Case # CASE FACTS ISSUE RULING

Common Provisions

NO. petitioner filed the election protest with the

Vice-Mayor position rivals of Bulacan: Gatachalian won; W/N the trial court committed grave abuse of Regional Trial Court, whose proceedings are governed
1 Aruelo v. CA Aruelo seeks to annul the former's proclamation for discretion when it allowed respondent to file his by the Revised Rules of Court. The filing of motions to
FRAUD pleading beyond the five-day period. dismiss and bill of particulars, shall apply only to
proceedings brought before the COMELEC.

1. Sevilla and So were rivals for t Punong Barangay of

Barangay Sucat, Muntinlupa City 2. Mamerto won 3. So
2 Mamerto Sevilla v. COMELEC seeks to annul proclamation forFRAUD 4. Mamerto
contends that the action is not proper since the
CHAIRMAN has yet to be appointd by the President

SEC 7

YES. Voting of 3 memebers is valid. It is the majority

Validity of the Proclamation of CUA as Congressman with
3 Cua v. COMELEC W/N 2-1 voting is valid for proclamation. of 5 memebers sitting EN BANC who took poart in the
a vote of 2-1 deliberation

1. Acena was acting admin officer and at the the same

time, promoted to Assoc. Professor while waiting for his YES. CSC entertained Dr. Estolas, petition filed
4 Acena v. CSC Masters Degree. Dr. Estolas designated another to the W/N CSC committed grave abuse of discretion. beyond the 15-day prescription period. Beyond this,
position of acting admin officer 2. CSC finds the Dr. decisions are deemed final and executory.
Estolas' act as valid.

Demot0ion of Dr. Dela Fuento from Chief to Med 1. W/N CA has jurisdiction ove cases of special
5 Vital-Gozon v. CA Specialist II; Vital-Gozon's failure to answer the petition YES. Rule 65 Sec3
civil action of mandamus
led the judgment final and executory

1.W/Nthe lower court has jurisdictionover 1. YES. It is just a contract done in the exercise of its
Filipinas Eng and Machine Shop COMELEC's invitation public bid for booths; contract COMELEC dealing with an award ofcontract administrative function. SC review by certiorari FINAL
6 initially awarded to petitioner but was given to another
v. Ferrer arising from its invitation to bid ORDERS done in pursuance to adjudicatory/quasi-
after ocular inspection judicial functions.
 1. W/N RTC of Rizal has jurisdiction over
dismissal of an employee of Morong Water No. GOCCs with original charters are covered under
7 Mateo v. CA MOWAD, a GOCC with original charter District CSC

Supreme Court Revised Admin

8 1. 10 days-prescription period to answer petition (from notice)
Circ. No.1-95

CSC

NO. NHC has no original charter and thus not covered

9 TUPAS v. Nat'l Housing Corp Petitioner et al formed workers union W/N NHC workers are prohibited to form unions by CSC. Unions are allowed. NHC is protected by
Labor Code.

Salazar appointed as confidential agent to the office of W/N Salazar is classified as primarily confidential YES. As expressly declared in EO 265.
10 Salazar v. Mathay
the Auditor General appointee

Corpus was appointed as Special Assistant to Gov of W/N a highly technical appointee can be NO. No officer/employee under CSC can be removed
11 Corpus v. Cuaderno Central Bank. Respondents contend that his position is removed on the ground of loss of confidence? except for a cause provided by law.
HIGHLY TECHNICAL.

Is the Civil Service Commission authorized to

Luego appointed A.O 11 at office of the mayor-cebu. CSC disapprove a permanent appointment on the NO. If the existing applicant is qualified, CSC has no
12 Luego v. CSC replaced him with another whom they think fits better. ground that another person is better qualified option but to appoint that person.
than the appointee?

Rillaroza is operations manager of casino-charged with 1. W/N Respondent can be classfied as primarily NO. Classification is based on the nature of
13 PAGCOR v. Rillaroza misconduct and dishonesty-deemed to be primarily responsibility and not on the job title. His job inclueds
confidential appointee
confidential appointee supervision.

SSS Employees Association v. CA SSS employees barricaded the SSS building. Petitioners W/N the SSS employees hav ethe right to strike NO. SSS is a GOCC with an original Charter, thus,
14 filed the case to RTC. for collective bargaining under jursidiction of CSC

Petitioner was assigned as assitant harbor master. There
15 Lopez v. CSC was reorganization. The CSC found him most qualified.
PPA, however, favors the other contender.
Whether the CSC gravely and seriously erred in
nullifying Lopez appointment and substituting its YES. The role of CSC is to evaluate applicants
decision for that of the PPA that his appointment according to merit and fitness thru a screening
had been revoked and that respondent Luz was committee should not be left to others' discretion.
directed to assume the position

Dr. Toress, Associate Prof at UPLB-LOA-w/o pay for 1 yr. Whether automatic separation from the civil NO. CSC has no right to dictate UP to dismiss its
16 UP and Alredo Toress v. CSC Returned to UP after 5 yrs AWOL. service of Petitioner De Torres is valid personnel. UP exercises academic freedom.

Navarro-suspect of stealing cable drums in Bataan- W/N CSC acted with grave abuse of discretion in NO. CSC has no appellate jurisdiction over removal of
17 Navarro v. CSC relying in part on the sworn statement of
administratively charged with grave misconduct officers due to administrative charges.
Rolando Lapitan which was totally rejected by the
RTC of Bataan

Dacoycoy charged for habitual drunkenness, misconduct

18 CSC v. Dacoycoy and nepotism (twice, inclusion of 2 sons as driver and W/N CSC can dismiss an employee for nepotism YES.
utility worker

Dept Sec are not under CSC; Santos was acting as a

A petition to annul order of Judge Yatco from disallowing member of the Cabinet in discussing the issues before
19 Santos v. Yatco Sec of Defense, Santos from campaigning for Gov. Martin W/N CSC has jurisdiction over Dept Sec the electorate and defending the actuations of the
(Bulacan)
Administration to which he belongs

CA reversed decision of CA in dismissing Alfonso for grave

20 CSC, Anicia de Lima v.. Alfonso YES.
misconduct of Alsonso, HR Director of PUP
Whether the CSC has jurisdiction to hear and
decide the complaint filed against Alfonso
COMELEC
Sec 1

Monsod nominated by Cory as Chairman of COMELEC;

Cayetano objected, saying Monsod is not engaged in the W/N Monsod is qualified even if he's not YES. Practice of law is not limited to appearance in
1 Cayetano v. Monsod engaged in the practice of law for 10 yrs court.
practice of law for 10 yrs

Question on the appointment of YORAC as Acting YES. CSC has the discretion to appoint its acting
2 Brillantes v. Yorac Chairman of COMELEC chairman
Whether the designation of an Acting Chairman
of COMELEC is constitutional

3 Lindo v. COMELEC
Sec 2
4 Gallardo v. Judge Tabamo
5 Relampagos v. Cumba
6 Edding v. COMELEC
7 Ongsiako Reyes v. COMELEC
8 Arroyo v. DOJ
9 Dumarpa v. COMELEC
10 Cagas v. COMELEC
NO. As long as the motion for execution pending
RTC examined the photocopies of the ballots only.
appeal is filed before the perfection of appeal, the
COMELEC issued preliminary injunction Whether or not COMELEC erred in allowing the writ of execution may issue after the period of appeal
implementation of the writ of execution of the
decision pending appeal
Whether the trial court has jurisdiction over the NO. It is exclusive for COMELEC on matters of
private resp sought to inhibit the construction of public
election. Plus, private resp sought to prohibit
works subject matter of Special Civil Action No. 465. construction because of his fear of losing the election.
Cumba declared mayor the mun. of Magallanes, Agusan Whether COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions YES. COMELEC has apellate jurisdiction on
forcertiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in municipality and barangay elective officials decided by
del Norte election cases trial courts
Bernardo proclaimed winner of mun. of Sibuco,
NO. The case was filed before the RTC. Thus, rules and
Zamboanga del Norte. Edding filed petition in RTC and procedures will adopt that of RTC.
declared him winner. COMELEC issued TRO. Whether COMELEC has jurisdiction to issue Writs
of Certiorari against the interlocutory order of
the RTC in election cases
Whether the COMELEC has original jurisdiction Yes. itinhas jurisdiction over correction of manifest
Petition to cancel COC of Ongsiako. However, Ongsiako
over the petition for correction of manifest error error Pre-proclamation Controversies Which May
won in the election. Be Filed Directly
YES. It is a means to fulfill its duty of ensuring the
Fact Finding Team (En Banc) to charge electoral sabotage
prompt investigation and prosecution of election
against GMA Whether or not the creation of COMELEC-DOJ offense.
Joint Panel is valid
reclustering of precints and moving of date of special NO. COMELEC has the authority to make sure that
W/N COMELEC erred by conducting special
election due to failure in elections in some mun; election laws are properly promulgated for a peaceful
elaction and reclustering of precincts
Dumarpa running for Congressman in 1st District and honest election.
Cagas filed a bill to convert Davao Occidental into a NO. COMELEC can conduct date beyond what the law
province. COMELEC joined plebiscite with brgy elections W/N COMELEC erred in conducting plebiscite prescribes. The Constitution does not specify a date
simulatneous with brgy elections
to save money as to when plebiscites should be held.

Respondents, who were charged of having
11 COMELEC v. Judge Silva tampered some certificates of canvass, moved for
the Dismissal of the Cases filed against them.
Who has the authority to decide whether or not
to appeal from the orders of
dismissal — the COMELEC or its designated
prosecutor?
Whether the orders of dismissal should be
appealed is for the COMELEC to
decide. The 1987 Constitution mandates the
COMELEC not only to investigate but also
to prosecute cases of violation of election laws

Whether COMELEC acted beyond the limits of its NO. the COMELEC En Banc has authority to resolve
Torres initially eclared winner as councilor. Tabulations of power and authority when it ordered the
12 Torres v. COMELEC votes made and private respondent was declared winner Municipal Board of Canvassers to reconvene and any question pertaining to the proceedings of the
correct its alleged mistake in counting the votes. Municipal Board of Canvassers

Sec 3

YES. All such election cases shall be heard and

special civil action for certiorari seek to set aside the W/N COMELEC committed grave abuse of decided in division, provided that motions for
13 Sarmiento v. COMELEC Resolutions of Respondent Commission on Elections discretion reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
(COMELEC) Commission en banc.

NO. COMELEC exercises apellate jurisdiction over

private respondent moved for the exclusion of certain municipal/ brgy election cases decided by trial courts.
election return considering there was another REYES W/N COMELEC erred by assuming role of the
14 Reyes v. RTC Mindoro All election cases are decided in DIVISION. Any
besides petitioner; Private respondent qas proclaimed SB court dissatisfaction in the decision may be appealed thru
member. certiorari before COMELEC en banc.

Sec 4

Representatives of mass media which were prevented NO. The COMELEC has been expressly authorized to
Whether or not RA 6646 constitutes a violation
National Press Club v. COMELEC from selling and donating space or air time for political supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of
15 of the constitutional right to freedom of
advertisements under RA 6646 the franchises or permits for the operation of media
expression of communication and information.

Telecom v. Broadcast Attys of Petitioner contends that it suffred losses by alloting free
16
the Phils airtime services to COMELEC, 1 hr per day
Comelec prohibits the posting of decals and stickers on
mobile places, public or private, and limits their location
17 Adiong v. COMELEC
or publication to authorized posting areas
Sanidad-columinist on newspaper; Media personnel are
18 Sanidad v. COMELEC
prohibited to campaign against the plebiscite
Petitioner was prohibited (for a limited time) to publish
election surveys re:measurement of opinions and
Social Weather Stations v.
19 perceptions of the voters as regards a candidate's
COMELEC popularity, qualifications, platforms or a matter of public
discussion
Petitioner and Resp are rivals for mayor position; Only
20 Mitmug v. COMELEC 2,330 out of 9,830 cast their votes; other candidates
sought to declare election as FAILURE
SEC 2
1 Guevarra v. Gimenez Reconstruction of the Sorsogon Central School building
W/N the petitioners contention is with merit
Whether or not the resolution is constitutional
Is Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167
unconstitutional on the ground that it violates
the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of
expression and of the press
W/N COMELEC Resolution is constitutional
W/N COMELEC can declare an electio failure on
the ground of low voters
COA
Whether the contract for the reconstruction of
the school building included the painting
NO.broadcasting companies, which are given
franchises, do not own the airwaves and frequencies
through which they transmit broadcast signals and
images. They are merely given the temporary
privilege to use them. To require the broadcast
industry to provide free air time for COMELEC is a fair
exchange for what the industry gets.
NO. The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen's
fundamental right of free speech
YES. COMELEC has the authority only on media
franchises/ permits but not over individual media
practitioners.
NO. 1) it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of
expression, (2) it is a direct and total suppression of a
category of expression even though such suppression
is only for a limited period, and (3) the governmental
interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by
means other than suppression of freedom of
expression
NO. 2 requisites must be satisfied: (a) no election took
place on specified date (b) votes not cast would affect
result. These 2 must be satisfied concurrently. Only
one was satisfied in this case. It is the plurality of
VALID VOTES that matter.
YES. Testimonies of the employees' should be given
more weight than those of the contractors
 W/N disbursement on the basis of the legal
YES. The NPC, as a government-owned corporation, is
opinion of the legal counsel of the NPC (quasi-
2 Orocio v. COA 2 injured employees under the COA's audit power. The COA should not be
judicial function) is within the scope of the bound by the opinion of the legal counsel
auditing

Whether COA committed grave abuse of

Reynaldo de la Cerna was alleged to have died becoz of discretion in disallowing the city's appropriation YES. It was construed as intended only to promote the
3 Osmena v. COA doctors' negligence. SP made compromise agreement to of P30, 000 made conformably with the private welfare and interest of the de la Cerna family
pay 30k compromise agreement in the civil suit against
the City?

NO. COA adheres to the policy that government funds

4 Sambeli v. Province of Isabela
purchase of 300 units of wheelbarrows, 837 pieces of and property should be fully protected and conserved
Whether the ruling of COA is invalid so far as it
shovels, and 1 set of radio communication equipment; and that irregular, unnecessary, excessive or
will constitute impairment of contracts?
overpricing extravagant expenditures or uses of such funds and
property should be prevented

transportation allowance claim by regional legal counsel W/N NPC is under COA jurisdiction
5 Bustamante v. COA YES.
of NPC; COA denied claim

Editha charged Leonardo, Auditor III, of rape. COA NO. COA can only take charge over money matters
6 Saliguniba v. COA dropped the case for lack of evidence. Case elevated to Whether the action will prosper? and not admin cases. It canit review factual issues but
SC. legal bases only.

7 Barbo v. COA

SEC 3

8 PAL v. COA

Bagatsing v. Committee on
9 Privitization