NLRC, in reviewing PAL’s appeal. He was
accusing her of having excess baggage; and reviewing his own decision as a former
that to settle the issue, she needs to pay labor arbiter.
said amount to him. Singson was later
investigated and the investigating
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |5

Under Rule VII, Section 2 (b) of the Raquel Linatok filed w/ office of
New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, each Secretary, DA, an affidavit-complaint vs.
Division shall consist of one member from Lucas (photographer of DA) for misconduct,
the public sector who shall act as the allegedly because Mr. Lucas touched her
Presiding Commissioner and one member thighs down her ankle and when she kicked
each from the workers and employers him for repeating the same actions, the two
sectors, respectively. The composition of had a verbal exchanged and Mr. Lucas
the Division guarantees equal shoved her to the door twice, causing her to
representation and impartiality among its stumble.
members. Thus, litigants are entitled to a
When Lucas was summoned by
review of three (3) commissioners who are
BOPI to answer the complaint, Lucas said
impartial right from the start of the process
that there was no malice when he
of review.
accidentally touched Linatok’s leg when he
Commissioner Aquino can hardly be reached for his shoes.
considered impartial since he was the
*BOPI: GUILTY for SIMPLE
arbiter who decided the case under review.
MISCONDUCT and recommended to be
He should have inhibited himself from any
suspended for 1m,1d. Approved by Sec of
participation in this case. The infirmity of
DA. Lucas appealed to CSC.
the resolution was not cured by the fact
that the motion for reconsideration of *CSC: GUILTY of GRAVE
Singson was denied by two commissioners MISCONDUCT, dismissed from service. MR
and without the participation of Aquino. The denied. appeal with CA.
right of petitioner to an impartial review of
*CA: set aside CSC resolution,
his appeal starts from the time he filed his
reinstate BOPI resolution (simple
appeal. He is not only entitled to an
misconduct)
impartial tribunal in the resolution of his
motion for reconsideration. Moreover, his based on MC 49-89, classification of
right is to an impartial review of three administrative offenses:
commissioners. The denial of Singson’s right
a. grave misconduct: grave offenses,
to an impartial review of his appeal is not
punishable by dismissal
an innocuous error. It negated his right to
due process. b. simple misconduct: less grave offenses,
punishable by suspension (1st offense),
dismissal (2nd offense)
4.
+ no Due Notice: only found out about the
CSC vs. Lucas modification of the charge against him
when he received notice of the resolution
Nature: Petition for review on
dismissing him from office (wait, the charge
certiorari
was modified?)
FACTS:
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |6

ISSUES: G.R. No. 109113 January 25,

1995
(a) whether respondent Lucas was denied
CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE
due process when the CSC found him guilty
METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND
of grave misconduct on a charge of simple
SEWERAGE SYSTEM (MWSS),
misconduct
petitioners, vs.
(b) whether the act complained of HON. OMBUDSMAN CONRADO
constitutes grave misconduct. M. VASQUEZ AND MEMBERS OF THE
PHILIPPINE LARGE DIAMETER
PRESSURE PIPE MANUFACTURERS
RULING: ASSOCIATION (PLDPPMA),
respondents.
(a) YES

-as Lucas was merely charged with simple FACTS:

misconduct but was convicted of grave
misconduct, he was deprived of his right to Private respondent Philippine Large
due process. Diameter Pressure Pipes Manufacturer’s
Association (PLDPPMA) filed a complaint
*Due Process: informed of the charges before the Office of the Ombudsman on the
against him + convicted of ONLY the crime public bidding conducted by MWSS for
w/ w/c he was charged projects APM-01 and APM-02 of its Angat
Water Supply Optimization Project
(AWSOP), which aims to provide 1.3 million
(b) No proof liters of water daily to about 3.8 million
“Of course, we do not in any way condone residents in the metropolitan area. 
respondent’s act. Even in jest, he had no The letter of complaint accused the MWSS
right to touch complainant’s leg. However, of an apparent plan even before the bidding
under the circumstances, such act is not to favour suppliers of fiberglass pipes and
constitutive of grave misconduct, in the urged the Ombudsman to conduct an
absence of proof that respondent was investigation to hold in abeyance the award
maliciously motivated. We note that of contracts.
respondent has been in the service for
The Fact finding and Intelligence
twenty (20) years and this is his first
Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman
offense.”
issued an injunction directed to the Board of
Trustees of the MWSS  (1) to set aside the
recommendation of its Pre-qualification,
Disposition: DENY PETITION BY CSC
Bids, and Awards Committee for
Construction Services and Technical
Equipment (PBAC-CSTE) that contract no.
APM-01 be given to a contractor offering
5. fiberglass pipes and (2) to instead award
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |7

the contract to a complying and responsive position to evaluate the feasibility of the
bidder. projections of the bidders and to decide
which bid is compatible with its
Petitioner MWSS assailed the order development plans. The exercise of this
of the Ombudsman for lack of jurisdiction of discretion to reject a bid and to award
the Ombudsman over  PLDPPMA’s complaint contracts, which is a purely technical
and for issuing the challenged order matter, is vested in the MWSS
contrary to PD 1818 prohibiting the entrusted with such function that even
issuance of restraining orders/injunctions in courts or the Ombudsman cannot
cases involving government infrastructure unduly interfere from. 
projects.

ISSUE: 6.
     GILDA G. CRUZ and ZENAIDA C.
Whether or not the Ombudsman has PAITIM, petitioner, vs. THE CIVIL
jurisdiction over PLDPPMA’s complaint and SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.
has the power to issue orders directing the
Board of Trustees of the MWSS to set aside
the recommendation of PBAC-CSTE and to
instead award the contract to a complying FACTS:
and responsive bidder.
Petitioners Zenaida Paitim, Municipal
RULING:    Treasurer of Norzagaray, Bulacan and Gilda
No.  While recognizing the Cruz were charged with dishonesty, grave
investigatory and public assistance duties of misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the
the Ombudsman, the assailed orders were best interest of the service after a fact-
an undue interference in the adjudicatory finding investigation disclosed that Paitim
responsibility of the MWSS Board of impersonated Gilda Cruz in the non-
Trustees rather than a mere directive professional career civil service
requiring the proper observance of and examinations conducted on July 30, 1989 in
compliance with the law.  The Fact finding Quezon City.
and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the
Ombudsman reveals a predisposition Petitioners denied the charges
against the use of fiberglass pipes, a against them, declared that they were
technical, rather than a legal matter. electing a formal investigation on the matter
and subsequently moved to dismiss on the
As a GOCC, MWSS is charged with ground of denial of due process because the
the construction, maintenance, and Civil Service Commission (CSC) was the
operation of waterwork system to insure complainant, the prosecutor and the judge,
uninterrupted and adequate supply and all at the same time. The motion was
distribution of potable water. Therefore, it is denied.
the agency that should be in the best
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |8

The CSC, in a resolution dated July OVER ALL ADMINISTRATIVE CASES;

1, 1998, found petitioners guilty as charged REFERS TO CASES FILED AGAINST
and ordered their dismissal from the EMPLOYEES IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR
government service. Petitioners elevated DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS; DOES NOT
the case to the Court of Appeals via a REFER TO IRREGULARITIES OR
petition for review which was, however, ANOMALIES CONNECTED TO
dismissed. Their subsequent motion for EXAMINATIONS UNDER THE DIRECT
reconsideration was also denied. CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE
COMMISSION; CASE AT BAR. —
Hence, this recourse.
Petitioners maintain that the CSC did
ISSUE: not have original jurisdiction to hear and
decide the administrative case. Allegedly, in
Whether not petitioners were accordance with Section 47(1), Chapter 7,
denied due process. Subtitle A, Title 1, Book V, Administrative
Code of 1987, the CSC is vested with
RULING:
appellate jurisdiction only in all
administrative cases where the penalty
The Civil Service Commission is
imposed is removal or dismissal from the
vested with the appellate jurisdiction in all
office and where the complaint was filed by
administrative cases where the penalty
a private citizen against the government
imposed is removal or dismissal from office
employee. Petitioners' invocation of the law
and where the complaint was filed by a
is misplaced. The provision is applicable to
private citizen. This appellate jurisdiction
instances where administrative cases are
does not contemplate a case where the acts
filed against erring employees in connection
complained of was committed against the
with their duties and functions of the office.
Commission itself as when the employee
This is, however, not the scenario
committed irregularity or anomaly in the
contemplated in the case at bar. It must be
conduct of its examinations.
noted that the acts complained of arose
Factual findings of administrative from a cheating caused by the petitioners in
bodies like the Civil Service Commission, if the Civil Service (Subprofessional)
supported by substantial evidence, are examination. The examinations were under
binding on this Court. There is no denial of the direct control and supervision of the
administrative due process where after Civil Service Commission. The culprits are
being formally charged, respondents government employees over whom the Civil
submitted their answer and given Service Commission undeniably has
opportunity to defend themselves. jurisdiction. Thus, after the petitioners were
duly investigated and ascertained whether
NOTA BENE: they were indeed guilty of dishonesty, the
penalty meted was dismissal from the
1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; CIVIL SERVICE office. Section 28, Rule XIV of the Omnibus
COMMISSION; APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Service Rules and Regulations explicitly
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |9

provides that the CSC can rightfully take HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE
cognizance over any irregularities or PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT
anomalies connected to the examinations. COMMISSION, PUBLIC ESTATES
AUTHORITY, and TEODORICO C.
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS TAGUINOD, in his capacity as General
OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES SUPPORTED Manager and Chief Executive Officer of
BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BINDING ON the Public Estates Authority,
SUPREME COURT. — Respondents, G.R. Nos. 165399 and
165475, May 30, 2011
The fact that the complaint was filed
by the CSC itself does not mean that it Facts:
could not be an impartial judge. As an Petitioners Theron V. Lacson
administrative body, its decision was based (Lacson), Jaime R. Millan (Millan) and
on substantial findings. Factual findings of Bernardo T. Viray (Viray) were non-
administrative bodies, being considered presidential appointees and career service
experts in their field, are binding on the officials of respondent Philippine Estates
Supreme Court Authority (PEA). Sulficio O. Tagud (Tagud)
filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of
. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW;
the Ombudsman accusing petitioners for
ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS; NOT
overpricing, by P600 million the contract for
DENIED WHERE PETITIONERS WERE
the construction of the President Diosdado
GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. —
Macapagal Boulevard.
It cannot be denied that the The Ombudsman proceeded with the
petitioners were formally charged after a investigation of both the criminal and the
finding that a prima facie case for administrative aspects of the case. The
dishonesty lies against them. They were Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC)
properly informed of the charges. They requested the Ombudsman for authority to
submitted an Answer and were given the conduct administrative disciplinary
opportunity to defend themselves. proceedings against the petitioners. The
Petitioners can not, therefore, claim that administrative case charged them with
there was a denial of due process much less Dishonesty, Serious Misconduct and
the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Acts Inimical to the Interest of the
CSC to take cognizance of the case. We do Public Service in violation of Section 52A
not find reversible error with the decision of (1), (3) and (20) of the Uniform Rules on
the Court of Appeals in upholding the CSC Administrative Cases.
Resolution.
The basic complaint has not been
further docketed as an administrative case.
Thus, the same did not preclude the
7. subsequent filing with the PAGC of an
administrative complaint against the
THERON V. LACSON, Petitioner vs. THE concerned PEA officials. A formal
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
10

complaint was filed by the Investigation exclusive, but is concurrent with other
Office of PAGC charging several employees similarly authorized agencies of the
of PEA, including petitioners. government in relation to the offense
charged. Therefore, with respect to
During the preliminary conference,
petitioners, the Ombudsman may share its
petitioners raised the lack of jurisdiction
authority to conduct an investigation
of PAGC over the complaint against
concerning administrative charges against
them considering that they were not
them with other agencies.
presidential appointees and there was
no allegation that they had conspired with At any rate, this issue is already
the presidential appointees who were moot and academic as the Ombudsman has
charged with them. terminated its investigation of petitioners. It
PAGC issued a resolution appears therefrom that the Ombudsman
recommending the dismissal of petitioners dismissed the administrative case
with the imposition of the corresponding against the petitioners because the
accessory penalties of forfeiture of charges had already been passed upon
retirement benefits and disqualification from by PAGC.
employment in the government. The Issue #2: Whether or not the Court can
President approved the recommendation. still review the dismissal ordered by PEA.
Millan and Viray, together with Manuel R.
Beriña, Jr. (Beriña) filed a motion for Held: NO. Having been dismissed by PEA,
reconsideration. This motion was not acted petitioners should have appealed to
upon. Aggrieved, they filed their Petition for the Civil Service Commission. Granting
Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 that PEA committed an error, whether
with the CA. The CA dismissed the substantial or procedural, petitioners should
consolidated petitions. have appealed to the Civil Service
Commission (CSC), pursuant to Section 47,
Issue #1: Whether or not it is the Chapter 6, Title I, Book V of E.O. No. 292
Ombudsman who should conduct the (The Administrative Code of 1987), to wit:
investigation on the charge of overpricing of
the Project against petitioners. (1) The Commission shall decide upon
appeal all administrative disciplinary cases
Held: The Ombudsman has concurrent involving the imposition of a penalty of
jurisdiction with similarly authorized suspension for more than thirty days, or
agencies. Petitioners argue that because fine in an amount exceeding thirty days'
they are not presidential appointees, it is salary, demotion in rank or salary or
only the Ombudsman which has jurisdiction transfer, removal or dismissal from office.
over them. In this regard, the petitioners xxx
are not correct. The Court has
repeatedly ruled that the power of the It is only after appealing the case to
Ombudsman to investigate offenses the CSC that it can be elevated to the
involving public officials is not CA via a petition for review under Rule
43 of the Rules of Court. Unfortunately,
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
11

petitioners chose the wrong remedy. Republic v. Extelcom G.R. 147096,

Instead of appealing their dismissal by the January 15, 2002
PEA to the CSC, they chose to question it
before the CA. As the petitioners did not FACTS:
appeal the decision of the PEA to
dismiss them to the CSC, it has Bayantel filed an application with the
become final and executory and the NTC for a Certificate of Public Convenience
Court can no longer review it. or Necessity (CPCN) to install, operate and
maintain a digital Cellular Mobile Telephone
Other Issue: Whether or not there was a
System/Service (CMTS) with prayer for a
violation of petitioners’ right to due process
Provisional Authority (PA). Shortly thereafter
and security of tenure.
the NTC issued directing all interested
Held: NO. There was no violation of applicants for nationwide or regional CMTS
petitioners’ right to due process and to file their respective applications before
security of tenure. Petitioners cannot claim the Commission and prior to the issuance of
that their dismissal was unattended by the any notice of hearing by the NTC with
requisite due process because they were respect to Bayantel’s original application,
given the opportunity to be heard in Bayantel filed an urgent ex-parte motion to
the course of PAGC’s investigation. admit an amended application.

The tenurial protection accorded to a civil

servant is a guaranty of both procedural The notice of hearing issued by the
and substantive due process. Procedural NTC with respect to this amended
due process requires that the dismissal, application was published in the Manila
when warranted, be effected only after Chronicle. Copies of the application as well
notice and hearing. On the other hand, as the notice of hearing were mailed to all
substantive due process requires, among affected parties. Subsequently, hearings
others, that the dismissal be for legal cause, were conducted on the amended
which must relate to and effect the application. But before Bayantel could
administration of the office of which the complete the presentation of its evidence,
concerned employee is a member of and the NTC grant of two (2) separate
must be restricted to something of a Provisional which resulted in the closing out
substantial nature directly affecting the of all available frequencies for the service
rights and interests of the public. being applied for by herein applicant, and in
Nevertheless, the right to security of tenure order that this case may not remain
is not tantamount to immunity from pending for an indefinite period of time,
dismissal. ordered ARCHIVED without prejudice to its
reinstatement if and when the requisite
frequency becomes available.

8.
NTC issued Memorandum re-
allocating five (5) megahertz (MHz) of the
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
12

radio frequency spectrum for the expansion before statutes, rules or regulations can
of CMTS networks. Bayantel filed an Ex- take effect.
Parte Motion to Revive Case, citing the
availability of new frequency bands for
The Rules of Practice and Procedure
CMTS operators, the NTC granted
of the NTC fall squarely within the scope of
BayanTel’s motion to revive the latter’s
these laws, as explicitly mentioned in the
application and set the case for hearings.
case Tañada v. Tuvera. which is clear and
Extelcom filed an Opposition praying for the
categorical. Administrative rules and
dismissal of Bayantel’s application which
regulations must be published if their
was denied for lack of merit. Extelcom filed
purpose is to enforce or implement existing
with the Court of Appeals a petition for
law pursuant to a valid delegation. The only
certiorari and prohibition,which was
exceptions are interpretative regulations,
granted.
those merely internal in nature, or those so-
called letters of instructions issued by
Petitioner filed MR but subsequently administrative superiors concerning the
denied by the CA. Hence, the NTC filed the rules and guidelines to be followed by their
instant subordinates in the performance of their
petition. [Link] duties.

ISSUE: Hence, the 1993 Revised Rules

should be published in the Official Gazette
or in a newspaper of general circulation
Whether the 1993 Revised Rules of
before it can take effect. Even the 1993
the NTC is operative and should be applied
Revised Rules itself mandates that said
to the Respondent even with the absence of
Rules shall take effect only after their
Publication
publication in a newspaper of general
Requirement? [Link]
circulation. In the absence of such
publication, therefore, it is the 1978 Rules
RULING: that governs.

No, publication must be in full or it 9.

is no publication at all since its purpose is to
inform the public of the contents of the FLORIAN R. GAOIRAN v. HON. ANGEL C.
laws. The Administrative Order under ALCALA, ET AL.
consideration is one of those issuances GR No. 150178 444 SCRA 428
which should be published for its effectivity, 26 NOVEMBER 2004
since its purpose is to enforce and
implement an existing law pursuant to a
FACTS:
valid delegation, publication in the Official
Gazette or a newspaper of general On October 29, 1997, a letter-complaint
circulation is a condition sine qua non was filed with CHED against Florian Gaoiran
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
13

(petitioner), Head Teacher III in the High School Hon. Angel C. Alcala, then Chairman of CHED,
Department of the Angadanan Agro-Industrial unaware of the existence of Mayo’s resolution,
College (AAIC), a state-supervised school in issued another Resolution dated June 3, 1999,
Angadanan, Isabela. Edmond M. Castillejo, finding petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and
Administrative Officer II of the same school, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
charged petitioner of mauling him while he was service. Petitioner was dismissed form service.
performing his duties. Appended to the letter-
complaint were the verified criminal complaint Petitioner then filed with the RTC of
filed by Castillejo against petitioner and the Cauayan, Isabela, Branch 20, a petition for
sworn statements of his witnesses. The criminal certiorari, prohibition and injunction. He alleged
complaint for assault to a person in authority grave abuse of discretion on the part of Alcala in
was filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of issuing the Resolution despite that a previous
Angadanan-San Guillermo. Resolution already dismissed the administrative
complaint against him. The RTC sided with the
The letter-complaint was referred to the petitioner and declared the Resolution of Alcala
Legal Affairs Service of the CHED. Atty. Felina S. null and void.
Dasig, then OIC of the Office of the Director III,
Legal Affairs Service, conducted a fact-finding On appeal, the CA reversed and set
investigation on the mauling incident. After the aside the decision of RTC. It declared as valid
fact-finding investigation was terminated, and Alcala’s Resolution. Hence, this petition for
upon finding of a prima facie case against the review.
petitioner for grave misconduct and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service, The petitioner continuously argued that
Atty. Dasig issued the Formal Charge and Order the letter-complaint is inexistent because it was
of Preventive Suspension dated July 27, 1998. not made under oath and does not contain a
certification of non-forum shopping. Petitioner
The petitioner did not submit his written cites Section 2, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules
counter-affidavit or answer to the charges Implementing Book V of EO No. 292 and Section
against him. Instead, he filed with the RTC of 4(d) of Civil Service Commission Resolution No.
Cauayan, Isabela, Branch 20, a petition for 94-0521 (Uniform Rules of Procedure in the
certiorari and prohibition to restrain enforcement Conduct of Administrative Legislation). Hence,
of the preventive suspension order. Having the formal charge and order of preventive
served the suspension, the case was dismissed suspension stemming from it is likewise null and
for being moot and academic. Petitioner then void.
sought reconsideration of the formal charge and
preventive suspension order, contending that ISSUE:
the letter-complaint was not under oath and that
he was not informed nor apprised of the Whether or not the letter-complaint
complaint against him. should be deemed inexistent as it was not made
under oath.
Joel Voltaire V. Mayo, who was later
appointed Director of the Legal Affairs Service of RULING:
CHED, issued a Resolution dated February 20,
1999, dismissing the administrative complaint The Court is not persuaded. The
against the petitioner on the ground that the pertinent provisions governing the initiation of
letter-complaint was not under oath. However, administrative complaints against civil service
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
14

officials or employees are provided in Book V of G.R. NO. 155784, OCTOBER 13, 2005
EO No. 292, Sections 46 (c) and 48 (1) and (2), CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, NATIONAL
Chapter 6, Subtitle A. It must be pointed out CAPITAL REGION, PETITIONER,
that, while the letter-complaint was not verified, [Link] P. ALBAO, RESPONDENT.
appended thereto were the verified criminal
complaint that Castillejo filed against the FACTS:
petitioner, as well as the sworn statements of
his witnesses. These documents could very well On September 1, 1998, the Office of the Vice
be considered as constituting the complaint President of the Republic of the Philippines
against the petitioner. In fact, this Court, issued an original and permanent appointment
through the Court Administrator, investigates for the position of Executive Assistant IV to
and takes cognizance of, not only unverified, but respondent Ranulfo P. Albao. Respondent was
also even anonymous complaints filed against then a contractual employee at said Office. In a
court employees or officials for violations of the letter dated September 28, 1998 addressed to
Code of Ethical Conduct. It is not totally the Director of the Civil Service Commission
uncommon that a government is given wide Field Office, Manila, the Office of the Vice
latitude in the scope and exercise of its President requested the retrieval of the said
investigative powers. Administrative appointment paper. Instead of heeding the
proceedings, technical rules of procedure and request, petitioner CSC-NCR disapproved the
evidence are not strictly applied. appointment.

In any case, the letter-complaint of On October 5, 1998, petitioner issued an

Castillejo is not a “complaint” within the order that a prima facie case against respondent
meaning of the provisions cited. The letter- for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official
complaint did not by itself commence the Documents by declaring in his Personal
administrative proceedings against the Datasheet (PDS) to support his appointment
petitioner. It merely triggered a fact-finding that he passed the Assistant Electrical Engineer
investigation by CHED. The Court cannot uphold Examination with a rating of 71.64% and
the petitioner’s contention as it would result to attaching thereto a Report of Rating purportedly
an absurd and restrictive interpretation of EO issued by the Professional Regulation
No. 292. It was the formal charge and order of Commission (PRC). Upon validation with the
preventive suspension filed by Atty. Dasig that PRC, petitioner found that his name does not
constituted the complaint. Atty. Dasig signed the appear in their list and the examinee number as
formal charge in her capacity as the OIC. As the appearing in the report belongs to one
complaint was initiated by the appropriate Bienvenido Aniño, Jr.
disciplining authority under EO No. 292, the
same need not be subscribed and sworn to. In his answer on February 18, 1999,
Neither is it required that the same contain a respondent contended that the CSC has no
verification of non-forum shopping. Jurisdiction jurisdiction over the matter since his
was properly acquired over the case. appointment was disapproved, and he has
already resigned from government service since
Petition is denied. the closing hours of October 30, 1998. As he is
no longer with the civil service, the Commission
has no disciplinary jurisdiction over him as a
private person.
10.
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
15

The Court of Appeals decided in favor of the disciplinary action against officers and
respondent. employees under their jurisdiction.

iii. Section 48 provides the

procedure in administrative cases against non-
ISSUE: presidential appointees which may be
commenced by the Secretary or head of office of
Whether the CSC has jurisdiction to equivalent rank, or head of local government, or
institute administrative proceedings over chiefs of agencies, or regional directors, or upon
respondent and whether the power of the CSC sworn, written complaint of any other person.
to hear and decide administrative cases includes
the power to initiate and prosecute said cases. 2. Article IX-B, Section 3 of the Constitution
also provides that The Civil Service Commission,
as the central personnel agency of the
Government, shall establish a career service and
RULING: adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency,
integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and
In the case at bar, the following are the courtesy in the civil service. It shall strengthen
relevant provisions of the law which will give the merit and rewards system, integrate all
light to the resolution of the issue: human resources development programs for all
levels and ranks, and institutionalize a
1. Title A, Book V of Executive Order No. management climate conducive to public
292 accountability.

i. Section 12, paragraph From the foregoing provisions of the

11 on the Powers and Functions of the law, it is the Vice-President who is vested with
commission states that it has the power to “hear jurisdiction to commence disciplinary action
and decide administrative cases instituted by or against respondent. However, the court ruled
brought before it directly or on appeal, including that petitioner can act directly and motu proprio,
contested appointments, and review decisions on the alleged acts of dishonesty and
and actions of its offices and of the agencies falsification of official document committed by
attached to it. . . . “ respondent in connection with his appointment
to a permanent position in the Office of the Vice
ii. Section 47, on the President.
disciplinary jurisdiction of the CSC provides that
“The Commission shall decide upon appeal all The present case partakes of an act by
administrative disciplinary cases involving the petitioner to protect the integrity of the civil
imposition of a penalty of suspension for more service system, and does not fall under the
than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding provision on disciplinary actions under Sec. 47.
thirty days' salary, demotion in rank or salary or It falls under the provisions of Sec. 12, par. 11,
transfer, removal or dismissal from office. . .” on administrative cases instituted by it directly.
(par. 1). Paragraph 2 of the same section states This is an integral part of its duty, authority and
that “the Secretaries and heads of agencies and power to administer the civil service system and
instrumentalities, provinces, cities and protect its integrity, as provided in Article IX-B,
municipalities shall have jurisdiction to Sec. 3 of the Constitution, by removing from its
investigate and decide matters involving list of eligibles those who falsified their
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
16

qualifications. This is to be distinguished from Time to File Motion

ordinary proceedings intended to discipline a for [Link] Sandiganbayan granted
bona fide member of the system, for acts or the motion for reinvestigation. Petitioner filed his
omissions that constitute violations of the law or motion for reinvestigation in the Office of the
the rules of the service. Special Prosecutor.

The petition was GRANTED and the

The Sandiganbayan ordered the Office
assailed decision of the Court of Appeals,
of the Special Prosecutor to conduct the
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
reinvestigation. The reinvestigation was
assigned to Special Prosecution Officer.
Convinced that no probable cause existed to
indict petitioner Special Prosecutor Micael
11.
recommended the dismissal of the case. The
recommendation was approved by Deputy
Special Prosecutor Kallos and concurred in by
Tejano v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 159190, Special Prosecutor Tamayo. Ombudsman Aniano
June 30, 2005 A. Desierto, who earlier participated in the initial
preliminary investigation as Special Prosecutor,
FACTS: disapproved the recommendation for the
dismissal of the case with the marginal note
“assign the case to another prosecutor to
The report of Resident Auditor
prosecute the case aggressively.”
Alexander A. Tan implicated petitioner as
persons involved in the irregular withdrawal of
P2.2 million of PNB funds. The Office of the Special Prosecutor Micael filed a
Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas ordered Manifestation, to which was attached a copy of
petitioner to file their respective counter- his memorandum, informing the Sandiganbayan
affidavits. Graft Investigation Officer Edgardo G. of the disapproval by Ombudsman Desierto of
Canton recommended the filing of the proper his recommendation to dismiss the case. On 10
information against petitioner and was February 2000, petitioner filed a Motion for
thereafter referred for review to the Office of Reconsideration of the disapproval by
the Special Prosecutor who affirmed the Ombudsman Desierto of the recommendation of
resolution of Graft Investigation Officer, Deputy Micael. Apparently, petitioner’s motion for
Special Prosecutor recommended the approval reconsideration was not resolved on the merits
of the memorandum of Special Prosecution because on 27 June 2000, Special Prosecution
Officer. Officer III Joselito R. Ferrer filed a Motion to Set
the Case for Arraignment alleging therein that
the prosecution did not give due course to the
Aniano A. Desierto, then the Special
motion for reconsideration on the ground that it
Prosecutor, concurred in the approval.
was the second motion which is prohibited
Ombudsman concurred thereto. Subsequently,
under the Ombudsman Act of 1989.
on 24 November 1994, an Information for
violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019,
as amended, was filed before the He added that the results of the
Sandiganbayanpetitioner filed with the reinvestigation were already submitted to the
Sandiganbayan an Urgent Motion for a Period of respondent court before receiving the motion for
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
17

[Link] manifested before the was a Special Prosecutor by concurring in the

Sandiganbayan the Office of the Special recommendation for the filing of the information
Prosecutor’s failure to resolve his motion for before the Sandiganbayan.
reconsideration. Thus, in a resolution13 dated
24 March 2003, the respondent court directed
Having participated in the initial
the Office of the Ombudsman to resolve the
preliminary investigation of the instant case and
said [Link] a memorandum14 dated 09 June
having recommended the filing of appropriate
2003, Special Prosecutor Joselito R. Ferrer
information, it behooved Ombudsman Desierto
recommended the denial of the motion for
to recuse himself from participating in the
reconsideration filed by petitioner.
review of the same during the reinvestigation.
He should have delegated the review to his
Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert E. Deputies.
Kallos changed his previous position and
recommended that the memorandum for the
dismissal of the motion for reconsideration be
approved, with Special Prosecutor Dennis M.
Villa-Ignacio concurring in the denial. 12.
Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, who succeeded
Ombudsman Desierto when he retired, approved
OMBUDSMAN vs. HEIDI M.
Joselito Ferrer’s memorandum recommending
ESTANDARTEG.R. No. 168670 April 13,
the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
2007

Petitioner thus filed the instant petition

On August 17, 1998, People’s
with prayer for the issuance of a temporary
Graftwatch referred to the Office of the
restraining order to enjoin the Sandiganbayan
Ombudsman (Visayas), for immediate
from taking further action in Criminal Case.  The
investigation, a complaint of the Faculty
First Division of this Court issued the temporary
Club and Department Heads of the Ramon
restraining order prayed [Link] instant petition
Torres National HighSchool against Heidi
was transferred to the Second Division of this
Estandarte, the school principal.
Court.

The complaint consisted of 33

ISSUE:
allegations of improprieties ranging from illegal
handling of school funds, irregular financial
Where Ombudsman Desierto committed transactions, perjury, and abuse of authority.
grave abuse of discretion? The Ombudsman decided to refer the
administrative aspect of the case to the DECS-
Region VI for administrative adjudication . The
RULING:
complete records of the case were forwarded to
the DECS-Region VI in a letter dated November
Yes, attributes partiality on the part of 29, 1999.
Ombudsman Desierto for having participated in
the reinvestigation of the instant case despite
In a letter dated April 29, 2002,
the fact that he earlier participated in the initial
the Faculty Club requested the Ombudsman
preliminary investigation of the same when he
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
18

to take over the case for speedier disposition. the latter treated it as a request for assistance
Ms. Lucia Jane Grecia, a member of the Faculty and referred it to the DECS-Region VI
Club, requested the Ombudsman to take over and COA for appropriate action. After it had
the case. Consequently, on July 5, 2002, the resolved to upgrade the matter to an
Ombudsman informed the DECS-Region VI that administrative case, the Ombudsman
it would not object if the case is returned to it. decided not to take cognizance of the same and
refer it, instead, to the DECS-Region VI.

On August 16, 2002, DECS-Region VI

turned over the records of the case to the We do not agree with petitioner’s
Ombudsman for adjudication, stating that "[i]t is contention that it could assume jurisdiction over
the impression of this Office that the the administrative case after the DECS-Region
complainants intend that their case be heard by VI had voluntarily relinquished its
the Office of the Ombudsman and that Office jurisdiction over the same in favor of the
had also manifested its willingness to reassume petitioner. Jurisdiction is a matter of law.
jurisdiction of the same. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the
instance of the parties but continues until the
case is terminated. When the complainants filed
"On November 6, 2002, the
their formal complaint with the DECS-
Ombudsman set the case for preliminary
Region VI, jurisdiction was vested on the latter.
conference. In the meantime, Estandarte filed
It cannot now be transferred to petitioner
an Urgent Motion to Remand the case to the
upon the instance of the complainants,
DECS-Region VI on the ground that
even with the acquiescence of the DECS and
jurisdiction is now exclusively vested on the
petitioner. Nonetheless, even if we hold that the
latter. On December 17, 2002, the Ombudsman
Ombudsman had concurrent jurisdiction
denied the motion ratiocinating that It was not
over the administrative case, we would still
barred from assuming jurisdiction over the
sustain the DECS’ authority to decide the
complaint after the DECS-Region VI had
administrative case. We are not unmindful of the
relinquished its jurisdiction over the same.
Court’s ruling in Emin v. DeLeon reiterated in
Estandarte filed a motion for reconsideration of
Alcala v. Villar that a party may be estopped
said Order, which was later denied by the
from assailing the jurisdiction of the DECS.
Ombudsman.

However, the rulings of the Court in

Issue:
Alcala and de Leon are not applicable in this
case. From the very start, respondent
WON DECS has exclusive jurisdiction over the consistently protested the referral of the case
case. back to the Ombudsman, and demanded that
the same be remanded to the DECS.
She refused to participate in the proceedings
RULING:
before the Ombudsman precisely because she
believed that jurisdiction was already vested on
Undoubtedly, the DECS-Region VI first the DECS-Region VI.
assumed jurisdiction over the administrative
complaint against the respondent. It should be
Hence, she filed instead a motion to
recalled that when People’s Graft watch
remand the case to the DECS-Region VI and
forwarded the complaint to the Ombudsman,
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
19

motions to postpone or suspend the Ruivivar administratively liable for discourtesy in

proceedings. On the other hand, what was the course of her official functions and imposed
striking in the Emin and Alcala cases was that on her the penalty of reprimand. Ruivivar filed a
the respondent there inactively participated in MR arguing that she was deprived of due
the proceedings before the other tribunal process because she was not furnished copies of
the affidavits of Bernardo’s witnesses.

The Ombudsman responded to the

motion by order that Bernardo furnish Ruivivar
13. with copies and directed the latter to file, within
10 days from receipt of the Order, such pleading
which she may deem fit under the
RACHEL BEATRIZ RUIVIVAR, petitioner,
circumstances. Ruivivar, nonetheless, did not
vs.
choose to controvert the affidavits and insisted
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and DR.
on her previous stand that she was deprived of
CONNIE BERNARDO, respondents.
due process. Thus, the Ombudsman issued a
G.R. No. 165012, September 16, 2008. J.
ruling maintaining its findings.
Brion:

On petition for certiorari, the petition

FACTS:
was dismissed on the ground that Ruivivar used
the wrong legal remedy and failed to exhaust
Dr. Connie Bernardo is the President of
administrative remedies before the Ombudsman.
the Association of Drug Testing Centers
The CA posits that the remedy should have been
(Association) that conducts drug testing and
an appeal to the CA by way of petition for
medical examination of applicants for driver’s
review, citing the case of Fabian v. Desierto.
license. In this capacity, Bernardo went to the
Land Transportation Office (LTO) to meet with
ISSUEs:
representatives from the Department of
Transportation and Communication (DOTC) and
(1) Whether or not Ruivivar chose the wrong
some other errands. Before proceedings to the
remedy and (2) Whether or not Ruivivar was
office of the LTO Commissioner, Bernardo
deprived of due process
passed by the office of Rachel Beatriz Ruivivar to
conduct a follow up on the status of her
RULING:
company’s application for accreditation.

The Mode of Review Issue

While there, Ruivivar shouted at her in a
very arrogant and insulting manner, hurled
Petitioner contends that he ruling in
invectives upon her person and prevented her
Fabian is not applicable to the Ombudsman
from entering the office of the LTO
rulings under the express provisions of Section
Commissioner. This prompted Bernardo to file
27 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6770 and Section
an Affidavit-Complaint charging Ruivivar before
7, Rule III of Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 7
the Ombudsman of serious misconduct, conduct
since the penalty of reprimand imposed is final
unbecoming of a public official, abuse of
and unappealable. The appropriate remedy,
authority and violations of the RPC and of the
under the circumstances, is not the appellate
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The
remedy provided by Rule 43 of the Rules of
Ombudsman rendered a Decision finding
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
20

Court but a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 CA only applies to administrative cases where
of these Rules. the right to appeal is granted under Section 27
of R.A. No. 6770. In Lopez v. CA and Herrera v.
The case of Fabian v. Desierto arose Bohol, we recognized that no appeal is allowed
from the doubt created in the application of in administrative cases where the penalty of
Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsmans public censure, reprimand, suspension of not
Act) and Section 7, Rule III of A.O. No. 7 (Rules more than one month, or a fine equivalent to
of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman) one month salary, is imposed.
on the availability of appeal before the Supreme
Court to assail a decision or order of the We pointed out that decisions of
Ombudsman in administrative cases. In Fabian, administrative agencies that are declared by law
we invalidated Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 (and to be final and unappealable are still subject to
Section 7, Rule III of A.O. No. 7 and the other judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness
rules implementing the Act) insofar as it or upon proof of gross abuse of discretion; the
provided for appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 complainants legal recourse is to file a petition
from the decisions or orders of the Ombudsman for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
in administrative cases. Court, applied as rules suppletory to the Rules of
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman.
We held that Section 27 of R.A. No.
6770 had the effect, not only of increasing the The use of this recourse should take
appellate jurisdiction of this Court without its into account the last paragraph of Section 4,
advice and concurrence in violation of Section Rule 65 of the Rules of Court i.e., the petition
30, Article VI of the Constitution; it was also shall be filed in and be cognizable only by the
inconsistent with Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules CA if it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-
of Court which provides that a petition for judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by
review on certiorari shall apply only to a review law or by the Rules.
of judgments or final orders of the Court of
Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax In the present case, the Ombudsmans
Appeals, the Regional Trial Court, or other decision and order imposing the penalty of
courts authorized by law. We pointedly said: reprimand on the petitioner are final and
unappealable. Thus, the petitioner availed of the
As a consequence of our ratiocination correct remedy when she filed a petition for
that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 should certiorari before the CA to question the
be struck down as unconstitutional, and in line Ombudsmans decision to reprimand her.
with the regulatory philosophy adopted in
appeals from quasi-judicial agencies in the 1997 The Due Process Issue  
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, appeals from
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in The CA Decision dismissed the petition
administrative disciplinary cases should be taken for certiorari on the ground that the petitioner
to the CA under the provisions of Rule 43. failed to exhaust all the administrative remedies
available to her before the Ombudsman.
We restated this doctrine in several
cases and further elaborated on the recourses This ruling is legally correct as
from Ombudsman actions in other cases we exhaustion of administrative remedies is a
have decided since then. In Lapid v. CA, we requisite for the filing of a petition for certiorari.
explained that an appeal under Rule 43 to the Other than this legal significance, however, the
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
21

ruling necessarily carries the direct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest
immediate implication that the petitioner has of Service, for the anomaly found in her
been granted the opportunity to be heard and examination files for the Career Service
has refused to avail of this opportunity; hence, Personal Examination held on Oct.1993,
she cannot claim denial of due process. In the where she passed with a 88.31% score.
words of the CA ruling itself: Petitioner was The examination files (1993) were
given the opportunity by public respondent to compared with her personal data sheet
rebut the affidavits submitted by private (1994). I t was found:
respondent. . . and had a speedy and adequate
administrative remedy but she failed to avail o That the image included in the
thereof for reasons only known to her. personal data sheet of petitioner
bears no resemblance with the
The records show that the petitioner examinee petitioner. The
duly filed a motion for reconsideration on due signatures were also vastly
process grounds (i.e., for the private different.
respondents failure to furnish her copies of the o Based on these facts, it was
affidavits of witnesses) and on questions relating then alleged that petitioner
to the appreciation of the evidence on record. allowed a different person to
The Ombudsman acted on this motion by issuing take the exam for her.
its Order of January 17, 2003 belatedly
furnishing her with copies of the private A full investigation followed. The
respondents witnesses, together with the hearings were repeatedly postponed as
directive to file, within ten (10) days from per Petitioner’s request, but eventually
receipt of this Order, such pleading which she the hearing materialized and both sides
may deem fit under the circumstances. Given (the prosecutor and petitioner) were
this opportunity to act on the belatedly- able to present their evidence.
furnished affidavits, the petitioner simply chose o CSCRO: Found petitioner guilty
to file a Manifestation where she took the of the charges and was meted
position that The order of the Ombudsman with dismissal from service.
dated 17 January 2003 supplying her with the o CSC: affirmed the findings and
affidavits of the complainant does not cure the the resolution of CSCRO.
04 November 2002 order, and on this basis
prayed that the Ombudsman’s decision be Petitioner coursed a petition for
reconsidered and the complaint dismissed for certiorari under Rule 65 of the RoC
lack of merit. before the CA.
o CA: dismissed the petition for
being the wrong mode of
14.
appeal. Petitioner should have
filed a petition for review under
Hadji-Sirad vs. CSC Rule 43, not a petition for
G.R. no. 182267 Aug. 28, 2009 certiorari under Rule 65.
FACTS: Petitioner also failed to indicate
the material date of filing of her
Petitioner, who was an employee of COA MR to the CSC, and to include
in the ARMM, was charged with the said MR to the petition, in
Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of Rule 43.
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
22

Hence, this petition. Commission,

Central Board of
ISSUE: Assessment
Whether or not petitioner was wrong in the Appeals, x x x.”
mode of appeal.
o As we have held in numerous
cases, a special civil action for
certiorari is not a substitute for
RULING:
a lost or lapsed remedy of
- The correct appeal was through Rule 43 appeal. A special civil action
of the RoC, not through Rule 65. for certiorari under Rule 65
o Section 50, Rule III of the of the 1997 Revised Rules of
Uniform Rules on Administrative Civil Procedure lies only
Cases in the CSC plainly when there is no appeal or
indicates that a party may plain, speedy and adequate
elevate the decision of the remedy in the ordinary
Commission before the CA by course of law. Certiorari is not
way of petition for review under allowed when a party to a case
Rule 43 of the 1997 RoC. fails to appeal a judgment or
o Section 1 of Rule 43 of the RoC final order despite the
also provide that final orders or availability of that remedy.
resolutions of the CSC are
appealable to the CA through a  The remedies of appeal
petition for review and certiorari are
“SECTION 1. mutually exclusive
Scope. - This and not alternative
Rule shall apply or successive.
to appeals from  In this case, petitioner
judgments or utterly failed to provide
final orders of any justification for her
the Court of Tax resort to a special civil
Appeals and action for certiorari,
from awards, when the remedy of
judgments, final appeal by petition for
orders or review was clearly
resolutions of or available.
authorized by o In addition to being the wrong
any quasi- mode of appeal, petitioner failed
judicial agency to attach the requirements for
in the exercise petitions under Rule 65. It failed
of quasi judicial to indicate the date when the
functions. denial of the MR was received,
Among these as well as a certified true copy
agencies are or duplicate original of the MR.
the Civil Accordingly, the CA correctly
Service dismissed the petition.
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
23

o Petition Denied; Resolution Affirmed.

- Even based on merits, petitioner’s stand
is untenable.

o First, petitioner was granted due

process. In administrative
proceedings, procedural due
process has been recognized to
include the following: (1) the
right to actual or constructive
notice of the institution of
proceedings, which may affect a
respondent's legal rights; (2) a
real opportunity to be heard
personally or with the assistance
of counsel, to present witnesses
and evidence in one's favor, and
to defend one's rights; (3) a
tribunal vested with competent
jurisdiction and so constituted
as to afford a person charged
administratively a reasonable
guarantee of honesty as well as
impartiality; and (4) a finding by
said tribunal which is supported
by substantial evidence
submitted for consideration
during the hearing or contained
in the records or made known
to the parties affected.
 Petitioner prayed for
and was granted the
postponement of the
hearings several times,
and she was also able
to appeal her case
numerous times.
o Second, there is substantial
evidence to support the findings
and conclusion of CSCRO and
CSC. Perusal of the pictures and
signatures of the documents
(the examination documents as
well as others) clearly show that
the one who took the exam on
October 1993 is not petitioner.
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
24

SECOND BATCH OF CASES

DIGEST POOL
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
25

1. 4.

5.

2.

6.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
vs.
PRISCILLA G. CAMPOSANO, ENRIQUE
L. PEREZ, and IMELDA Q. AGUSTIN
G.R. No. 157684
April 27, 2005

3.

FACTS:

Respondents are former employees

of the DOH-NCR, holding various positions.
In 1996 some concerned DOH-NCR
employees filed a complaint before the DOH
Resident Ombudsman against Majarais,
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
26

Cabrera, and the respondents, arising out of EO No. 151 granted the PCAGC the
an alleged anomalous purchase by DOH- jurisdiction to investigate administrative
NCR of certain medicines worth ₱330k. complaints against presidential appointees
allegedly involved in graft and corruption.
Resident Ombudsman submitted an From a cursory reading of its provisions, it is
investigation report to the Secretary of evident that EO 151 authorizes the PCAGC
Health recommending the filing of a formal to investigate charges against presidential,
administrative charge of Dishonesty and not non-presidential, appointees. In its
Grave Misconduct against [respondents] Preamble, specifically in its "Whereas"
and their co-respondents. PCAGC took over clauses, the EO "specifically tasked [the
the investigation from the DOH and issued a PCAGC] to x x x investigate presidential
penalty of dismissal from the government appointees charged with graft and
service be imposed thereon. corruption x x x." More pointedly, Section 3
states that the "Commission shall have
Respondents filed a motion for jurisdiction over all administrative
reconsideration, which was denied by the complaints involving graft and corruption
Secretary of Health. Respondents appealed filed in any form or manner against
to the CSC where the same was denied by presidential appointees x x x."
the CSC, except for Cabrera who was
exonerated of the administrative charges "Section 3. Jurisdiction. – The Commission
against him. shall have jurisdiction over all administrative
complaints involving graft and corruption
Upon appeal to the CA, the CA nonetheless filed in any form or manner
used the same legal bases for annulling the against presidential appointees,
CSC’s Resolution against respondents. It including those in government-owned or
held that the PCAGC’s jurisdiction over controlled corporations." (emphasis
administrative complaints pertained only to supplied)
presidential appointees. Thus, the
Commission had no power to investigate "Section 4. Powers, Functions and Duties. –
the charges against respondents. Moreover, The Commission shall have the following
in simply and completely relying on the powers, functions and duties:
PCAGC’s findings, the secretary of health
failed to comply with administrative due "(a) Investigation – The Commission shall
process. Hence, this petition. have the power to investigate administrative
complaints against presidential
ISSUE: appointees in the executive department of
the government, including those in
Whether or not the PCAGC has government-owned or controlled
jurisdiction to investigate anomalous corporations, charged with graft and
transactions involving the respondents. YES. corruption. x x x x”

RULING:
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
27

On the basis of the foregoing verba Neither the PCAGC under EO 151 nor the Ad
legis  approach, respondents claim that the Hoc Investigating Committee created under
PCAGC did not have jurisdiction over them, AO 298 had the power to impose any
because they were not presidential administrative sanctions directly. Their
[Link] Court notes, however, that authority was limited to conducting
respondents were not investigated pursuant investigations and preparing their findings
to EO 151. The investigation was authorized and recommendations. The power to
under Administrative Order No. 298 dated impose sanctions belonged to the
October 25, 1996, which had created an Ad disciplining authority, who had to observe
Hoc Committee to look into the due process prior to imposing penalties.
administrative charges filed against Director
Rosalinda U. Majarais, Priscilla G. In this case, the CA correctly ruled that
Camposano, Horacio D. Cabrera, Imelda Q. administrative due process had not been
Agustin and Enrique L. Perez. The Chief observed in the present factual milieu. The
Executive’s power to create the Ad Hoc secretary simply and blindly relied on the
Investigating Committee cannot be dispositive portion of the Commission’s
doubted. Having been constitutionally Resolution. The actual exercise of the
granted full control of the Executive disciplining authority’s prerogative requires
Department, to which respondents belong, a prior independent consideration of the law
the President has the obligation to ensure and the facts. Failure to comply with this
that all executive officials and employees requirement results in an invalid decision.
faithfully comply with the law. With AO 298 The disciplining authority should not merely
as mandate, the legality of the investigation and solely rely on an investigator’s
is sustained. recommendation, but must personally weigh
and assess the evidence gathered.
As to the validity of the Secretary’s
decision, it is patently void for want of due
process. The Administrative Code of 1987 7.
vests department secretaries with the
MANUEL D. LAXINA, SR.
authority to investigate and decide matters
vs.
involving disciplinary actions for officers and
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
employees under the former’s jurisdiction.
EVANGELINE URSAL, HON. JOSE E.
Thus, the health secretary had disciplinary
LINA, JR., in his capacity as Secretary
authority over respondents. As a matter of
of the Department of Interior and
administrative procedure, a department
Local Government (DILG), and HON.
secretary may utilize other officials to
FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR., in his
investigate and report the facts from which
capacity as City Mayor of Quezon City,
a decision may be based. In the present
G.R. No. 153155
case, the secretary effectively delegated the
September 30, 2005
power to investigate to the PCAGC.

FACTS:
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
28

Petitioner Laxina, Sr. (Barangay Petitioner claims that the Ombudsman has
Chairman) In 1998, Ursal (Barangay Clerk) no jurisdiction over the case since the City
filed with the NBI a complaint for attempted Council had earlier acquired jurisdiction over
rape against petitioner. Petitioner was the matter.
subsequently charged with sexual
harassment before the RTC. Ursal brought ISSUES:
before the DILG a complaint-affidavit
charging petitioner with grave misconduct 1) WON the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction
for the alleged attempted rape. However, over the case.
the DILG referred the complaint to the
Quezon City Council for appropriate action. 2) WON the petitioner wasdeprived
of his right to administrative due process.
In 2000, Ursal filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman a similar complaint-affidavit
charging petitioner with grave misconduct.
Petitioner filed his counter-affidavit and RULING:
attached thereto the affidavits of two
witnesses. The Administrative Adjudication
Bureau (AAB) of the Office of the
1) No. The Court is not convinced.
Ombudsman exonerated petitioner from the
charge, dismissing the complaint for lack of
The mandate of the Ombudsman to
substantial evidence. However, upon
investigate complaints against erring public
review, and with the approval of the
officials, derived from both the Constitution
Ombudsman, petitioner was found guilty of
and the law gives it jurisdiction over the
grave misconduct and meted the penalty of
complaint against petitioner. The
dismissal, with forfeiture of material
Constitution has named the Ombudsman
benefits.
and his Deputies as the protectors of the
people who shall act promptly on
Petitioner sought the review of the
complaints filed in any form or manner
Ombudsman’s Memorandum Order  before
against public officials or employees of the
the CA, arguing that: (i) the Office of the
government. To fulfill this mandate, R.A.
Ombudsman did not have jurisdiction over
No. 6770, or the Ombudsman Act of 1989,
the administrative complaint; (ii) Ursal’s
was enacted, giving the Ombudsman or his
filing of the same administrative case before
Deputies jurisdiction over complaints on all
the Office of the Ombudsman and the City
kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-
Council through the DILG warranted the
feasance against officers or employees of
dismissal of both cases; and (iii) petitioner
the government, or any subdivision, agency
was denied due process in the proceedings
or instrumentality therefor, including
before the Ombudsman.
government-owned or controlled
corporations, and the disciplinary authority
CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
over all elective and appointive officials,
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
29

except those who may be removed only by which calls for a finding of guilt beyond
impeachment or over members of Congress reasonable doubt. Petitioner’s reliance on
and the Judiciar. On the other hand, under the rules on prosecution for the crime of
R.A. No. 7160 or the Local Government rape is therefore misplaced. What is at issue
Code, the sangguniang panlungsod or in the case before the Ombudsman is
sangguniang bayan has disciplinary whether his acts constitute grave
authority over any elective barangay official. misconduct, and not whether he is guilty of
Without a doubt, the Office of the the crime of attempted rape. Also,there is
Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction no basis for believing petitioner’s claim that
with the Quezon City Council over the Ombudsman had refused to consider his
administrative cases against elective officials evidence.
such as petitioner.

8.
2) Another submission made by petitioner is OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
that he was deprived of his right to vs.
administrative due process when he was FLORITA A. MASING and JOCELYN A.
dismissed from service without substantial TAYACTAC
evidence and without consideration of the
evidence he proffered. G.R. No. 165416

January 22, 2008

The Court is not impressed.
FACTS:
Petitioner was accorded the opportunity to
be heard. He was required to answer the Respondent Masing was the former
formal charge and given a chance to Principal of the Davao City Integrated
present evidence in his behalf. He was not Special School (DCISS) in Bangkal, Davao
denied due process. More importantly, the City. Respondent Jocelyn A. Tayactac was
decision of the Ombudsman is well an office clerk in the same school. In 1997,
supported by substantial evidence. respondents were administratively charged
before the Office of the Ombudsman for
A finding of guilt in an administrative case Mindanao for allegedly collecting
would have to be sustained for as long as it unauthorized fees, failing to remit
is supported by substantial evidence that authorized fees, and to account for public
respondent has committed the acts stated [Link] complainants were parents of
in the complaint or formal charge. children studying at the DCISS, namely,
Substantial evidence has been defined as Cansino, Mojica, Mojica, and Mamparo. 
such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a In 1998, respondents filed a motion to
conclusion. This is different from the degree dismiss on the ground that the Ombudsman
of proof required in criminal proceedings, has no jurisdiction over them. Respondents
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
30

alleged that the DECS has jurisdiction over following powers, functions,
them which shall exercise the same through and duties:
a committee to be constituted under Section
9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4670, otherwise (3) Direct the officer
known as the "The Magna Carta for Public concerned to take
School Teachers." The motion was denied, appropriate action against a
as well as respondents’ motion for public official or employee at
reconsideration.  fault, and recommend his
removal, suspension,
In 2000, the Ombudsman for Mindanao demotion, fine, censure, or
rendered a joint decision finding respondent prosecution, and ensure
Masing is guilty of gross misconduct, compliance therewith.
neglect of duty, and violation of RA 6713
and Tayactac guilty of gross misconduct, We reiterated this ruling in Office of the
neglect of duty, and violation of RA 6713 in Ombudsman v. Laja, where we
relation to the collection of unauthorized emphasized that "the Ombudsman’s order
fees, non-remittance of authorized fees and to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure,
failure to account for public funds. Tayactac or prosecute an officer or employee is not
is guilty of simple neglect of duty, and is merely advisory or recommendatory but
hereby suspended for a period of six (6) is actually mandatory." Implementation
months. of the order imposing the penalty is,
however, to be coursed through the proper
Upon appeal, the CA ruled in favor of the officer. Recently, in Office of the
respondents and ordered their immediate Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, we
reinstatement. also held—

ISSUE: While Section 15(3) of RA 6770

states that the Ombudsman has the
Whether or not the Ombudsman may power to "recommend x x x
directly discipline public school teachers and removal, suspension, demotion x x
employees. x" of government officials and
employees, the same Section 15(3)
also states that the Ombudsman in
the alternative may "enforce its
RULING: disciplinary authority as
provided in Section 21" of RA
6770.

YES. Under Section 13(3) of Article

XI of the 1987 Constitution, it is provided:
9.
Section 13. The Office of the
Ombudsman shall have the
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
31

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN Medrano filed a Petition for Review with

vs. the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing
VICTORIO N. MEDRANO Ombudsman‘s jurisdiction over the
G.R. No.177580 administrative case. The CA annulled
October 17, 2008 Ombudsman‘s decision in the administrative
case and dismissed the complaint on the
FACTS: sole ground that Ombudsman has no
jurisdiction over it. The Ombudsman filed a
Ma. Ruby A. Dumalaog, a teacher motion for reconsideration of the CA‘s
filed before the petitioner Office of the decision but was denied.
Ombudsman a sworn letter-complaint
against her superior herein-respondent
Victorio N. Medrano for violation of Republic
Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act ISSUE:
of 1995) (criminal case), and grave
misconduct (administrative case). While the Whether or not Office of the
administrative case was pending Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the
investigation, Dumalaog filed an Urgent Ex- administrative complaint against Medrano
Parte Motion for Preventive Suspension, and even if an affidavit of desistance has
was granted by the Ombudsman ordering already been filed by Dumalaog.
the preventive suspension of Medrano for
six months without pay. Medrano moved for
lifting the suspension but was denied. When
RULING:
Medrano filed a Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration, Ombudsman lifted the
The flaw in Medrano‘s argument that
preventive suspension order.
the execution of Dumalaog‘s Affidavit of
Desistance and the dismissal of the criminal
The Ombudsman rendered its decision with
case must result in the dismissal of the
the administrative case and found Medrano
administrative case is that it ignores the
guilty of grave misconduct. Medrano moved
whale of a difference between those two
for reconsideration of the decision and
remedies. In Gerardo R. Villaseñor and
assailed not only the factual findings
Rodel A. Mesa v. Sandiganbayan and
and conclusions of the Ombudsman, but for
Louella Mae Oco-Pesquerra (Office of the
the first time, challenged its jurisdiction over
Special Prosecutor, Ombudsman), the Court
the case. With regard to the criminal case,
stressed the distinct and independent
Ombudsman found probable cause to indict
character of the remedies available to an
Medrano and a criminal case was filed
offended party against any impropriety or
before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC)
wrongdoing committed by a public officer. It
of Biñan, Laguna against him. By joint
provides the three remedies available: 1.)
order, the Ombudsman affirmed its
civil, 2.) criminal, and 3.) administrative.
Resolution in the criminal case but modified
These remedies may be invoked separately,
its decision in the administrative case.
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
32

alternately, simultaneously or successively. to the proper disciplinary authority for the

Sometimes, the same offense may be the institution of appropriate administrative
subject of all three kinds of remedies. proceedings against erring public officers or
employees.”
At any rate, an affidavit of desistance (or
recantation) is, as a rule, viewed with In light of this, the Court holds that the
suspicion and reservation because it can administrative disciplinary authority of the
easily be secured from a poor and ignorant Ombudsman over a public school teacher is
witness, usually through intimidation or for not an exclusive power but
monetary consideration. And there is always is concurrent with the proper committee of
the probability that it would later be the DepEd.
repudiated, and criminal prosecution would
thus be interminable. Hence, such While Ombudsman should have desisted
desistance, by itself, is not usually a ground from hearing the administrative complaint
for the dismissal of an action once it has against Medrano and referred it to the
been instituted in court. proper DepEd committee, given that it had
already concluded the proceedings and had
With regard to whether Ombudsman has rendered a decision thereon, Medrano is
jurisdiction over the administrative now barred from assailing Ombudsman‘s
complaint, Section 5, Article XI of the acts under the principle of estoppel. He had
Constitution “created the independent Office actively participated in the administrative
of the Ombudsman.” Hailed as the proceedings before the Ombudsman. In his
“protectors of the people,” the Ombudsman Counter-Affidavit, he asked Ombudsman
and his Deputies are bestowed with for affirmative relief by seeking the
overreaching authority, powers, functions, dismissal of the administrative complaint
and duties to act on complaints against allegedly for being baseless. Verily, Medrano
public officials and employees, as provided cannot be permitted to challenge
in Sections 12 and 13. Ombudsman‘s acts belatedly.

When an administrative charge is initiated

against a public school teacher, however,
10.
Section 9 of the Magna Carta for Public
School Teachers specifically provides that
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
the same shall be heard initially by an
Petitioner,
investigating committee composed of the
vs.
school superintendent of the division, as
PEDRO DELIJERO, JR., Respondent
chairman, a representative of the local or, in
G.R. No. 172635 October 20,
its absence, any existing provincial
2010
or national teachers‘organization, and a
supervisor of the division. Thus, Section 23
of The Ombudsman Act of 1989 directsthat FACTS:
the petitioner “may refer certain complaints
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
33

Respondent Pedro Delijero, Jr., was a public The Office of Ombudsman has the authority
school teacher at the Burauen to determine the administrative liability of
Comprehensive National High School, an erring public official or employee, and to
Burauen, Leyte and was administratively direct and compel the head of the
charged for Grave Misconduct. concerned officer or agency to implement
the penalty imposed.
The complainant, Cleofas P. dela Cruz, was
the mother of the alleged victim Myra dela In Office of the Ombudsman v. Medrano,
Cruz (Myra). At the time of the incident, this Court ruled that the administrative
Myra was only 12 years old and a first year disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman
high school student at the Burauen over a public school teacher is not an
Comprehensive National High School. exclusive power but is concurrent with the
Respondent, on the other hand, was Myra's proper committee of the DECS, to wit:
52-year-old Mathematics teacher.
"In resolving the second issue
Sometime in May 2003, complainant learned whether petitioner has jurisdiction over the
from her cousin that respondent was administrative complaint against respondent
courting her daughter Myra. Complainant it is necessary to examine the source,
then immediately confronted Myra, who nature and extent of the power and
admitted having received from respondent authority of the Ombudsman vis--vis the
several handwritten love letters, a provisions of the Magna Carta for Public
Valentine's card and Two Hundred Pesos as School Teachers."
allowance.
Based on the foregoing, while petitioner has
Off-tangentially, this case involved a public concurrent administrative disciplinary
school teacher charged with serious authority with the DECS over public school
misconduct for allegedly kissing his 12-year teachers, Section 23 of the Ombudsman Act
old student. of 1989 provides that the Ombudsman may
refer a complaint to the proper disciplinary
The CA ruled that petitioner had no
authority. Under the circumstances
jurisdiction to investigate the complaint filed
obtaining herein, it would have been more
before it as Republic Act No. 4670 (RA
prudent for petitioner to have referred the
4670), the Magna Carta for Public School
complaint to the DECS given that it would
Teachers, specifically covers and governs
have been in a better position to serve the
administrative proceedings involving public
interest of justice considering the nature of
school teachers.
the controversy. Respondent is a public
ISSUE: school teacher and is covered by RA 4670,
therefore, the proceedings before the DECS
WON Office of Ombudsman has the
would have been the more appropriate
authority to determine the administrative
venue to resolve the dispute.
liability of an erring public school teacher.
It is obvious that R.A. 6770, taken together
RULING:
with the constitutional provisions creating
an independent OMB, reveals the manifest
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
34

intent of the lawmakers to bestow upon the CA dismissed the case based on lack of
anti-graft body full administrative jurisdiction and for not exhausting all the
disciplinary power over all elective and administrative remedies available to the
appointive public officials and employees petitioner in the ordinary course of law.
and conspiring private persons. The only
ISSUE:
exceptions are impeachable officials,
Members of Congress and the Judiciary. WON The case be dismissed based on the
withdrawal of appeal to the President.

RULING:

Failure to state a cause of action, for lack of

11.
jurisdiction and for not exhausting all the
FRANCISCO C. CALO, Petitioner- administrative remedies available to the
Appellant, petitioner in the ordinary course of law, the
Court resolves to dismiss as it hereby
vs.
dismisses the herein petition with costs
DELFIN C. FUERTES, DIRECTOR OF against petitioner.
LANDS and SECRETARY OF
The petitioner appealed, but as only a
AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL
question of law is raised, the Court of
RESOURCES, respondents-appellees.
Appeals certified the appeal to this Court.
G.R. No. L-16537 June
At any rate, the appellant's contention that,
29, 1962
as the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources is the alter ego of the President
and his acts or decisions are also those of
FACTS:
the latter, he need not appeal from the
Request for reconsideration having been decision or opinion of the former to the
denied by the Director of Lands on 25 latter, and that, such being the case, after
January 1957, Francisco C. Calo, petitioner- he had appealed to the Secretary of
appellant brought to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources from the
Agriculture and Natural Resources the case. decision or opinion of the Director of Lands
he had exhausted all the administrative
Francisco C. Calo asked the Secretary of
remedies, is untenable.
Agriculture and Natural Resources to
reconsider it but the latter denied a The withdrawal of the appeal taken to the
reconsideration thereof. Hence, on 1 August President of the Philippines is tantamount to
1958 Francisco C. Calo appealed to the not appealing at all thereto. Such
President of the Philippines but on 8 August withdrawal is fatal, because the appeal to
1958 he withdrew it before the President of the President is the last step he should take
the Philippines could act thereon in an administrative case.

Furthermore, a special civil action for

certiorari and prohibition under Rule 67 of
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
35

the Rules of Court lies only when "there is application sometime in 1979-1985 alleging
no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and that her tenant deliberately failed and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of refused to deliver her landowner's share
law." In the case at bar, appeal from an from 1975 up to the time of the filing of the
opinion or order by the Secretary of said application and that the latter had
Agriculture and Natural Resources to the distributed his landholding to his children.
President of the Philippines is the plain, A reinvestigation was conducted this time
speedy and adequate remedy available to by Atty. Seth Evasco who on October 31,
the petitioner. 1985 filed his report recommending the
cancellation of private respondent's CLT.
The judgment appealed from already had
Said report was elevated to the MAR.
become final and cannot be reviewed. The
appeal is dismissed. On April 17, 1986, petitioner appealed to
the then Intermediate Appellate Court
(IAC).

However, it was denied in an order dated

12. May 28, 1986. A motion for reconsideration
thereof was likewise denied. After the
HILDA RALLA ALMINE , petitioner parties filed their respective pleadings, the
Court of Appeals rendered a decision dated
vs. June 29, 1987 dismissing the appeal on the
ground of lack of jurisdictio.
COURT OF APPEALS, respondent
ISSUE:

GR No. 80719 Sep 26, 1989 Whether a landowner should or should not
be allowed to retain his landholdings, if
FACTS: administratively decided by the Minister of
Agrarian Reform, are appealable and could
On December 25, 1975, petitioner filed a
be reviewed only by the Court of Agrarian
sworn application for retention of her
Relations
riceland or for exemption thereof from the
Operation Land Transfer Program with the RULING:
then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR),
A perusal of the provision above cited
Regional Office in Tabaco, Albay. After due
reveals that retaining landholdings are
hearing, Atty. Cidarminda Arresgado of the
exclusively cognizable by the Minister (now
said office filed an investigation report
Secretary) of Agrarian Reform whose
dated June 26, 1980 for the cancellation of
decision may be appealed to the Office of
the Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) of
the President and not to the Court of
private respondent who appears to be
Agrarian Relations. These cases are thus
petitioner's tenant over her riceland.
excluded from those cognizable by the then
Upon failure of the Ministry to take the CAR, now the Regional Trial Courts. There
necessary action, petitioner reiterated her is no appeal from a decision of the
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
36

President. However, the said decision may any kind of tenanted agricultural land shall
be reviewed by the courts through a special be taken cognizance of by the Courts of
civil action for certiorari, prohibition or Agrarian Relations unless there has been a
mandamus, as the case may be under Rule prior fixing of provisional rental by the
65 of the Rules of Court. Department of Agrarian Reform, except that
the tenant-farmer may directly bring the
Petitioner's posture is that it is an error for
case for immediate determination by the
the respondent appellate court to dismiss
Courts of Agrarian Relations;
the appeal on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction since under Section 9 of Batas b) Questions involving rights granted and
Pambansa Blg. 129, said appellate court is obligations imposed by laws, Presidential
vested with the exclusive appellate Decrees, Orders, Instructions, Rules and
jurisdiction over all decisions, resolutions, or Regulations issued and promulgated in
orders of quasi-judicial agencies except relation to the agrarian reform program;
those falling within the appellate jurisdiction Provided, however, That matters involving
of the Supreme Court. the administrative implementation of the
transfer of the land to the tenant-farmer
Petitioner argues that since the appeal
under Presidential Decree No. 27 and
involves both calibration of the evidence
amendatory and related decrees, orders,
and the determination of the laws applicable
instructions, rules and regulations, shall be
thereto, then an appeal to the Court of
exclusively cognizable by the Secretary of
Appeals is the appropriate remedy and
Agrarian Reform
hence her appeal should not have been
dismissed. Petitioner argues further that on Thus, the respondent appellate court erred
the assumption that the Court of Appeals in holding that it has no jurisdiction over the
has no jurisdiction on the matter, still the petition for review by way of certiorari
appeal should not have been dismissed but brought before it of a decision of the
should have been certified to the proper Minister of Agrarian Reform allegedly made
court citing Section 3 of Rule 50 of the in grave abuse of his discretion and in
Revised Rules of Court. holding that this is a matter within the
competence of the Court of Agrarian
The Court of Agrarian Relations has original
Reform. The Court of Appeals has
and exclusive jurisdiction as follows:
concurrent jurisdiction with this Court and
"Jurisdiction over Subject Matter. - The the Regional Trial Court over petitions
Courts of Agrarian Relations shall have seeking the extraordinary remedy of
original and exclusive jurisdiction over: certiorari, prohibition or mandamus.

a) Cases involving the rights and

obligations of persons in the cultivation and
use of agricultural land except those
cognizable by the National Labor Relations 13.
Commission; Provided, That no case
RAMON P. BINAMIRA, petitioner,
involving the determination of rentals over
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
37

vs. The reason is that the decree clearly

provides that the appointment of the
PETER D. GARRUCHO, JR., respondent.
General Manager of the Philippine Tourism
G.R. No. 92008 July 30, 1990 Authority shall be made by the President of
the Philippines, not by any other officer.
Appointment involves the exercise of
FACTS: discretion, which because of its nature
cannot be delegated. Legally speaking, it
In this petition for quo warranto, Ramon P.
was not possible for Minister Gonzales to
Binamira seeks reinstatement to the office
assume the exercise of that discretion as an
of General Manager of the Philippine
alter ego of the President. The appointment
Tourism Authority from which he claims to
(or designation) of the petitioner was not a
have been removed without just cause in
merely mechanical or ministerial act that
violation of his security of tenure.
could be validly performed by a subordinate
In April 10, 1986, Minister Gonzales sought even if he happened as in this case to be a
approval from President Aquino of the member of the Cabinet.
composition of the Board of Directors of the
An officer to whom a discretion is entrusted
PTA, which included Binamira as Vice-
cannot delegate it to another, the
Chairman in his capacity as General
presumption being that he was chosen
Manager. This approval was given by the
because he was deemed fit and competent
President on the same date.
to exercise that judgment and discretion,
Binamira claims that since assuming office, and unless the power to substitute another
he had discharged the duties of PTA in his place has been given to him, he
General Manager and Vice-Chairman of its cannot delegate his duties to another.
Board of Directors and had been
In those cases in which the proper
acknowledged as such by various
execution of the office requires, on the part
government offices, including the Office of
of the officer, the exercise of judgment or
the President.
discretion, the presumption is that he was
Garrucho having taken over as General chosen because he was deemed fit and
Manager of the PTA in accordance with a competent to exercise that judgment and
new memorandum, the petitioner filed this discretion, and, unless power to substitute
action against him to question his title. another in his place has been given to him,
Subsequently, while his original petition was he cannot delegate his duties to another.
pending.
The argument that the designation made by
ISSUE: Minister Gonzales was approved by
President Aquino through her approval of
WON the petitioner may be reinstated. the composition of the Board of Directors of
RULING: the PTA is not persuasive

With these rulings, the petitioner's claim of

security of tenure must perforce fall to the
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
38

ground. His designation being an unlawful surveillance was conducted at the vicinity of
encroachment on a presidential prerogative, the residence of the accused at No. 3,
he did not acquire valid title thereunder to Mango Street, Carmen, Cagayan de Oro
the position in question. Even if it be City, by the agents of the 10th NARCOTICS
assumed that it could be and was REGIONAL UNIT, Narcotics command,
authorized, the designation signified merely AFP. . They were M/Sgt. Dominador Pascua,
a temporary or acting appointment that PC; P/Sgt. Avelino Tampus, INF; Sgt.
could be legally withdrawn at pleasure. In Reynaldo Miguel, PC, and prosecution
either case, the petitioner's claim of security witness P/Sgt. Rico Carino, INF. The
of tenure must be rejected. confidential information, when verified by a
"Task Buy" was found to be positive. A
The Court sympathizes with the petitioner,
search warrant, upon application was issued
who apparently believed in good faith that
by Judge Antonio Orcullo of the Municipal
he was being extended a permanent
Trial Court in Cities, Cagayan de Oro City.
appointment by the Minister of Tourism.
The search warrant, however, has neither
After all, Minister Gonzales had the
been shown nor submitted as part of the
ostensible authority to do so at the time the
evidence for the prosecution.
designation was made. This belief seemed
strengthened when President Aquino later
approved the composition of the PTA Board During Trial, Sgt. Carino mentioned it in his
of Directors where the petitioner was testimony. The accused admitted that there
designated Vice-Chairman because of his was a search warrant. The police team
position as General Manager of the PTA. proceeded to the suspect's place to [verify]
However, such circumstances fall short of if the prohibited stuff was still in the
the categorical appointment required to be residence of the accused. A test buy was
made by the President herself, and not the made on October 11, 1983 through another
Minister of Tourism. confidential informer who was directed to
buy ten-pesos worth of dried marijuana
leaves from Joey — the brother of the
accused. The agents, according to Sgt.
14.
Carino, were able to buy from Joey
JOHNNY DEMAISIP, Petitioner,Vs Demaisip ten pesos worth of Marijuana
COURT OF APPEALS; G.R. No. 89393; leaves. During interrogation, petitioner
25 Jan 1991; 193 SCRA 373 disclosed that the marijuana which he has
sold came from their residence along Mango
Street.

FACTS:
The petitioner was convicted of illegal
possession of marijuana. The Court of
There was a confidential information
Appeals admitted in evidence the marijuana
that Johnny Demaisip. Petitioner, had in his
seized from him and affirmed his conviction.
possession marijuana and brownies cake
(spiced with marijuana ingredient), a
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
39

ISSUE(S) District Supervisor of the Bureau of Public

Schools and assigned to the District of Glan,
Whether or not petitioner may South Cotabato. On 1987,then Secretary
object to the admissibility of the evidence Lourdes Quisumbing issued a Memorandum
against him during this appeal. Order, directing Regional Director Teofilo E.
Gomez to reassign or transfer Esther B. Yap
to another district. The latter in turn issued
RULING:
a Memorandum Order to the principals and
headteachers of different public schools at
NO. Objections to the legality of the
Glan informing them of his assumption of
search warrant and to the admissibility of
office. However, private respondent Esther
the evidence obtained thereby were
B. Yap defied the orders of her superiors
deemed waived when no objection to the
and she continued to perform the functions
legality of the search warrant was raised
of public school district supervisor of Glan.
during the trial of the case nor to the
admissibility of the evidence obtained
On February 20, 1987, Yap filed a petition
through said warrant.
for prohibition with prayer for preliminary
injunction/restraining order with the
Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. Regional Trial Court, General Santos City
against the Hon. Lourdes R. Quisumbing, et
al. who filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss,
which was denied by respondent Judge
15. Manuel Luis Gumban in his order. On
August 25, 1987, said Judge issued another
G.R. No. 85156             February 5, order granting the Writ of Preliminary
1991 injunction and denied Quisumbing et al.'s
HON. LOURDES R. QUISUMBING in her motion for reconsideration. Quisumbing, et
official capacity as Secretary of al. assailed the aforesaid orders on the
Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), ground that Esther B. Yap failed to
HON. TEOFILO GOMEZ and CRISANTO exhaust all available administrative
B. DELAMIN, petitioners, remedies. On the other hand, Yap argued
vs. that the doctrine of non-exhaustion of
HON. MANUEL LUIS GUMBAN, administrative remedies is not applicable to
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial the case at bar as the Memorandum Order
Court, Br. 23 –– General Santos City, issued by the petitioners, Lourdes
South Cotabato, and ESTHER B. YAP, Quisumbing and Teofilo Gomez dated
respondents. February 11, 1987 and February 12, 1987,
respectively, would readily show that the
FACTS: basis for the issuance of the orders are the
unverified demands of alleged concerned
On or before 1979, private citizens without the benefit of investigation.
respondent Esther B. Yap was appointed
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
40

ISSUE: In the instant case We deem it more

felicitous and expedient to resolve the same
Whether or not the doctrine of on the merits to avoid multiplicity of suits
exhaustion of administrative remedies is since after all the circumstances warrant a
applicable in the case at bar. final disposition of this petition, namely the
granting thereof because private
respondent had previously been appointed
RULING: as district supervisor, without indicating any
specific place as her permanent station. Her
Negative. After a careful scrutiny of status was therefore akin to that of a
the records, it is to be underscored that the district supervisor at large. Her transfer was
appointment of private respondent Yap is neither whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious.
simply that of a District Supervisor of the
Bureau of Public Schools which does not
indicate a specific station. As such, she
could be assigned to any station and she is 16
not entitled to stay permanently at any
specific station. Finally, the lower court did G.R. No. 131255 May 20, 1998
not err in taking cognizance of the case. HON. EDUARDO NONATO JOSON, in
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative his capacity as the Governor of the
remedies is not a hard and fact rule. It has Province of Nueva Ecija, petitioner,
been repeatedly held that the requiring vs.
previous exhaustion of administrative EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RUBEN D.
remedies is not applicable where the TORRES, the DEPARTMENT OF THE
question in dispute is purely a legal one: INTERIOR & LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
where the controverted act is patently represented by SECRETARY ROBERT Z.
illegal or was performed without jurisdiction BARBERS and UNDERSECRETARY
or in excess of jurisdiction; where the MANUEL R. SANCHEZ, MR. OSCAR C.
respondent is a department secretary, TINIO, in his capacity as Provincial
whose acts as an alter ego of the President, Vice-Governor of Nueva Ecija, and MR.
bear the implied or assumed approval of the LORETO P. PANGILINAN, MR.
latter; where there are circumstances CRISPULO S. ESGUERRA, MS. SOLITA
indicating the urgency of judicial C. SANTOS, MR. VICENTE C. PALILIO,
intervention; or where the respondent has and MR. NAPOLEON G. INTERIOR, in
acted in utter disregard of due process. The their capacity as Provincial Board
rule does not apply where insistence on its Members of Nueva Ecija, respondents.
observance would result in nullification of
the claim being asserted; and when the rule
does not provide a plain, speedy and FACTS:
adequate remedy.
Petitioner Governor Joson was filed
a complaint before the Office of the
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
41

President for barging violently into the great probability that the respondent, who
session hall of the Sangguniang continues to hold office, could influence the
Panlalawigan in the company of armed witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and
men. The case was endorsed to the DILG. integrity of the records and other evidence.
For failure to file an answer after three (3) The act of respondent in allegedly barging
extensions, petitioner was declared in violently into the session hall of the
default and ordered the petitioner 60-day Sangguniang Panlalawigan in the company
preventive suspension. Petitioner later of armed men constitutes grave
“Motion to Conduct Formal Investigation”. misconduct.  The allegations of
DILG denied the motion declaring that the complainants are bolstered by the joint-
submission of position papers substantially affidavit of two (2) employees of the
complies with the requirements of Sangguniang Panlalawigan.  Respondent
procedural due process in administrative who is the chief executive of the province is
proceedings. Later, the Executive Secretary, in a position to influence the
by authority of the President, adopted the witnesses.  Further, the history of violent
findings and recommendation of the DILG confrontational politics in the province
Secretary.  The former imposed on dictates that extreme precautionary
petitioner the penalty of suspension from measures be taken.
office for six (6) months without pay.
“(b) Yes. The rejection of petitioner’s right
to a formal investigation denied him
ISSUES: procedural due process.  Section 5 of A. O.
No. 23 provides that at the preliminary
Whether or not: conference, the  Investigating Authority
 (a) Preventive suspension is proper; shall summon the parties to consider
 (b) Procedural due process is whether they desire a formal
violated; investigation.  This provision does not give
 (c) The resolution of DILG Secretary the Investigating Authority the discretion to
is invalid on the ground of undue determine whether a formal investigation
delegation; that it is the President who is would be conducted.  The records show
the Disciplining Authority, not the Secretary that petitioner filed a motion for formal
of DILG; investigation. There is nothing in the Local
Government Code and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations nor in A.O. No. 23
RULING: that provide that administrative cases
against elective local officials can be
decided on the basis of position
“(a) Yes. Preventive suspension may be papers.  A.O. No. 23 states that the
imposed by the Disciplining Authority at any Investigating Authority may require the
time (a) after the issues are joined; (b) parties to submit their respective
when the evidence of guilt is strong; and (c) memoranda but this is only after formal
given the gravity of the offense, there is investigation and hearing.
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
42

Constitution. Control is said to be the very

“(c) No. The DILG resolution is valid. The heart of the power of the presidency. As
President remains the Disciplining head of the Executive Department, the
Authority.  What is delegated is the power President, however, may delegate some of
to investigate, not the power to discipline. his powers to the Cabinet members except
The power to discipline evidently includes when he is required by the Constitution to
the power to investigate.   As the act in person or the exigencies of the
Disciplining Authority, the President has the situation demand that he acts
power derived from the Constitution itself to personally. The members of Cabinet may
investigate complaints against local act for and in behalf of the President in
government officials.  A. O. No. 23, certain matters because the President
however, delegates the power to investigate cannot be expected to exercise his control
to the DILG or a Special Investigating (and supervisory) powers personally all the
Committee, as may be constituted by the time.   Each head of a department is, and
Disciplining Authority.  This is not undue must be, the President’s alter ego in the
delegation, contrary to petitioner Joson’s matters of that department where the
claim. President is required by law to exercise
authority.
Under the doctrine of qualified political
agency “…which recognizes the
establishment of a single executive, all 17.
executive and administrative organizations
are adjuncts of the Executive Department,
G.R. No. 80796            October 11,
the heads of the various executive
2001
departments are assistants and agents of PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE,
the Chief Executive, and, except in cases Represented by Hon. Roy A. Padilla,
where the Chief Executive is required by the Jr., as Provincial Governor, petitioner,
Constitution or law to act in person or the vs.
exigencies of the situation demand that he PROVINCE OF QUEZON, Represented
act personally, the multifarious executive by Hon. Eduardo T. Rodriguez, as
Provincial Governor, respondent.
and administrative functions of the Chief
RE: URGENT PETITION TO CITE
Executive are performed by and through the GOVERNOR EDUARDO T. RODRIGUEZ
executive departments, and the acts of the OF QUEZON PROVINCE, AND MAYOR
Secretaries of such departments, performed JULIO U. LIM OF CALAUAG, QUEZON,
and promulgated in the regular course of IN CONTEMPT OF COURT.
business, are, unless disapproved or
reprobated by the Chief Executive SUMMARY: A 1989 SC decision settled the
land boundary dispute between Camarines
presumptively the acts of the Chief
Norte and Quezon. As a consequence, 9
Executive.” barangays previously located in Calauag,
Quezon became part of Sta. Elena,
This doctrine is corollary to the control Camarines Norte. The decision ordered the
power of the President provided in the Government to undertake a survey in
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
43

accordance with a 1922 decision of the implementation of Sec. 42, Art. II of the
Executive Board –which was upheld by the RAC, as interpreted by the 1922 EB
SC as basis for the delineation of the decision, which was upheld by the SC in
boundary. Upon request of Camarines Norte 1989. Neither can the law creating Sta.
Governor Padilla, DENR sent a survey team, Elena be invoked, because the definition of
which laid down a boundary marker. In Oct. Sta. Elena’s territory in that law was subject
1991, Calauag Mayor Lim and Quezon to the delineation of the Quezon-CamNor
Governor Rodriguez ordered the bulldozing boundary, which was to be determined by
and removal of the boundary marker. the DENR by undertaking the SC-mandated
Padilla responded by filing a contempt survey. Governor Rodriguez and Mayor Lim
charge against the Quezon officials. Pending were held guilty of indirect contempt.
resolution of that case, COMELEC and other COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of
agencies of the Executive branch issued discretion in ordering the transfer of the
directives recognizing the jurisdiction of voter registration records of the 9
Camarines Norte over the 9 disputed barangays because it was merely complying
barangays. Specifically, NSO transferred with the SC decision. Instead of being
jurisdiction to the civil registrar of Sta. punished, they should be commended for
Elena; DBM transferred the IRAs of the 9 doing so. [Anecdote: According to Danicon,
barangays to Sta. Elena; realty tax records counsel for Camarines Norte went to the
were also ordered transferred; and the Law Center, chanced upon DLC, Sereno,
COMELEC authorized the Sta. Elena election Labitag, Sison, and Feliciano. They handled
officer to change the addresses of the the case for CamNor and won. Kaya ginawa
registered voters in the 9 barangays. raw silang adopted sons and daughters of
Quezon Government thus filed a petition for Camarines Norte. ^^]
certiorari assailing the COMELEC resolutions
authorizing the transfer of the voter DOCTRINE]:
registration records in the 9 barangays. This
petition was consolidated with the contempt The 1922 decision of the Chief of the
charge. CA Justice ordered to hear Executive Bureau did not alter or redefine or
thecontempt case found sufficient basis to amend an existing provincial boundary, the
cite Rodriguez and Lim in contempt for boundary line between Ambos Camarines
willful disregard of the 1989 SC and Tayabas (now Quezon Province). All
decision, by contumaciously asserting their that the Chief of the Executive Bureau did
own interpretation of the boundary line and was to implement, upon the authority of the
by having the DENR-installed marker Secretary of Interior, Section 42 of Act No.
removed. SC concurred with the CA. 2711. Necessarily, the argument on the
Rodriguez was guilty of willful disregard of a noncompliance with the plebiscite
final and executory SC decision. He even requirement under Section 10, Article X of
said in his demurrer to the contempt charge the 1987 Constitution, as well as Section 10
that they would not have ordered the of Republic Act No. 7160, is misplaced.
removal of the marker had the SC decided
the case in the way Quezon wanted it What was involved in this case is not a
decided. Pasaway kang talaga. SC has setting or resetting of an existing provincial
rejected their argument with finality and boundary but the implementation of a
they must act accordingly. Quezon cannot decision clarifying a law which set a
invoke the plebiscite requirements under provincial boundary in an ambiguous or
LGC 10 and the Constitution because the partial manner: “Section 42 (Article II,
boundary delineation was merely an Revised Administrative Code of 1917) does
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
44

set out a definition or description of the Quezon-Camnor boundary line based on the
boundary line between Ambos Camarines description in the 1922 decision.
and Quezon Province. [However, it] does
not describe or define the entirety of that DENR Secretary Fulgencio FACTORAN, Jr.,
line in such a manner as to permit the thus issued Special Order 1179 constituting
whole boundary line to be located on the a technical working group for the purpose.
ground by a surveyor. Close examination of
Section 42 will show that it is not the whole Jan. 31, 1991 – The DENR team informed
boundary line that is disputed but only a Quezon Governor Eduardo RODRIGUEZ
segment thereof.” about the upcoming survey.
Where there is clear and contumacious
defiance of, or refusal to obey an SC Quezon Provincial Secretary Jorge VARGAS
decision, it will not hesitate to exercise the objected to the use of the 1922 decision as
inherent power [of contempt] if only to the basis of the survey, asserting that it
maintain respect for the SC, for without should be done on the basis of the
which the administration of justice may conditions set forth in Art. II, §42 of the
falter or fail. Revised Administrative Code of 1917 (Act
2711).

FACTS: The DENR team proceeded with the survey

anyway, using the 1922 decision as basis.
Nov. 8, 1989 – SC rendered a
decision in GR No. 80796 (1989 decision) May 28, 1991 – The DENR team went to
resolving the long-standing [since the Brgy. Tabugon, Calauag, Quezon and
Spanish period] boundary dispute between installed a monument marker along the
Camarines Norte (CAMNOR) and Quezon in boundary line determined in the survey.
favor of the former.
The marker indicated that the area of 8,032
The decision stated in part: “Let a copy of hectares actually falls within the jurisdiction
this decision be furnished to the Secretary of CamNor.
of the Local
Governments and the Office of the The area comprises 9 barangays:
President with the request that surveyors Kagtalaba, Plaridel, Kabuluan, Don Tomas,
from the Bureau of Lands or other Guitol, Tabugon,
appropriate government agency be Maualawin, Patag Ibaba, and Patag Iraya.
forthwith designated to survey and locate, Oct. 14, 1991 – Rodriguez and Calauag
by latitude and longitude and by metes and Mayor Julio LIM had the boundary marker
bounds, and to monument the Basiad Bay- bulldozed and removed.
Mt. Cadig line described in the 16 June 1922
decision of the Chief of the Executive The event was covered by the Manila
Bureau.[1922 DECISION]” Bulletin.

Mar. 19, 1990 - The 1989 decision became In response, Padilla filed a petition for
final and executory. contempt in the SC against Rodriguez and
Lim for disobedience
Pursuant to the directive of the SC, CamNor to a SC decision, which is punishable as
governor Roy PADILLA asked the DENR indirect contempt under ROC 71§3.
Secretary to undertake the survey of the
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
45

COMMENT OF RODRIGUEZ & LIM on

contempt petition: The placing of the March 18, 1997 – the Department of
marker is illegal as it was installed within Finance directed the Quezon Provincial
Calauag territory and because the DENR Treasurer and the Provincial Assessor to
team lacked prior authority from the Office transfer the realty tax records of the 9
of the President, as required by the 1989 barangays to CamNor.
decision. Their action was a reasonable use
of force under NCC 429 to protect Quezon Jul. 10, 1997 – COMELEC issued a
territory from a threatened physical resolution authorizing the Sta. Elena
invasion. Election Officer to change the address in the
voting registration records of the 9
SC resolved to direct CA Justice Alicia barangays from Calauag, Quezon to Sta.
Sempio-Diy to conduct hearings, receive Elena, Camarines Norte; and to notify the
evidence, and submit a report and registered voters concerned of such change
recommendation on the contempt in address.
proceedings. Sep. 12, 1997 – The Sangguniang Bayan of
Calauag passed a resolution opposing the
After CamNor rested its case, Rodriguez Jul. 10 COMELEC resolution.
filed a demurrer, contending that the 1989
decision cannot be implemented in the light Nov. 27, 1997 – COMELEC resolved to note
of RAC 42 and RA 5480 (which created the the Calauag SB resolution and deny it with
Municipality of Sta. Elena in CamNor). The finality.
demurrer was denied.
Quezon filed a petition for certiorari with the
Upon retirement of Justice Sempio-Diy, the SC, which was consolidated with the
case was assigned to CA Justice Teodoro contempt petition.
Regino.
May 3, 2000 - Justice Regino submitted his
Pending the contempt proceedings in the report and recommendation in the contempt
CA, the DBM transferred the Internal case.
Revenue Allotment of the 9 barangays from
Calauag to Sta. Elena, Camarines Norte Rodriguez and Lim are guilty of contempt of
starting in Fiscal Year 1994. court and should be sentenced to maximum
penalty of 6 months imprisonment and
During the May 6, 1996 SK elections, P1000 fine; and be ordered to shoulder the
COMELEC sent the election paraphernalia of cost of installing a new boundary marker to
the 9 barangays to Sta. Elena. COMELEC replace the one they had removed.
also issued a resolution directing the
Calauag Election Officer to refrain from ISSUES:
exercising supervision over political
exercises in the 9 barangays.
1) W/N Rodriguez and Lim are guilty of
The Civil Registrar General likewise issued a contempt of court (YES)
Memorandum informing the Calauag Civil
Registrar that registration of vital events 2) W/N COMELEC committed GAD in issuing
occurring in the 9 barangays should now be the resolutions assailed by Quezon (NO)
registered with the Sta. Elena Civil
Registrar. RULING:
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
46

Pertinent part of the 1989 SC decision: "It is

1) BULLDOZING & REMOVAL OF pointed out by [CamNor], firstly, that the
MARKER WAS DISOBEDIENCE OF 1989 particular point on Basiad Bay that is the
SC DECISION; RODRIGUEZ & LIM terminus of the boundary line is not
(RL) GUILTY OF CONTEMPT specifically identified in Section 42,
considering that the eastern shore of Basiad
RL’s act of removing the monument marker Bay is 25 kilometers in length, more or less,
amounts to contumacious conduct defined such that that terminal point could in theory
under ROC 71§3(b), which declares be located anywhere along the 25-kilometer
contemptuous any "disobedience of or shore line. Secondly, the specific direction
resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or directions and the varying lengths (the
or judgment or command of a court." 'metes and bounds') of the various
segments of the boundary line to be
The installation of the boundary marker was projected from the terminus point on Basiad
in compliance with the 1989 SC decision, Bay onto Mt. Cadig's peak, are similarly not
which made specified in
the 1922 decision the basis of the boundary Section 42. Thus, again, a surveyor on the
line. ground would be unable to locate and
monument the boundary line from Basiad
RL have a long record of resisting CamNor’s Bay to Mt. Cadig if all he had was the
claim to the disputed area. language found in Section 42 of the Revised
Administrative Code.
RL’s contumacious refusal was made with
full understanding that their acts would fall "We agree with [CamNor]'s argument. We
under contempt, as evinced by the following consider that to that limited extent, the
statement made in their demurrer: “The Ambos Camarines
whole case would have been different if Quezon boundary line was `undefined' and
factually the territory defined in the (1922) that there was thus necessity for the 16
Decision of the Executive Bureau conformed June 22 decision of the Chief of the
with the prescription of Section 42 (of Executive Bureau to provide more specific
Article II, Revised Administrative Code of guidance that would permit the actual
1917)” identification or location of the Basiad Bay-
Mt. Cadig portion of the boundary line
SC agrees with Justice Regino’s findings. between Ambos Camarines and Quezon
Province:
In effect, Rodriguez was saying in the
demurrer that they would not have removed '[from the peak of Mt. Cadig] thence a
the boundary marker had the SC decided straight line is drawn to the point of
the case on the basis on RAC Art. II, Sec. intersection of the interprovincial road
42. between Camarines Norte and Tayabas
This is an act of defiance of the 1989 (now Quezon) with the Tabugon River,
decision, where it was ruled with finality thence following the course of the river to
that RAC Art. II, Sec. 42 did not define the each mouth at the Basiad Bay.'"
entirety of the CamNor-Quezon boundary
line in such a manner as to permit the The 1989 SC decision clearly upheld the
whole boundary line to be located on the validity and binding effect of the 1922
ground by a surveyor. decision of the Executive Bureau. Despite
this, RL stubbornly insist on their own
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
47

interpretation of what should be the correct Santa Elena, San Vicente, Basiad and San
boundary line. Pedro up to the boundary of the Province of
Quezon and the Province of Camarines
This willful disregard of the SC decision was Norte as defined in Chapter three, Article II,
demonstrated by RL’s causing the removal Section forty-two of the Administrative
of the boundary marker installed by the Code”
DENR.
Quezon: Including the 9 barangays within
Counsels for Quezon have already been the disputed area in the territory of Sta.
reprimanded by the SC for insisting on the Elena would violate not only Sec. 1 of RA
applicability of RAC Art. II, Sec. 42, as a 5480, but also Art. X, Sec. 10 of the
tactic to delay the implementation of the Constitution and LGC 10 which require the
1989 SC decision. conducting of a plebiscite in cases of
substantial alteration of territorial
SC said: “This Court does not, as it cannot, boundaries.
always expect counsel of losing litigants
graciously to accept the correctness of the SC: This has been resolved with finality in
decisions of this Court. But when such the 1989 decision: RA 5480 does not
decisions reach finality, it is the duty of such purport to have amended Section 42 of the
counsel as officers of the Court and Revised Administrative Code nor Section 2
members of the Bar to obey those of Act No. 2809, both as implemented in the
decisions, whatever their personal opinion decision dated 16 June 1922 of the
may be in respect of the merits of the Executive Bureau of the Department of
decisions. It is, of course, open to the Interior.
respondents herein to seek to change those
decisions they disagree with by going to the Sec. 1 of RA 5480 extends the jurisdiction
Congress of the Philippines to try to secure of Sta. Elena up to the Quezon-CamNor
the enactment of a statute changing the boundary, which was defined in the 1922
boundary line already declared legally EB decision; which was in turn ordered
binding by this Court. enforced by the SC in its 1989 decision. The
enumeration of barangays in Sec. 1 is not a
Until such a statute is enacted, however, delimitation of territorial jurisdiction.
respondents owe a special duty faithfully
and honestly to comply with final decisions The 1922 decision did not “alter, re-define,
of this Court. The Court cannot countenance or amend” an existing provincial boundary.
any further disregard of this duty. It is of All it did was implement RAC 42. The
essence of an ordered and civilized reliance on the plebiscite provisions of the
community that the function of final Local Govenment Code and Art. X,
resolution of disputes be located in a Constitution are therefore misplaced.
particular institution. In our system, that
institution is this Court.” Authority of the DENR technical team comes
from the President through his alter ego,
Quezon cannot invoke RA 5480 [creating the SENR
the Municipaliy of Sta. Elena]
Special Order No. 1179 issued by the DENR
Sec.1 of that law, defined the territory of Secretary was the basis for the DENR
Sta. Elena as including “Barrios Salvacion, team’s authority to conduct the survey and
Bulala, Rizal, San Lorenzo, Pulong Guitguit, place boundary markers. The DENR
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
48

Secretary is the President’s alter ego; thus settled. The resolutions were mere
the SENR’s acts are presumed to be acts of compliance with the SC resolution dated
the President, unless expressly repudiated Aug. 4, 1994 in the same case.
by the latter. The argument that the survey
was conducted without Presidential SC fully agrees COMELEC.
authority is therefore baseless. RL liable for
indirect contempt For showing high regard to the SC's
Decision and Orders, we commend not only
RL thus openly disobeyed the 1989 Decision the COMELEC but also the Department of
when they caused the removal of the Budget and Management, the Department
monument marker installed by the DENR. of Finance, the Department of Environment
The significance of the monument marker and Natural Resources, the Department of
cannot simply be disregarded. As aptly Interior and Local Government and the
explained by Engr. Mamerto Infante, it has National Statistics Office.
a technical purpose of preserving the survey
conducted by his team. In fact the 1989 These government offices and agencies
Decision mandates "...to monument the have collectively recognized the subject 9
Basiad Bay-Mt. Cadig line described in the barangays as part of Camarines Norte's
16 June 1922 decision of the Chief of the jurisdiction (bigyan ng jacket).
Executive Bureau."
It is only Quezon Province and its officials
That RL understood the 1989 Decision is who ignore the finality of the Decision and
fully borne by the records in these cases Resolutions of the SC. Their present petition
and well attested by their valiant effort in attempts to re-litigate the same issues
re-litigating issues already settled by this judiciously passed upon by the SC with
Court. That same effort, however, finality. It is but imperative for the SC to
highlighted by their contumacious write finis to these cases. Indeed, every
destruction of the monument, worked litigation must come to an end; otherwise, it
adversely to their cause. It renders them would become even more intolerable than
liable for indirect contempt. the wrong and injustice it is designed to
correct.
2) NO GAD COMMITTED IN ISSUING
ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS; COMELEC & DISPOSTION: Petition for contempt
OTHER AGENCIES granted. Rodriguez and Lim fined P1,000.
COMMENDED FOR IMPLEMENTING Petition for certiorari denied.
1989 DECISION

 Quezon: The assailed COMELEC

resolutions recognizing CamNor’s
17.
jurisdiction over the 9 disputed barangays
were issued with grave abuse of discretion,
being violative of RA 5480, Art. X, Sec. 10
of the Constitution and LGC 10.

COMELEC: The assailed Resolutions were 18.

issued in deference to the 1989 decision,
and only after the land boundary dispute
between the two provinces had been
 ADMIN AND ELECTION CASES COMPILED Page |
49

19.

20.