Public officers – are every public servant from the highest to the lowest rank- are those who take part in the performance of public functions in the government, performing in

said government or any of its branches public duties of an employee, agent or subordinate official of any rank or class in order to promote the general welfare.

REQUISITES:1. taking part in the performance of public functions in the government, performing in said government or

any of its branches public duties of an employee, agent or subordinate official of any rank or class2. That his authority must be:

a. By direct provision of lawb. By popular electionc. By appointment by competent authority

RELATED LAWS: PD 807 ( Civil Service Law ) EO 292 ( Revised Administrative Code of 1987 ) RA 7160 ( Local Government Code of 1991 ) RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officers and Employees, as amended ) RA 3019 ( Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act ) Act Declaring Forfeiture of Ill-Gotten Wealth of Public Officers and Employees 1987 Constitution

Components of the Local Government Units:1. Cities2. Provinces3. Municipalities4. Barangays5. ARMM

Public Office – is a right, a duty and authority created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is vested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public officer.

Public AccountabilityPublic office is a public trust. All government officials and employees must at all times be accountable to the

people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

*nobody has a vested right over it. It cannot be a subject of inheritance. It is wholly personal to the incumbent.

Public Office Private Officea. arises by direct provision of the law, popular election, or appointment by competent authority

a. arises from a contract and usually involves private interest

b. public officer is given the privilege to discharge governmental functions, or services for and in behalf of the people

 

c. people also have the right to remove such privilege  

ELEMENTS OF A PUBLIC OFFICE1. It must be created by law, ordinance etc.2. the powers of the office must be defined expressly or impliedly3. it must be more or less permanent

Cases:

Laurel vs. Disierto – Chairman of the NCC ( National Centennial Commission ) is a public officer. Mechem describes the delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign functions of government as the most important characteristic in determining whether a position is a public office or not. NCC performs executive functions, promotion of industrialization and full employment. Salary is a mere incident and forms no part of the office.

Characteristics of a public office according to Mechem:a. There is a delegation of sovereign functions (the most important characteristic)b. It is created by lawc. Oath, Salary, Continuance – Salary is usual but not a criterion in determining the nature

of the position. It is incidental and forms no part of the office.d. Its scope of dutiese. The designation of the position as an office

Honorary Office Ad Hoc Lucrative Office

a. salary or fee is annexed a. salary, compensation, fee is annexed

b. supposed to be accepted for public good

b. office for profit

CASES:

1. Figueroa vs People – the operation of a market is not a governmental function. It is undertaken by the LGU in its private and proprietary capacity. Rivera cannot be considered a public officer, being a member of the market committee did not vest upon him any sovereign functions of the government. **privilege communication cannot apply.

2. Macalino vs Sandiganbayan – as an employee of PNCC (Philippine National Construction Corporation), is not a public officer. PNCC has no original charter as it was incorporated only under the general law on corporations. Sandiganbayan therefore has no jurisdiction, unless in the case of conspiracy.

3. Geduspan vs People – there are certain positions which have been placed under the authority of the Sandiganbayan although the public officer is not necessarily occupying a salary grade 27 and above position. The position of the petitioner is merely classified as salary grade 26. The petitioner is a public officer being a manager of Philhealth, a government-owned and controlled corporation. The position of manager is one of those mentioned in paragraph a, Section 4 of RA 8249 and the offense for which she was charged was committed in relation to her office as department manager of Philhealth. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.

4. Alzaga, Bello vs Sandiganbayan – AFP-RSBS ( Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits System was established by virtue of PD 361 to guarantee continuous financial support to the AFP military retirement system. The character and operations of the AFP-RSBS are imbued with public interest thus the same is a government entity and its funds are in the nature of public funds. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.

5. City Mayor vs CA – public office is a public trust. Chief veterinarian of Zamboanga City was found guilty of gross negligence and immoral conduct by the City Mayor, Merit Systems Protection Board and the CSC. CA modified the decision. SC set aside CA’s decision. Public office is a public trust.

6. Abeja vs Tañada – Public office is personal to the officer. It is not a property. No succession of public position to heirs. Substitution of the deceased mayor by his wife, pending election protest is not valid. Public office is personal to the incumbent and is not a property which passes to the heirs, the heirs could no longer prosecute for damages because the death terminates the right to occupy.

7. De Castro vs COMELEC – while the right to public office is personal and exclusive to the public officer and not a property transmissible to his heirs upon his death, still an election protest is another thing. An election protest is imbued with public interest. An election protest survives the death of the protestant. A public office is purely personal while an election protest is not.

ACTIO PERSONALIS MORITUM CUM PERSONA – upon the death of the incumbent, no heir of his may be allowed to continue holding his office in his place.

8. Sales vs Mathay – suspension should be shown to be unjustified in order for the public officer to be compensated during such period. The general proposition is that a public official is not entitled to any compensation if he has not rendered any service. Before a public official or employee is entitled to payment of salaries withheld, it should be shown that the suspension was unjustified OR that the employee was innocent of the charges proffered against him which is not the case in the instant proceedings.

9. Segovia vs Noel – two justices, one ordered to vacate the position. Though public office cannot be regarded as a property right, such could not be taken away from a qualified appointee through a retroactive application of legislature. It is a fundamental principle that a public office cannot be regarded as the property of the incumbent, and that a public office is not a contract. Though there is no vested right in an office which may be disturbed by legislation, yet the incumbent has, in a sense, a right to his office. If that right is to be taken away by statute, the terms should be clear in which the purpose is stated.

ABOLITION AND REMOVALGR: There is no vested right in public officeEX: Constitutional Offices which the law provides for special immunity as regards salary and nature.

Removal of Public Officers Abolition of Public Officesa. position still exists, only the officer is separated

a. effected bona fide (done in good faith)

b. can be made for reasonable cause

b. must be done pursuant to the law

c. there is an occupant c. there is no occupantd. there can be violation of security of tenure

d. no violation of security of tenure

CASE:

NALTDRA vs CSC – EO 649 The Reorganization of the Land Registration Commission (LRC) into National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NALTDRA). The provision should apply to all. EO 649 is clear on its wordings “all provisions therein shall cease to exist from the date specified in the implementing order” Abolition of public office, in effect, LRC is now defunct. EO 649 therefore abolished all positions in the now defunct LRC and required new appointments to be issued to all employees of the NALTDRA. Abolition does not mean removal. After the abolition, there is in law no occupant. Thus, there can be no tenure to speak of.

GR: An individual cannot be compelled to accept public office because it would violate the involuntary servitude clause of the Constitution.

EX: 1. Art. 234 of the RPC – when one is elected by popular election.2. Section 4 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution – when it is essential to the defense of the State3. Posse Comitatus – a common law term that compels citizens to help the community in the maintenance and

preservation of peace and tranquility

USURPER, DE FACTO, DE JURE

De Facto – one who in good faith, has possession of the office and has discharged duties pertaining thereto and is thus legally entitled to the emoluments of the office.

- performs valid acts that may be performed by a de jure officer - it is conferred by law in order to protect the public - he is entitled to emoluments during his actual service

Requirements:a. physical possessionb. regularly created officec. color of title either through appointment or election

When is a person a de facto officer?1. without known appointment or election2. under a color of a known election or appointment

a. but failed to conform to some precedent requirement or conditionb. but void because:

i. ineligibilityii. want of authority of the appointing body

iii. defect or irregularity of the existence of the appointmentc. but pursuant to an unconstitutional law

Usurper – one who undertakes to act officially without any title or color of right- one who takes an office outside of legal parameters, subject to collateral or direct attack- all acts are null and void

Requirements:a. no color of titleb. he assumes himself to be an officer in the eyes of the public

Usurper to De Facto – when people acknowledge the acts of the usurper through the passage of time, they acquiesced to the acts of the usurper and comply without protest.

CASE:National Manesty vs COA – Representatives are usurper, they are not de facto officers because they were not appointed but were merely designated to act as such. Furthermore, they are not entitled to something their own principals are prohibited from receiving.

**if the appointment is against the law, the office does not legally exist, the appointee is usurper.

Basis De Facto UsurperNature **see requirement **see requirement

Basis of Authority

Color of right or title to officeNo color of right or title to office

Validity of Official Acts

Valid as to the public until such time as his title to the office is adjudged insufficient

absolutely void

Rule on Compensation

Entitled to receive compensation only during the time when no de jure officer is declared

not entitled to any compensation at all

 He is paid only for actual services rendered

 

De Jure Officer – one who has the lawful right in the office but who is not in possession thereof.

Requirements:

a. existence of a de jure officeb. must possess the legal qualifications for the office in questionc. must be lawfully chosen to such officed. must have qualified himself to perform the duties of such office according to the mode prescribed by law

**the aggrieved party must file a quo warranto petition within one (1) year from the time of his removal

Basis De Jure De FactoRequisites **see requirements **see requirements

Basis of Authority

Right: he has the lawful right/title to the office

Reputation

How ousted Cannot be oustedOnly by a direct proceeding (quo warranto) and not collaterally

Validity of official acts

Valid subject to exceptions

Valid as to the public until such time as his title to the office is adjudged insufficient

Rule on compensation

Entitled to compensation as a matter of right

Entitled to receive compensation only during the time when no de jure officer is declared

 The principle of no work no pay is not applicable

He is paid only for actual services rendered

CASES:

1. Arimao vs Taher – De facto officer entitled to emoluments pertaining to the office during the period of the performance of such functions. Neither Arimao nor Taher is entitled to the position in question. Arimao cannot be reinstated by mere directive of the ARMM Regional Governor, with the finality of the AWOL order, Arimao legally lost her right to the position. This however should not be construed as a declaration that Taher is entitled to the position. According to Section 13 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292, all appointments involved in a chain of promotions must be submitted simultaneously for approval by the Commission. The disapproval of the appointment of a person proposed to a higher position invalidates the promotion of those in lower positions and automatically restores them to their former positions. A rightful incumbent of a public office may recover from a de facto officer of the salary received by the latter during the time of his wrongful tenure. Taher should account to Arimao for the salaries she received from the time the disapproval of Arimao’s promotion up to time of the AWOL order. Taher may keep the emoluments she received after the AWOL order, being no de jure at that time.

2. Malaluan vs COMELEC – Malaluan is a de facto officer not a usurper. The fact that Malaluan have been declared by the RTC as the winner and not by the COMELEC does not make his position illegal. It has to be remembered that both RTC and COMELEC have the concurrent power to proclaim the winners in the electoral process. Malaluan should not be held liable for damages because wrongful acts were not proven.

3. Gaminde vs COA – De Facto in good faith is entitled to receive salary for the services rendered.

4. Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary – in cases where there is no de jure officer, a de facto officer, who in good faith has had possession of the office and has discharged the duties pertaining thereto, is legally entitled to the emoluments of the office, and may in appropriate action recover the salary, fees and other compensations attached to the office.

QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDING- Is a special civil action, a demand by the state upon some individuals or corporations to

show by what right they exercise some right or privilege appertaining to0 the state which, according to the Constitution and the laws of the land, they can legally exercise by virtue of a grant or authority form the State.

- A special civil action filed before the court by a person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position unlawfully held or exercised by another.

- May be commenced by the Solicitor General OR by the person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position unlawfully held.

CASES:

1. Tarrosa vs Singson - quo warranto proceeding should be dismissed. Tarrosa filed the petition in his capacity as a mere taxpayer. He is not a person claiming entitled to a public office or position unlawfully held or exercised by another.

2. Engaño vs CA - De facto officer is entitled to the compensation due to the office although he clearly lacked the requisites to occupy such position. The petition should be dismissed for having been moot and academic due to the supervening event, namely, the compulsory retirement of Engaño.

3. Mendoza vs Allas – A quo warranto proceeding is directed against the person, not to the office and can only be filed only by a person who has interest, claim or legal standing. In the case at bar, the petition was filed solely against Allas and not against Olores, the successor-in-office.

CIVIL SERVICE LAWA. Scope

- The Civil Service embraces the employees in all branches, subdivisions and instrumentalities and agencies of the Government including government-owned and controlled corporations with original charter.

- Under the new law, Magna Carta Act for Public Teachers ( RA 4670 ), it is the Department of Education that has the exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving public school teachers. Jurisdiction over administrative cases of public school teachers is lodged with the Investigating Committee pursuant to Section 9 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.

CASES:

1. Emin vs De Leon – CSC has no original jurisdiction over the administrative cases against public school teachers. However, at this late hour, the proceedings conducted by the public respondent CSC can no longer be nullified on procedural grounds. Under the principle of estoppel by laches, petitioner is now barred from impugning the CSC’s jurisdiction over the case. CSC had afforded petitioner sufficient opportunity to be heard and defend himself against the charges of participation in faking civil service eligibilities of certain teachers for a fee. Not only did he answer the charges before the CSC but he participated in the hearings which were in no doubt willful and voluntary. Participation by parties in the administrative proceedings without raising any objections thereto bars them from raising any jurisdictional infirmity.

2. Ombudsman vs Estandarte – DECS has exclusive jurisdiction over this case. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated. When the complainants filed

their formal complaint with the DECS, jurisdiction was vested on it. It cannot now be transferred to the Ombudsman upon the instance of the complainants, even with the acquiescence of the DECS and petitioner. Even if the Ombudsman had concurrent jurisdiction over the administrative case, DECS authority to decide on the case is sustained. The better rule in the event of conflict between the two courts of concurrent jurisdiction as in the present case, is to allow the litigation to be tried and decided by the court which would be in a better position to serve the interest of justice, considering the nature of the controversy, the accessibility of the court to the parties and other similar factors. Considering that the respondent is a public school teacher, the DECS is in better position to decide the case.

B. Purpose of Civil Service- to professionalized and improved efficiency in public service- to promote good governance and integrity

**essential characteristics of the Civil Service System: Security of Tenure and Merit and Fitness

C. Classification of Civil Service CAREER SERVICE

Includes:1. Open Career positions for appointment to which prior qualifications in an appropriate

examination are required.2. Closed Career positions which are scientific or highly technical in nature and which

maintain their own merit system. ( e.g. academic staff of state colleges, scientific and technical positions in scientific or research institutions)

3. Positions in Career Executive Service ALL of whom appointed by the President.a. Undersecretaryb. Assistant Secretaryc. Bureau Directord. Assistant Bureau Directore. Regional Directorf. Assistant Regional Directorg. Chief of Department Service and other officers of equivalent ranks

4. Career Officers other than those in the CES, who are appointed by the President ( e.g. Foreign Service Officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs )

5. Commissioned Officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces which shall maintain a separate merit system

6. Personnel of government owned or controlled corporations whether performing governmental or proprietary functions, who do not fall under the non-career service

7. Permanent laborers whether skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled

Classes of Positions in the Career Service: (three major levels)1. First level – non professional or sub-professional work in a non-supervisory or supervisory

capacity requiring less than four years of collegiate studies.2. Second level – professional, technical, or scientific work in a non-supervisory or

supervisory capacity requiring at least four years of college work up to Division Chief level3. Third level – positions in the Career Service Executive

NON-CAREER SERVICE Includes:

1. Elective officials and their personal or confidential staff2. Secretaries and other officials of Cabinet rank who hold their positions at the pleasure of the

President and their personal or confidential staff3. Chairman and members of commissions and boards and their personal or confidential

staff4. Contractual personnel or those whose employment in the government, which in no case

shall exceed one year, and performs or accomplishes the specific work or job, under his own responsibility with a minimum direction and supervision from the hiring agency

5. Emergency and seasonal personnel

CAREER LEVEL

Sub-Professional Professional Career Executive

● clerical; no exercise of discretion

● supervisory, scientific and technical posts

● Senior Administrators

● security of tenure is with regard to the position held

● security of tenure is with regard to the position held

● security of tenure is with regard to rank

GR: Only an eligible gets to be appointed to public officeEX: In case of temporary vacancy and there is no person eligible who is available for the position

Eligibility – refers to an accomplishment of the applicants as required by law to hold office - at no point within the duration of the term/office must a disqualification exist - the taking of an oath is only an incident to the holding of office

Characteristics of Career Service1. Entrance is based on merits and fitness, to be determined as far as practicable by competitive examination and

highly technical qualifications.2. Opportunity for advancement to higher career positions OR reward for outstanding performance in public

service.3. Security of tenure. Art 9-B Section 2 (3) 1987 Constitution

Characteristics of Non-Career Service1. Entrance on bases other than those of usual test of merit and fitness2. No security of tenure.3. Term is

a. Limited to a period specified by law ORb. Co terminus with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasurec. Limited to the duration of a particular project, seasonal, casual and contractual employees

**nevertheless, due process should still be observed in case of removal of office

**Security of tenure means that no officer or employee in the civil service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law and after due process.

**Open career – requires examination; Closed career – positions in the academe, scientists

**Mere possession of civil service eligibility certificate does not amount to appointment itself because the appointing power still has the discretion. The appointing power has the last say.

Under Art. 9-B, Section 2(2) 1987 Constitution

1. Competitive positions – appointing made according to merit and fitness; examination by the CSC2. Non-competitive positions – which are usually:

a. Policy Determining – charged with the duty to formulate a method of action for the governmentb. Highly Technical – occupant is required to possess a technical skillc. Primarily Confidential – close intimacy which insures freedom from misgiving or betrayal of personal

trust on confidential matters of the state; cause of termination is loss of confidence

Ways to declare a position as primarily confidential:1. declaration by the President, upon recommendation by the CSC2. nature of the functions performed**examination not needed** e.g. city administrator, legal officer

Proximity rule - employees are considered confidential if the predominant reason why they are chosen by the appointing authority is the latter’s belief that he can share a close intimate relationship with the occupant which insures freedom of intercourse, without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings or betrayals of personal trust on confidential matters of state.

Nepotism – can exist not only with regard to appointment but also with regard to recommendation. It is a criminal and administrative offense. Applies to original and promotional offices.

A. LGU – prohibition up to 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to the appointing authorityB. Others - up to 3rd civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to the appointing authority

Exempted from the rules on nepotism:1. persons employed in a confidential capacity2. teachers3. physicians4. members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines

**PROVIDED that in each particular instance full report of such appointments shall be made to the Commission.**not also applicable to those who, AFTER appointment, has contracted marriage with someone in the same office. Retention therein of both husband and wife may be allowed.

CASES

1. Meram vs Edralin – Meram was appointed because of her qualifications and being next-in-rank. Edralin wrote a letter to the Office of the President introducing herself as the wife of Efren Edralin. Her request was given due course. The appointment was not valid. The very purpose of the CS Laws dictates that persons who are qualified and next-in-rank should be given preferential consideration when filling up a vacated position. Appointment in the CS Law should be based on merit and fitness, not on blood ties. The act of the Office of the President violates the objective of the said law. Edralin is also estopped from questioning the orders of the CSC since she submitted to the jurisdiction of both bodies by filing her Motion for Reconsideration and Appeals with them.

2. Laurel vs CSC – Provincial Administrator is embraced in the career service, its entrance must be based on merit and fitness as far as practicable by competitive examination, and not by blood ties.

3. Eugenio vs CSC – CSC has no power to abolish CESB. CESB was created by law (PD 1) thus, it can only be abolished by the legislature. In the case at bar, Congress has not enacted any law authorizing the abolition of CESB.

4. Rubenecia vs CSC – the CSC has the power to assume disciplinary cases involving public officers filed before the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB). The CSC has the power to effect changes in the MSPB. The MSPB is part and parcel of CSC. Thus, CSC has authority over it.

5. Cadiente vs Santos – The position of a city legal officer is primarily confidential. It is a position which requires utmost confidence on the part of the mayor to be extended to said officer. The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence, because their term of office lasts only as long as confidence in them endures; and thus, their cessation involves no removal but merely expiration of the term of office.

6. CSC, PAGCOR vs Salas – a member of the Internal Security Staff is not a confidential employee. A position may be considered as primarily confidential (a)when the President, upon recommendation of the CSC, has declared the position to be primarily confidential and (b) in the absence of such declaration, when by the nature of the functions of the office there exists “close intimacy” between the appointee and the appointing power which insures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals or personal trust or confidential matters of the state. It is the NATURE of the position which finally determines whether a position is primarily confidential, policy determining or highly technical. Salas is not a confidential employee. Where the position occupied is remote from that of the appointing authority, the element of trust between them is no longer predominant.

7. Griño vs CSC – the position of a Provincial Attorney is a primarily confidential position but not the legal staff. The positions occupied by these subordinates are remote from that of the appointing authority; the element of trust between them is no longer predominant. The legal staff/ subordinates, being permanent employees, enjoy security of tenure as guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution.

8. Achacoso vs Macaraig – security of tenure does not lie if the person appointed to a CES position is ineligible himself.

9. Palmera vs CSC – security of tenure means that no officer or employee in the CS shall be suspended or removed except for cause provided by law and after due process. There was a violation of security of tenure. It cannot be construed that petitioner has the intention to relinquish his right when he signed the contract of employment. The signing of the contract was not made voluntary for he was made to understand that the contract was merely for the sake of formality. Thus, it is void. Further, the Commission itself held that the contract was null and void. It is impossible for him to relinquish his permanent post for 34 years. Section 24(d) of PD 807, a person permanently appointed and subsequently separated without any delinquency should be reinstated in the same position. It follows that Palmers should be immediately reinstated in his former position of equivalent rank or compensation. However, in view of his pending cases before the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan, back salaries may not be paid to him until he is absolved.

10. Astraquillo vs Manglapus – Ambassadors do not enjoy security of tenure. Melchor cannot complain violation of security of tenure. He does not belong to the CS because he is a political appointee. His appointment to Foreign Service was not based on merit and fitness; hence, their tenure is co-terminus with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure.

11. Santos vs Macaraig – The position of a Philippine Representative/Ambassador is primarily confidential. As a holder of primarily confidential position, his foreign assignment was at the pleasure of the President. The recall order terminating her tour duty in Geneva to the Philippines was merely a change of post or transfer of location of work. She has no security of tenure. The nature of the position governs than its label.

12. Office of the President vs Buenaobra – Since tenure is fixed by law, removal from office of a non-career service personnel is not at the pleasure of the appointing authority. RA 7104 creating the Commission on the Filipino Language provides for 11 commissioners to be headed by a chairman and all appointed by the President. The Chairman and two commissioners shall serve full time for a term of 7 years. Buenaobra who is the Chairman is a non-career service personnel whose tenure is limited to 7 years as provided under RA 7104. since her tenure is fixed by law her removal from office is not at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Hence, Buenaobra enjoys security of tenure and may not be removed without just cause and non-observance of due process.

Rule on GOCCGR: If with original charter – covered by CS Law If without original charter – covered by Labor Code

CASES:

1. National Housing Authority vs Juco – CSC automatically has jurisdiction over GOCC without qualification (abandoned ruling!!!!)

2. Philippine National Oil Corporation vs Energy Development Corporation vs Leogardo – 1987 Constitution shall apply because it is the law in place at the time of the decision. PNOC-EDP is a GOCC created under the General Corporation Law, thus, MOLE (Ministry of Labor and Employment) has jurisdiction.

3. Corsiga vs Defensor – Employees in the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) are covered by the CSC. There must be observance of doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Ortizo should have complained first to the NIA Administrator then appeal to the CSC. If a litigant goes to court without first pursuing his administrative remedies, his action is premature, and he has no cause of action to ventilate in court.

4. Lumanta vs NLRC – Food Terminal Inc. (FTI) is a marketing arm of National Food Authority (NFA) created under the Corporation Law. DOLE has jurisdiction.

**jurisdiction is at the time of the filing of the complaint- if filed during 1973 Constitution, all GOCC is embraced by the CS law- if filed during the 1987 Constitution, CS Law if with original charter and LC if without.

5. Boy Scouts of the Philippines vs NLRC – BSP is a GOCC with original charter therefore it falls under the CSC.

6. PNOC-EDP vs NLRC - Omnibus Election Code is applicable to GOCC with or without original charter.

7. Davao City Water District vs CSC – Water districts are governed by CS Law formed under PD 198. DCWD is a public corporation.

8. Zamboanga City Water District vs Buat – Estoppel applies in GOCC. When a GOCC with original charter participated actively in the proceedings in NLRC, they are estopped from questioning its jurisdiction.

9. Baluyot vs Holganza – PNRC is a GOCC with original charter under RA 95, as amended. The PNRC was not impliedly converted to a private corporation simply because its charter was amended.

10. Initia, Jr. vs COA – The PPC (Philippine Postal Corporation) is under the jurisdiction of the CSC. PPC has the power to fix the salaries and emoluments of its employees with the approval of the Board of Directors. It is also within the Board’s power to grant or increase allowances of PPC officials or employees. BUT it should first have been reviewed by the DBM before they were implemented. The Board is not required to follow CPCO guidelines in formulating a compensation system for the PPC.

11. Macalino vs Sandiganbayan – the PNCC (Philippine National Construction Corporation is a GOCC without an original charter for it is incorporated under the general corporation law. Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction.

**take note that if the president or head director is involved, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction whther with charter or not.

12. People vs Sandiganbayan – the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is distinct and separate from CSC. PPSB (Philippine Postal Savings Bank) was created under the Corporation Code, a subsidiary of Philippine Postal Corporation (PHILPOST). RA 7975 maintains the jurisdiction of the Sandaginbayan over presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of GOCC without any distinction whatsoever.

13. DOH (DR. Jose Rodriguez Memorial Hospital), Viardo vs NLRC – Employees of DJMRH fall under the jurisdiction of the CSC to the exclusion of that of the NLRC and Labor Arbiter.

14. De Jesus vs COA – Water districts are subjects to the jurisdiction of COA. The Constitution specifically vests in the COA the authority to determine whether government entities comply with laws and regulations in disbursing government funds and to disallow illegal or irregular disbursements of government funds. A water district is a GOCC with a special charter since it is created pursuant to a special law, PD 198. COA has jurisdictions.

15. Philippine Veterans Employees Union-Nube vs Philippine Veterans Bank – Philippine Veterans Bank has no charter of its own, therefore subject to Central Bank’s jurisdiction. Even if it possesses a charter in the form of RA 3518, it cannot be considered as one with an original charter. PVB is a private corporation because of the following characteristics:

a. The composition of the Board shall be elected among its stockholdersb. 51% of the capital stock shall be fully subscribed by the governmentc. 49% of stocks should redound to the veterans or their heirsd. The charter states that it shall be considered as a “commercial bank”

16. Duty Free Philippines vs Mojica – Duty Free Philippines being an entity under the Department of Tourism, its employees necessarily fall under the jurisdiction of the CSC, so is the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA).

17. BLISS Union vs Calleja, BLISS Dev’t Corp . – BLISS Development Corp is created under the Corporation Law, it is therefore without charter. EO 180 does not apply.

18. Philippine Retirement Authority vs Bunag, Lozada – PRA is still required to observe the policies and guidelines issued by the President and report to the President through the Budget Commission. In view of the express powers granted to PRA by its charter, extent of the review authority of DBM is limited. Additional salaries and allowances cannot be granted without the prior approval from DBM.

SECURITY OF TENURETerm Tenure

time during the officer may claim to hold office as a right and fixes the interval after which several incumbent shall succeed one another

represents the term during which the incumbent ACTUALLY holds office

not affected by the hold-overmay be shorter than the term for reasons within or beyond the power of the incumbent

term is usually provided for by law (7years)tenure of office with a term of 7 years cannot be made dependent on the pleasure of the President

CASE:Bondoc vs Pineda – Whether or not the member of the HRET are entitled to security of tenure. As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan. They must discharge their functions with complete detachment, impartiality, and independence even from the political party for which they belong. Hence, “disloyalty to party” and “breach of party discipline”, are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member of the tribunal. Members of the HRET are entitled to security of tenure just as members of the judiciary enjoy the security of tenure under our Constitution. Therefore, membership in the HRET may not be terminated except for a just cause.

QUALIFICATIONS OF LOCAL ELECTIVE POSITIONSection 39 of the Local Government Code

Citizen of the Philippines Registered voter in the place where he intends to be elected Resident therein for at least 1 year immediately preceding the day of the election Able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect

AGE QUALIFICATION: 23 years old on election day – governor, v-governor, member of Sangguniang Panlalawigan, mayor,

v-mayor, member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of highly urbanized cities 21 years old on election day – mayor, v-mayor of independent component cities, component cities, or

municipalities 18 years old – Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan 18 years old – Punong Barangay or members of the Sangguniang Barangay 15-21 years old – Sangguniang Kabataan

ACTS REQUIRED OF AN ELECTED BEFORE ASSUMIING OFFICE: Taking an oath – this act is only incidental, failure to take an oath can be ratified by taking a

subsequent oath Posting of a bond – this is only a directory requirement, not part of the office. Failure to post a bond is

merely a ground for disqualification.

DISQUALIFICATIONS OF LOCAL ELECTIVE POSITIONSection 40 of the Local Government Code

Sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude OR for an offense punishable by 1 year or more of imprisonment

Removed from office as a result of an administrative case Convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the republic Dual citizenship Fugitives from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad Permanent residents in a foreign country Insane or feeble-minded

CASES:

1. Pamil vs Teleron – (abandoned ruling!!!) Under the 1973 Constitution, ecclesiastics are prohibited from running elective positions. Now (1987) there is no impediment. Section 5 Article 3 of 1987 Constitution, no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

2. Mercado vs Manzano – what is prohibited is dual allegiance, not dual citizenship. Thus, persons with mere dual citizenship are not disqualified.

Dual Citizenship Dual Allegiancearises when as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person s simultaneously considered a national by the said states

refers to a situation in which a perosn simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states

involuntary inimical to the national interest  voluntary, a result of an individual's volition

3. Dela Torre vs COMELEC – the crime of fencing involves moral turpitude. The legal effect of probation is only to suspend the execution of the sentence. A judgment of conviction in a criminal case ipso facto attains finality when the accused applies for probation. Whether the probation is granted or not.

4. Lingating vs COMELEC – the SP decision has not yet attained finality. At the time of the election, his appeal was still an unresolved motion. Section 40 of the LGC on disqualification does not apply when the decision has not yet become final.

5. Reyes vs COMELEC – Refusal to accept the service of decision means waiver to accept it. SP decision has long been final and executory. The refusal by a party’s counsel to receive a decision may be construed as a waiver on his part to have a copy of his decision.

6. Aznar vs COMELEC – A person who is both an American and Filipino citizen can validly run. By virtue of being the son of a Filipino father, the presumption that Osmeña is a Filipino remains. The fact that Osmeña has a certificate stating that he is an American does not mean that he is no longer a Filipino. He did not take an oath of allegiance before the USA nor renounced his Philippine citizenship, the loss of his citizenship cannot be presumed.

7. Labo vs COMELEC – one who subscribes to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country is disqualified to run. When subscribed and took an oath of allegiance to the laws of Australia he becomes disqualified.

8. Republic vs. De La Rosa, Frivaldo – naturalization proceedings should strictly follow the prescribed rules and procedure. The proceeding conducted is null and void for failure to comply with the publication and posting requirement under the Revised Naturalization Law. He is therefore disqualified to run.

9. Caasi vs CA – a candidate who is a green card holder must have waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country. Voluntary Acquisition. Therefore his act of filing a certificate of candidacy did not itself constitute a waiver of his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of the United States. The waiver of his green card should be manifested by some other act. Without such prior waiver he is therefore disqualified to run.

10. Altarejos vs COMELEC - Citizenship qualification is applied at the time of the proclamation of the elected official and at the start of his term. Petitioner completed all the requirements only after he filed his COC. - Citizenship qualification is applied at the time of the proclamation of the elected official and at the start of his term. Petitioner is therefore qualified.

11. Bengson vs HRET, Cruz – the act of repatriation allows him to recover or return to his original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship. Cruz is deemed to have recovered his status as a natural-born citizen .

12. Romualdez - Marcos vs COEMELEC – Residence for election purposes is used synonymously with domicile.

Residence Domicile

implies the factual relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in a given area, community or country.

denotes fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of returning

to successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate:1. An actual removal or an actual change of domicile

2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place pf residence and establishing a new one; and3. Acts which corresponds with the purpose

Appointment Designation

the selection by the authority vested with power, of an individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office

the mere imposition by law of additional duties on the incumbent official

there is security of tenure; generally permanentthere is no security of tenure; generally temporary

executive in nature (by authority vested with power) legislative in nature (by law)

Acting/Temporary Capacity One disqualified from such capacity does not have vested title; one disqualified cannot claim emoluments as a

matter of right Appointment to the position should not be beyond a certain period unless the contrary is provided Appointment takes effect immediately even without the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments

2 Kinds of Appointment:

1. Permanent Appointment – issued to a person to one who meets all the qualifications for the position, including eligibility.

2. Temporary Appointment – where the appointee in those circumstances is issued an appointment and he does not possess the requisite qualifications, such appointment is merely temporary in nature; no fixed tenure of office. Such employment can be terminated even without cause because the termination is not removal. It is merely an expiration of the term.

** Com on App has 180 days to approve or disapprove otherwise it will be deemed approve.

CASES:

1. Binamira vs Garrucho – Designation is not equal to appointment; there is no security of tenure. Binamira was merely designated, not appointed to the position. Even if so understood as an appointment, still the appointment is void. The decree creating the PTA provides that its General Manager shall be appointed only by the President, and not by any other officer.

2. Romualdez III vs CSC – he who voluntarily and willingly accepted a temporary appointment loses his security of tenure to the former permanent position.

3. De Guzman vs Subido – not all convictions will tantamount to disqualification, only those crimes of public character and involving moral turpitude. “jaywalking” is not a crime in the proper sense of the term, for such ordinance are not public laws.

4. Tomali vs CSC – An appointment in the CS is required to be submitted to the CSC for approval in order to be complete. Without the favorable certification of approval of the CSC, where approval is required, no title to the office can yet be deemed permanently vested in favor of the appointee. The appointment may still be withdrawn. Until the appointment has become a completed act, security of tenure will not lie.

5. Carillo vs CA – Appointments must be express and should appear on the appointment itself..

6. Brillantes vs Yorac – the President has no power to appoint a COMELEC Commissioner in an acting capacity.

7. Orbos vs CSC – CSC has no power to make the appointment itself, its duty is only to approve them even if there is other person more qualified for the person.

8. Province of Camarines vs CA – a new appointment is necessary for converting a temporary status into a permanent one. Passing a civil service examination does not ipso facto convert a temporary appointment into a permanent one. There must be a new appointment since a permanent appointment is not a continuation of a temporary appointment.

9. National Amnesty Commission vs COA – the representatives assumed their responsibilities not by virtue of a new appointment but by mere designation from the ex-officio members who were themselves designated as such. Since the ex-officio member is prohibited from receiving additional compensation, so is his representatives.

10. Debulgado vs CSC – Prohibition against nepotism applies to both original and promotional appointments.

11. Achacoso vs Macaraig – permanent appointment can only be issued to the person who meets all the requirements. Not having taken the examination, he could not claim that his appointment was permanent and guaranteed him security of tenure.

12. CSC vs Darangina – Where a non eligible holds a temporary appointment his replacement by another non eligible is valid.

13. Patagoc vs CSC – CSC cannot substitute its judgment for that of the appointing power. The Commission may only approve or disapprove. It cannot order or direct the appointment of a successful protestant.

14. Umoso vs CSC - CSC cannot substitute its judgment for that of the appointing power. The doctrine of nex-in-rank cannot be imposed on the appointing authority the obligation to appoint the “next-in-rank”. The “next-in-rank rule merely gives preference but the appointing power still has the discretion as long as the minimum requirements have been complied with.

15. Gloria vs De Guzman – Mere “designation” does not confer upon the designee security of tenure in the position of office. Not being a permanent appointment, the designation of the position cannot be the subject of the case for reinstatement.

16. Dagadag vs Tongnawa – the appointing power is the real party in interest to challenge the disapproval by the CSC of the appointment.